Centre for Internet and Society

Wikiorientation at Dr.GR Damodaran College of Science

bhuvana — 2020-01-18T08:11:03Z

An orientation session on Wikimedia projects was held on 6-7 December 2019 at Dr. GR Damodaran College of Science. This talk was part of the “Hour of Code” event, which is an International event celebrated across the globe to encourage students to develop their knowledge on Computer Science. This event was supported by Open Knowledge movements like Wikimedia, Mozilla, etc.which would help students to share their knowledge in the form of volunteerships and contributions. The highlights of gender gap research and women based projects such as Women in Red were covered as part of a focussed group discussion.

Hour of code event

The “Hour of Code” is an International event conducted across the globe to commemorate the birthday of Grace Hopper, a computer scientist. In India 1047 events were officially registered and were conducted region-wise. In Coimbatore, Dr.G.R. Damodaran College of Science initiated the first Hour of Code event in the city. The event was attended by 350 students, where 50% of the participants were identified as women, from various departments and 6 Open Source and Knowledge movements’ community members were invited as speakers. Among them were Wikimedia, Mozilla, Google Developers Groups, Facebook Devcircles, Women Tech Makers and School of AI where all the community representatives pitched to the student gathering on how to contribute to these groups. The students were enthusiastic to initiate Open source clubs and also nominate a Point Of Contact with the guidance of the faculty members.

Wiki Orientation

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikiorientation_at_Dr.GR_Damodaran_college_of_arts_and_science,_Coimbatore_-6.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikiorientation_at_Dr.GR_Damodaran_college_of_arts_and_science,_Coimbatore_-7.jpg

I was invited as a Chief Guest for the event to talk to students about how they may contribute to Wikimedia and its projects. I presented to the students the various forms of Wiki which would be of interest to coders and non-coders. This also included discussions on Wikidata, Wikisource, Wikipedia, Wikimedia commons and Wikimedia in Education program. As the participants from the college were mostly from Tamil Nadu, I also emphasised how contribution in Tamil in the Wiki world will be of great help. I discussed with students how contribution to an Open Knowledge movement not only enhances their intellectual stand but also benefits the whole world. Also the founder of Koval labs, Coimbatore was the co-speaker of the day who highlighted about importance of Open source and Computer Science in today's industries.

Bridging Gender Gap

After the orientation, I invited a few participants to a focussed group discussion about my research on “Bridging the Gender gap in Indian Wikipedia languages”.A majority of the participants were women, even though the event was open to all. I discussed the research work and the necessity behind this. Apart from this I introduced the students to various women- focussed wiki-based projects such as Women In Red, WikiLoves Women, Wiki Women for Women Well Being (WWWW) etc. I also asked the attendees to express t in the open discussion session on what are the major issues faced by women in technology taking examples from their own lives.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikiorientation_at_Dr.GR_Damodaran_college_of_arts_and_science,_Coimbatore_-12.jpg

The common and major issues with pursuing a career in technology discussed were the inaccessibility to internet and infrastructure to work at home besides the other household responsibilities. Also the freedom to pursue a career in this field is less and not permissible for longer years in these women's lives.

Key observations/ learnings

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikiorientation_at_Dr.GR_Damodaran_college_of_arts_and_science,_Coimbatore_-9.jpg

The key issues of women working on technology in a structured environment (such as an educational institution in this case).
The possibilities of initiating a WikiClub at the campus.
Almost 60% was interested in non/less coding contributions/subjects.
Discussed the kinds of projects students can contribute to on Wikipedia.

Press coverage about the event can be seen at Desathin Nambikai , The Covai mail news , Prime Time Tamil , Covai news and Updatenews360.com

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wikiorientation-at-dr-gr-damodaran-college-of-science-1

India’s record on internet shutdown gets bleaker; now blocked in 2 NE states

Admin — 2019-12-15T05:51:20Z

India reported over 100 internet shutdown in 2018, according to an annual study of Freedom House, a US-based non-profit research organization.

The article was published in the Hindustan Times on December 11, 2019. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

The internet shutdown on Tuesday in Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura amid spiraling protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill in the Northeast is the latest in a series of such shutdowns across India, which topped the list of countries that resorted to such measures in 2018.

India reported over 100 internet shutdown in 2018, according to an annual study of Freedom House, a US-based non-profit research organization. The study on the internet and digital media freedom was conducted in over 65 countries, which cover 87% of the world’s internet users

Police and administrative authorities have cited protests and other security reasons to routinely snap the internet in India.

The Centre promulgated the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, in August 2017 for legal sanction to the shutdowns.

As per the rules, Union home ministry secretary or secretaries of state home departments can order temporary suspension of the internet. An internet suspension order has to be taken up for review within five days.

Prior to 2017, authorities could shut down the internet under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which empowers an executive magistrate to prohibit an assembly of over four people.

Section 5 (2) of the Telegraph Act, 1855, allowed the government to prevent transmission of any telegraphic message during a public emergency or in the interest of public safety.

The Kashmir Valley has remained under an internet shutdown since August 4. The shutdown was imposed hours ahead of the nullification of the Constitution’s Article 370 that gave Jammu and Kashmir special status.

Internet and phone lines were snapped ahead of Republic Day celebrations in 2010 in one of the first reported shutdowns in the Valley. Kashmir also holds the record for the longest shutdown when the internet was snapped for 133 days after the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen militant Burhan Wani in July 2016. The current shutdown, with 122 days and counting, is the second-longest.

The 100-day blackout in Darjeeling during the Gorkha agitation in 2016 is the third-longest internet shutdown in India.

Ahead of the verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit last month, the internet was shut down in parts of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. The internet was shut down for three days in Gujarat during the agitation for a quota in jobs and educational institutes for the Patidar community in 2015.

As per the Software Freedom Law Centre, which provides free legal services to protect Free and Open Source Software, the total number of shutdowns in Indian since 2012 is more than 359. As per the tracker -- internetshutdowns.in -- which records such instances from newspaper clippings -- there have been 89 internet shutdowns in 2019, 134 in 2018, and 79 in 2017.

“As a part of this project, we track incidents of Internet shutdowns across India in an attempt to draw attention to the troubling trend of disconnecting access to Internet services, for reasons ranging from curbing unrest to preventing cheating in an examination,” it states as part of its purpose.

In September this year, the Kerala High Court held that access to the internet is a fundamental right. According to Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet Society, the shutdowns are largely unlawful.

“David Kaye, the UN special rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, has condemned the shutdowns and noted that the principles of proportionality and necessity should be adhered to in case of shutdowns. Yet, there have been several instances where lives have been lost in Kashmir due to the lockdown,” he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-december-11-2019-indias-record-on-internet-shutdown-gets-bleaker

Cyber security tips for small businesses

Theres Sudeep — 2019-12-05T23:35:59Z

It is important to have good cyber security practices, experts recommend.

The article by Theres Sudeep was published in the Deccan Herald on December 1, 2019. Arindrajit Basu was quoted.

Many times small businesses don’t allocate any of their budgets to cybersecurity. This is due to the common misconception that it’s only larger companies and governments that need to worry about attacks by hackers and the like.

This is not the case as Arindrajit Basu of The Centre for Internet and Society explains, “The kind of risks that smaller players are vulnerable to may not be on the scale of threats that larger companies encounter, but it is equally important for them to have good cybersecurity practices,” he says.

Phishing, an attempt to obtain sensitive information by disguising oneself as a trustworthy entity, and ransomware, a type of malware that threatens to publish the victim’s data or block access to it unless a ransom is paid, are the two most common kinds of attacks on small business according to Basu.

He adds that many hackers see small businesses as an easy way into a larger network. Once the smaller nodes are breached, they can easily get to the bigger players on the network.

Bengaluru, the startup capital of the country, has many such small businesses that need to better their cybersecurity practices.

The first and foremost step recommended by Basu is to create a strategy within your business plan and revise it periodically. This must include employee training and guidelines on what to if there is a breach.

Apart from this owners and employees are advised to routinely change passwords and back up their data on a device that doesn’t connect to the internet.

Owners are also advised to monitor access to admin accounts.

Many small businesses and startups don’t have offices of their own, which means employees end up working at a cafe or the like.

When working at these venues, make sure to carry your own WiFi or use the hotspot from your phone. Open WiFi networks are vulnerable to attacks.

Basu concludes by saying that small businesses must be periodically audited by an independent cybersecurity firm.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/deccan-herald-december-1-2019-theres-sudeep-cyber-security-tips-for-small-businesses

A Deep Dive into Content Takedown Frames

torsha — 2019-12-03T02:11:30Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/a-deep-dive-into-content-takedown-frames

Security Standards for the Financial Technology Sector in India

karan — 2019-11-15T12:56:04Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/security-standards-for-the-financial-technology-sector-in-india

India’s Role in Global Cyber Policy Formulation

basu — 2019-11-13T14:13:33Z

The past year has seen vigorous activity on the domestic cyber policy front in India. On key issues—including intermediary liability, data localization and e-commerce—the government has rolled out a patchwork of regulatory policies, resulting in battle lines being drawn by governments, industry and civil society actors both in India and across the globe.

The article by Arindrajit Basu was published in Lawfare on November 7, 2019. The article was reviewed and edited by Elonnai Hickok and Justin Sherman.

The onslaught of recent developments demonstrates how India can shape cyber policy debates. Among emerging economies, India is uniquely positioned to exercise leverage over multinational tech companies due to its sheer population size, combined with a rapid surge in users coming online and the country’s large gross domestic product. India occupies a key seat at the data governance table alongside other players like the EU, China, Russia and the United States — a position the country should use to promote its interests and those of other similarly placed emerging economies.

For many years, the Indian population has served as an economic resource for foreign, largely U.S.-based tech giants. Now, however, India is moving toward a regulatory strategy that reduces the autonomy of these companies in order to pivot away from a system that recently has been termed “data colonialism”—in which Western technologies use data-driven revenue bolstered by information extracted from consumers in the Global South to consolidate their global market power. The policy thinking underpinning India’s new grand vision still has some gaps, however.

Data Localization

Starting with a circular from the Reserve Bank of India in April 2018, the Indian government has introduced a range of policy instruments mandating “data localization”—that is, requiring that certain kinds of data must be stored in servers located physically within India. A snapshot of these policies is summarized in the table below.

(Source here. Design credit: Saumyaa Naidu)

While there are a number of reasons for this maneuver, two in particular are in line with India’s broader vision of data sovereignty—broadly defined as the sovereign right of nations to govern data within their territory and/or jurisdiction in order to support their national interest for the welfare of their citizens. First, there is an incentive to keep data within India’s jurisdiction because of the cumbersome process through which Indian law enforcement agencies must go during criminal investigations in order to access data stored in the U.S. Second, data localization undercuts the extractive economic models used by U.S. companies operating in India by which the data generated by Indian citizens is collected in India, stored in data centers located largely in the U.S., and processed and analyzed to derive commercially valuable insights.

Both foreign players and smaller Indian private-sector actors were against this move. A study on the issue that I co-authored earlier this year with Elonnai Hickok and Aditya Chawla found that one of the reasons for this resistance involved the high costs of setting up the data centers that are needed to comply with the requirement. President Trump echoed this sentiment when he explicitly opposed data localization during a meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the G-20 in June 2019.

At the same time, large Indian players such as Reliance and Paytm and Chinese companies like AliBaba and Xilink were in favor of localization—possibly because these companies could absorb the costs of setting up storage facilities while benefiting from the fixed costs imposed on foreign competition. In fact, some companies, such as AliBaba, have already set up storage facilities in India.

As my co-authors and I noted, data localization comes with various risks, both diplomatically and politically. So far, the issue has caused friction in U.S.-India trade relations. For example, before Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's trip to New Delhi in June, the Trump administration reportedly contemplated limiting H-1B visas for any country that implements a localization requirement. Further, on his trips to New Delhi, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has regularly argued that data localization restrictions are a barrier to U.S. companies and stressed the need to eliminate such barriers. Further, data localization poses several technical challenges as well as security risks. Mirroring data across multiple locations, as India’s Draft Personal Data Protection Bill mandates, increases the number of physical data centers that need to be protected and thereby the number of vulnerable points that malicious actors can attack.

Recently, the Indian media have reported disagreements between policymakers over data localization, along with speculation that the data storage requirement in the Draft Personal Data Protection Bill could be limited only to critical data—a term not defined in the bill itself—or be left to sectoral regulators, officials from individual government departments.

Our paper recommended a dual approach. In our view, data localization policy should include mandatory localization for critical sectors such as defense or payments data, while also adopting “conditional” localization for all other data. Under conditional localization, data should only be transferred to countries that (a) agree to share the personal data of Indian citizens with law enforcement authorities based on Indian criminal procedure laws (examples of such a mechanism may be an executive data-sharing agreement under the CLOUD Act) and (b) have equivalent privacy and security safeguards. This approach would be in line with India’s overarching vision of data sovereignty and the goal of standing up to the hegemony of big tech and of U.S. internet regulations, while avoiding undue collateral damage to India’s global alliances.

Intermediary Liability

In line with the goal of ensuring that big tech is answerable to the rule of law, the Indian government has also sought to regulate the adverse social impacts of some speech hosted by platforms. Rule 3(9) of the Draft of the Information Technology Intermediaries Guidelines (Amendment) Rules, 2018, released by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology in December 2019, takes up the interventionist mission of laws like the NetzDg in Germany. The regulation would mandate that platforms use “automated tools or appropriate mechanisms, with appropriate controls, for proactively identifying and removing or disabling public access to unlawful information or content.” These regulations have prompted concerns from both the private sector and civil society groups that claim the proposal fails to address constitutional concerns about algorithmic discrimination, excessive censorship and inappropriate delegation of legislative powers under Indian law. Further, some observers object that the guidelines adopt a “one-size-fits-all” approach to classifying intermediaries that does not differentiate between platforms that thrive on end-to-end encryption like WhatsApp and public platforms like Facebook.

In many ways, these guidelines—likely to be notified (as an amendment to the Information Technology Act) as early as January 2020—put the cart before the horse. Before devising regulatory models appropriate for India’s geographic scale and population, it is first necessary to conduct empirical research about the vectors through which misinformation spreads in India and how misinformation impacts different social, economic and linguistic communities, along with pilot programs for potential solutions to the misinformation problem. And it is imperative that these measures be brought in line with constitutional requirements.

Community Data and “Data as a Public Good”

Another important question involves the precise meaning of “data” itself—an issue on which various policy documents have failed to deliver a consistent stance.

The first conceptualization of “community data” appears in both the Srikrishna Committee Report that accompanied the Draft Personal Data Protection Bill in 2018 and the draft e-commerce policy. However, neither policy provides clarity on the concept of data.

When defining community data, the Srikrishna Report endorses a collective protection of privacy as protecting an identifiable community that has contributed to community data. According to the Srikrishna Report, receiving collective protection requires the fulfillment of three key aspects. First, the data belong to an identifiable community. Second, the individuals in the community consent to being a part of the community. And third, the community as a whole consents to its data being treated as community data.

The draft e-commerce policy reconceptualizes the notion of community data as “societal commons” or a “national resource,” where the undefined ‘community” has rights to access data but the government has overriding control to utilize the data for welfare purposes. Unlike the Srikrishna Report, the draft e-commerce policy does not outline the key aspects of community data. This approach fails to demarcate a clear line between personal and nonpersonal data or to specify any practical guidelines or restrictions on how the government can use community data. For this reason, implementation of this policy could pose a threat to the right to privacy that the Indian Supreme Court recognized as a fundamental right in 2017.

The second idea is that of “data as a public good.” This is described in Chapter 4 of the 2019 Economic Survey Report—a document published by the Ministry of Finance along with the Annual Financial Budget. The report explicitly states that any data governance framework needs to be deferential to privacy norms and the soon-to-be-enacted privacy law. The report further states that “personal data” of an individual in the custody of a government is a “public good” once the datasets are anonymized.

However, the report’s recommendation of setting up a government database that links several individual databases together leads to the “triangulation” problem, in which individuals can be identified by matching different datasets together. The report further suggests that the same data can be sold to private firms (though it is unclear whether this includes foreign or domestic firms). This directly contradicts the characterization of a “public good”—which, by definition, must be n onexcludable and nonrivalrous—and is also at odds with the government’s vision of reining in big tech. The government has set up an expert committee to look into the scope of nonpersonal data, and the results of the committee’s deliberations are likely to influence the shape that India’s data governance framework takes across multiple policy instruments.

There is obviously a need to reassess and reevaluate the range of governance efforts and gambits that have emerged in the past year. With domestic cyber policy formulation pivots reaching a crescendo, we must consider how domestic cyber policy efforts can influence India’s approach to global debates in this space.

India’s Contribution to Global Cyber Policy Debates

As the largest democracy in the world, India is undoubtedly a key “digital decider” in shaping the future of the internet. Multilateral cyber policy formulation efforts remain polarized. The U.S. and its European allies continue to advocate for a free, rules-based conception of cyberspace with limited governmental interference. China and Russia, along with their Shanghai Cooperation Organisation allies, are pushing for a tightly regulated internet in which each state has the right to manage and define its “network frontiers” through domestic regulation free from external interference. To some degree, India is already influencing debate over the internet through its various domestic cyber policy movements. However, its participation in international debates has been lacking the vigor or coherence needed to clearly articulate India’s national interests and take up a global leadership role.

In shaping its contributions to global cyber policy formulation, India should focus its efforts on three key places: (a) internet governance forums that deliberate the governance of the technical architecture of the internet such as domain names, (b) cyber norms formulation processes that seek to establish norms to foster responsible behavior in cyberspace by states and nonstate actors in cyberspace, and (3) global debates on trade and cross-border data flows that seek to conceptualize the future of global digital trade relationships. As I discuss below, there are key divisions in Indian policy in each of these forums. To realize its grand vision in the digital sphere, India needs to do much more to make its presence felt.

Internet Governance Forums

India’s stance on a variety of issues at internet governance forums has been inconsistent, switching repeatedly between multilateral and multistakeholder visions for internet governance. A core reason for this uncertainty is the participation of multiple Indian government ministries, which often disagree with each other. At global internet governance forums, India has been represented either by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (now renamed to Ministry of Electronics and Information Technoloft or the Department of Telecommunications (under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology) or by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).

As my colleagues have documented in a detailed paper, India has been vocal in global internet governance debates at forums including the International Telecommunications Union, the Internet Governance Forum and the U.N. General Assembly. However, the Indian stance on multistakeholderism has been complex, with the MEA advocating for a multilateral stance while the other departments switched between multistakeholderism and “nuanced multilateralism”—which calls for multistakeholder participation in policy formulation but multilateral implementation. The paper also argues that there has been a decline recently in the vigor of Indian participation at forums such as the 2018 meeting of the Working Group on Enhanced Co-operation (WGEC 2.0), due to key personnel changes. For example, B.N. Reddy, who was a skilled and experienced negotiator for the MEA in previous forums, was transferred to another position before WGEC 2.0, and the delegation that attended the meeting did not make its presence felt as strongly or skillfully.

Cyber Norms for Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace

With the exception of two broad and unoriginal statements at the 70th and 71st sessions of the U.N. General Assembly, India has yet to make public its position on the multilateral debate on the proliferation of norms for responsible state behavior in cyberspace. During the substantive session of the Open-Ended Working Group held in September, India largely reaffirmed points made by other states, rather than carving out a new or original approach. The silence and ambiguity is surprising, as India has been represented on four of the five Groups of Governmental Experts (GGEs) set up thus far and has also been inducted into the 2019-2021 GGE that is set to revamp the global cyber norms process. (Due to the GGE’s rotational membership policy, India was not a member of the fourth GGE that submitted its report in 2015.)

However, before becoming an evangelist of any particular norms, India has some homework to do domestically. It has yet to advance a clear, coherent and detailed public stance outlining its views on the application of international law to cyberspace. This public stance is necessary for two reasons. First, a well-reasoned statement that explains India’s stance on core security issues—such as the applicability of self-defense, countermeasures and international humanitarian law—would show India’s appetite for offensive and defensive strategies for external adversaries and allies alike. This would serve as the edifice of a potentially credible cyber deterrence strategy. Second, developing a public stance would help India to take advantage of the economic, demographic and political leverage that it holds and to assume a leadership role in discussions. The U.K., France, Germany, Estonia, Cuba (backed by China and Russia) and the U.S. have all made their positions publicly known with varying degrees of detail.

Data Transfers

Unlike in other forums, Indian policy has been clearer in the cross-border data transfer debate. This is a foreign policy extension of India’s emphasis on localization and data sovereignty in domestic policy instruments. At the G-20 Summit in Osaka, India and the rest of the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa) stressed the role that data play in economic development for emerging economies and reemphasized the need for data sovereignty. India did not sign the Osaka Declaration on the Digital Economy that kickstarted the “Osaka Track”—a process whereby the 78 signatories agreed to participate in global policy discussions on international rule-making for e-commerce at the World Trade Organization (WTO). This was a continuation of India’s sustained efforts opposing the e-commerce moratorium at the WTO.

The importance of cross-border data flows in spurring the global economy found its way into the Final G-20 Leaders Declaration—which India signed. Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale argued that international rule-making on data transfers should not take place in plurilateral forums outside the WTO. Gokhale claimed that limiting the debate to the WTO would ensure that emerging economies have a say in the framing of the rules. The clarity expressed by the Indian delegation at the G-20 should be a model for more confident Indian leadership in this global cyber policy development space.

Looking Forward

India is no newcomer to the idea of normative leadership. To overcome material shortcomings in the nation’s early years, Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Indian prime minister, engineered a normative pivot in world affairs by championing the sovereignty of countries that had gained independence from colonial rule. In the years immediately after independence, the Indian foreign policy establishment sought to break the hegemony of the United States and the Soviet Union by advancing a foreign policy rooted in what came to be known as “nonalignment.”

Making sound contributions to foreign policy in cyberspace requires a variety of experts—international lawyers, computer scientists, geopolitical strategists and human rights advocates. Indian civil society and academia are brimming with tech policy enthusiasts from a variety of backgrounds who could add in-depth substance to the government’s cyber vision. Such engagement has begun to some extent at the domestic level: Most government policies are now opened up to consultation with stakeholders Yet there is still room for greater transparency in this process.

India's cyber vision is worth fighting for. The continued monetization of data dividends by foreign big tech at the expense of India’s socioeconomic development needs to be countered. This can be accomplished by predictable and coherent policymaking that balances economic growth and innovation with the fundamental rights and values enshrined in the Indian Constitution, including the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to life. But inherent contradictions in the conceptualization of personal data, delays in tabling the Personal Data Protection Bill, and uncertain or rushed approaches in several other regulatory policies are all fettering the realization of this vision. On core geopolitical issues, there exists an opportunity to set the rule-shaping agenda to favor India’s sovereign interests. With global cyber policy formulation in a state of flux, India has the economic, demographic and intellectual leverage to have a substantial impact on the debate and recraft the narrative in favor of the rapidly emerging Global South.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/lawfare-arindrajit-basu-november-7-2019-indias-role-in-global-cyber-policy-formulation

CIS’ Comments to the Christchurch Call

Admin — 2019-11-02T04:41:42Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/cis2019-comments-to-the-christchurch-call

October 2019 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2019-12-06T04:53:41Z

CIS newsletter for October 2019:

Highlights for October 2019
Gurshabad Grover has been nominated through the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) to be a member of the Advisory Group on Open Source Software for ISO/IEC JTC 1. In the wake of the Christchurch terror attacks, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, and the President of France, Emmanuel Macron co-chaired the Christchurch Call to Action in May 2018 to “bring together countries and tech companies in an attempt to bring to an end the ability to use social media to organise and promote terrorism and violent extremism.” CIS sent its comments to the Call. Over the past decade, a few private online intermediaries, by rapid innovation and integration, have turned into regulators of a substantial amount of online speech. Such concentrated power calls for a high level of responsibility on them to ensure that the rights of the users online, including their rights to free speech and privacy, are maintained. CIS has analyzed the companies' transparency reports for government requests for user data and content removal. The Department of Labour convened an interaction program of sorts at Vikas Soudha in Bangalore on 21st October, 2019 to hear the issues plaguing the emergent gig economy. Bharath Gururagavendran has thrown more light on this in a blog post. CIS presented a response to the ‘Gender issues arising in the digital era and their impacts on women, men and individuals of diverse sexual orientations gender identities, gender expressions and sex characteristics. CIS made a submission to the draft Code on Social Security, 2019 prepared by the Government of India’s Ministry of Labour and Employment. On October 17, 2019, the UN Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, Philip Alston, released his thematic report on digital technology, social protection and human rights. Understanding the impact of technology on the provision of social protection – and, by extent, its impact on people in vulnerable situations – has been part of the work CIS has been doing. A case study titled Farming the Future: Deployment of Artificial Intelligence in the agricultural sector in India was published as a chapter in the joint UNESCAP-Google publication titled Artificial Intelligence in Public Service Delivery. In response to our call for contributions and reflections on ‘Decolonising the Internet’s Languages’ in August, we are delighted to announce that we received 50 submissions, in over 38 languages! From all these extraordinary offerings, we have selected nine that we will invite and support the contributors to expand further. In a case study undertaken as part of the Big Data for Development (BD4D) network, Ambika Tandon evaluates the Mother and Child Tracking System (MCTS) as data-driven initiative in reproductive health at the national level in India.

CIS and the News

The following articles and research papers were authored by CIS secretariat during the month:

Setting International Norms of Cyber Conflict is Hard, But that Doesn't Mean that We Should Stop Trying (Arindrajit Basu and Karan Saini; Modern War Institute; September 30, 2019).
Digital mediation of domestic and care work in India: Project Announcement (Ambika Tandon and Aayush Rathi; Feminist Internet Research Network, APC; October 1, 2019).
Doing Standpoint Theory (Ambika Tandon and Aayush Rathi; Gender IT; October 10, 2019).
We need a better AI vision (Arindrajit Basu; Fountainink; October 12, 2019).
Farming the Future: Deployment of Artificial Intelligence in the agricultural sector in India (Elonnai Hickok, Arindrajit Basu, Siddharth Sonkar and Pranav M B; UNESCAP-Google publication titled Artificial Intelligence in Public Service Delivery; October 16, 2019).
The Mother and Child Tracking System - understanding data trail in the Indian healthcare systems (Ambika Tandon; Privacy International; October 17, 2019).
Facial recognition at airports promises convenience in exchange for surveillance (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; October 20, 2019).
“Politics by other means”: Fostering positive contestation and charting ‘red lines’ through global governance in cyberspace (Arindrajit Basu; Global Policy and ORF; October 21, 2019).

CIS in the News

CIS secretariat was consulted for the following articles published during the month in various publications:

Why conviction rate for cyber crime cases in Karnataka is abysmally low (Theja Ram; News Minute; October 1, 2019).
Will FASTag raise privacy concerns? (Shreya Nandi and Prathma Sharma; Livemint; October 15, 2019).
India's HIV-positive trans people find 'new strength' in technology (Annie Banerji; Reuters; October 17, 2019). Also mirrored in Jakarta Post and ETHealthworld.com.
Dystopia vs development: The Kashmir paradox (Asmita Bakshi; Livemint; October 19, 2019).
Trending Hate Against Muslims: Is Twitter Complicit? (Puja Bhattacharjee; News Central; October 21, 2019).

Access to Knowledge

Access to Knowledge is a campaign to promote the fundamental principles of justice, freedom, and economic development. It deals with issues like copyrights, patents and trademarks, which are an important part of the digital landscape.

Wikipedia

Under a grant from Wikimedia Foundation we are doing a project for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

Blog Entry

Analysis on the strategies of Mozilla and Wiki communities on gender gap aspects (Bhuvana Meenakshi; October 3, 2019).

Internet Governance

The Tunis Agenda of the second World Summit on the Information Society has defined internet governance as the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. As part of internet governance work we work on policy issues relating to freedom of expression primarily focusing on the Information Technology Act and issues of liability of intermediaries for unlawful speech and simultaneously ensuring that the right to privacy is safeguarded as well.

Freedom of Speech & Expression

Under a grant from the MacArthur Foundation, CIS is doing research on the restrictions placed on freedom of expression online by the Indian government and contribute studies, reports and policy briefs to feed into the ongoing debates at the national as well as international level. As part of the project we bring you the following outputs:

Research Paper

Designing a Human Rights Impact Assessment for ICANN’s Policy Development Processes (Collin Kure, Akriti Bopanna and Austin Ruckstuhl; October 3, 2019).

Submissions / Analysis

Through the looking glass: Analysing transparency reports (Torsha Sarkar, Suhan S and Gurshabad Grover; October 30, 2019).
CIS’ Comments to the Christchurch Call (Tanaya Rajwade, Elonnai Hickok, and Raouf Kundil Peedikayil; October 31, 2019).

Blog Entry

Department of Labour Interaction Program: Online Business Platforms (Bharath Gururagavendran; edited by Ambika Tandon; October 29, 2019).

Participation in Events

Roundtable Discussion on Intermediary Liability (Organized by SFLC and the Dialogue; New Delhi; October 17, 2019). Tanaya Rajwade participated in a roundtable discussion on intermediary liability.

Gender

Participation in Event

Due Diligence Project FGD by UN Women (Organized by UN; UN House, New Delhi; October 11, 2019). Radhika Radhakrishnan attended a focussed group discussion.

Privacy

Under a grant from Privacy International and IDRC we are doing a project on surveillance. CIS is researching the history of privacy in India and how it shapes the contemporary debates around technology mediated identity projects like Aadhar. As part of our ongoing research, we bring you the following outputs:

Submissions

Comments to the United Nations Human Rights Commission Report on Gender and Privacy (Aayush Rathi, Ambika Tandon and Pallavi Bedi; October 24, 2019).
Comments to the Code on Social Security, 2019 (Aayush Rathi , Amruta Mahuli and Ambika Tandon; October 27, 2019).

Participation in Events

BSides Delhi 2019 Security Conference (Organized by Bsides Delhi; New Delhi; October 11, 2019).
ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 27 meetings (Organized by ISO/IEC JTC; Paris; October 14 - 18, 2019). Gurshabad Grover participated in the meetings.
UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy Consultation on 'Privacy and Gender' (Organized by UN Special Rapporteur; New York University, New York; October 30 - 31, 2019).

Artificial Intelligence / Digital Technology

With origins dating back to the 1950s Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not necessarily new. However, interest in AI has been rekindled over the recent years due to advancements of technology and its applications to real-world scenarios. We conduct research on the existing legal and regulatory parameters:

Blog Entry

AI for Good (Shweta Mohandas and Saumyaa Naidu; edited by Elonnai Hickok; October 9, 2019).

Participation in Events

NIPFP Seminar on Exploring Policy Issues in the Digital Technology Arena (Organized by Indian Institute of Advanced Study; Shimla; October 10 - 11, 2019). Anubha Sinha participated in this seminar as a discussant.
AI Opera- AI as a total work of art (Organized by Goethe; Bangalore; October 11, 2019). Shweta Mohandas and Mira were panelists.
Launch of Google-UNESCAP AI Report (Organized by Google; United Nations Convention Centre; Bangkok; October 16, 2019). Arindrajit Basu was a speaker.
Discussion at CyFy on Technology, Policy and National Security: Building 21st Century Curricula in India’s Law Schools (Organized by Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi and Observer Research Foundation; Villa Medici, Taja Mahal Hotel, Man Singh Road, New Delhi; October 20, 2019).

Researchers@Work

The researchers@work programme at CIS produces and supports pioneering and sustained trans-disciplinary research on key thematics at the intersections of internet and society; organise and incubate networks of and fora for researchers and practitioners studying and making internet in India; and contribute to development of critical digital pedagogy, research methodology, and creative practice.

Announcement

State of the Internet's Languages 2020: Announcing selected contributions! (P.P. Sneha; November 1, 2019).

Case Study

Big Data and Reproductive Health in India: A Case Study of the Mother and Child Tracking System (Ambika Tandon; October 17, 2019).

Participation in Event

Decolonizing the Internet’s Languages 2019 - From Conversations to Actions (Organized by Whose Knowledge; London; October 23 - 24, 2019). P.P. Sneha participated in this meeting.

Blog Entries

Mobilizing Online Consensus: Net Neutrality and the India Subreddit (Sujeet George; October 1, 2019).
How Green is the Internet? The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Aishwarya Panicker; October 11, 2019).

About CIS

CIS is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfigurations of social and cultural processes and structures as mediated through the internet and digital media technologies.

Follow CIS on:

Twitter: http://twitter.com/cis_india
Twitter - Access to Knowledge: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Twitter - Information Policy: https://twitter.com/CIS_InfoPolicy
Facebook - Access to Knowledge: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
E-Mail - Access to Knowledge: a2k@cis-india.org
E-Mail - Researchers at Work: raw@cis-india.org
List - Researchers at Work: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers

Support CIS:

Please help us defend consumer and citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of 'The Centre for Internet and Society' and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 5600 71.

Collaborate with CIS:

We invite researchers, practitioners, artists, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to engage with us on topics related internet and society, and improve our collective understanding of this field. To discuss such possibilities, please write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org (for policy research), or Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Research Director, at sumandro@cis-india.org (for academic research), with an indication of the form and the content of the collaboration you might be interested in. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia projects, write to Tanveer Hasan, Programme Officer, at tanveer@cis-india.org.

CIS is grateful to its primary donor the Kusuma Trust founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin for its core funding and support for most of its projects. CIS is also grateful to its other donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and IDRC for funding its various projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/october-2019-newsletter

A collation and analysis of government requests for user data and content removal from non-Indian intermediaries

Admin — 2019-10-31T16:31:02Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/A%20collation%20and%20analysis%20of%20government%20requests%20for%20user%20data%20%20and%20content%20removal%20from%20non-Indian%20intermediaries%20.pdf

Comments to the United Nations Human Rights Commission Report on Gender and Privacy

Aayush Rathi, Ambika Tandon and Pallavi Bedi — 2019-10-27T04:08:18Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/comments-to-the-united-nations-human-rights-commission-report-on-gender-and-privacy

Internet Liability

Admin — 2019-10-20T07:04:53Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/internet-liability

AI for Good

Shweta Mohandas and Saumyaa Naidu — 2019-10-13T05:32:28Z

CIS organised a workshop titled ‘AI for Good’ at the Unbox Festival in Bangalore from 15th to 17th February, 2019. The workshop was led by Shweta Mohandas and Saumyaa Naidu. In the hour long workshop, the participants were asked to imagine an AI based product to bring forward the idea of ‘AI for social good’.

The report was edited by Elonnai Hickok.

The workshop was aimed at examining the current narratives around AI and imagining how these may transform with time. It raised questions about how we can build an AI for the future, and traced the implications relating to social impact, policy, gender, design, and privacy.

Methodology

The rationale for conducting this workshop in a design festival was to ensure a diverse mix of participants. The participants in the workshop came from varied educational and professional backgrounds who had different levels of understanding of technology. The workshop began with a discussion on the existing applications of artificial intelligence, and how people interact and engage with it on a daily basis. This was followed by an activity where the participants were provided with a form and were asked to conceptualise their own AI application which could be used for social good. The participants were asked to think about a problem that they wanted the AI application to address and think of ways in which it would solve the problem. They were also asked to mention who will use the application. It prompted participants to provide details of the AI application in terms of the form, colour, gender, visual design, and medium of interaction (voice/ text). This was intended to nudge the participants into thinking about the characteristics of the application, and how it will lend to the overall purpose. The form was structured and designed to enable participants to both describe and draw their ideas. The next section of the form gave them multiple pairs of principles. They were asked to choose one principle from each pair. These were conflicting options such as ‘Openness’ or ‘Proprietary’, and ‘Free Speech’ or ‘Moderated Speech’. The objective of this section was to illustrate how a perceived ideal AI that satisfies all stakeholders can be difficult to achieve, and that the AI developers at times may be faced with a decision between profitability and user rights.

Participants were asked to keep their responses anonymous. These responses were then collected and discussed with the group. The activity led to the participants engaging in a discussion on the principles mentioned in the form. Questions around where the input data to train the AI would come from, or what type of data the application will collect were discussed. The responses were used to derive implications on gender, privacy, design, and accessibility.

Responses

Analysis

Even as the responses were varied, they had a few key similarities and observations.

Participants’ Familiarity with AI

The participants’ understanding of AI was based on what they read and heard from various sources. While discussing the examples of AI, the participants were familiar with not just the physical manifestation of AI such as robots, but also AI software. However when asked to define an AI the most common explanations were, bots, software, and the use of algorithms to make decisions using large amounts of data. The participants were optimistic of the way AI could be used for social good. However, some of them showed concern about the implications on privacy.

Perception of AI Among Participants

With the workshop, our aim was to have the participants reflect on their perception of AI based on their exposure to the narratives around AI by companies and the government.

The participants were given the brief to imagine an AI that could solve a problem or be used for social good. Most participants considered AI to be a positive tool for social impact. It was seen as a problem solver. The ideas conceptualised by the participants varied from countering fake news, wildlife conservation, resource distribution, and mental health. This brought to focus the range of areas that were seen as pertinent for an AI intervention. Most of the responses dealt with concerns that affect humans directly, the one aimed at wildlife conservation being the only exception.

On being asked, who will use the AI application, it was interesting to note that all the responses considered different stakeholders such as individuals, non profits, governments and private companies to be the end user. However, it was interesting that through the discussion the harms that might be caused by the use of AI by these stakeholders were not brought up. For example, the use of AI for resource distribution did not take into consideration the fact that the government could provide unequal distribution based on the existing biased datasets. Several of the AI applications were conceptualised to work without any human intervention. For example, one of the ideas proposed was to use AI as a mental health counsellor which was conceptualised as a chatbot that would learn more about human psychology with each interaction. It was assumed that such a service would be better than a human psychologist who can be emotionally biased. Similarly, while discussing the idea behind the use of AI for preventing the spread of fake news, the participant believed that the indication coming from an AI would have greater impact than one coming from a human. They believed that the AI could provide the correct information and prevent the spread of fake news. By discussing these cases we were able to highlight that the complete reliance on technology could have severe consequences.

Form and Visual Design of the AI Concepts

In most cases, the participants decided the form and visual design of their AI concepts keeping in mind its purpose. For instance, the therapy providing AI mentioned earlier, was envisioned as a textual platform, while a ‘clippy type’ add on AI tool was thought of for detecting fake news. Most participants imagined the AI application to have a software form, while the legal aid AI application was conceptualised to have a human form. This revealed that the participants perceived AI to be both a software and a physical device such as a robot.

Accessibility of the Interfaces

The purpose of including the type of interface (voice or text) while conceptualising the AI application was to push the participants towards thinking about accessibility features. We aimed to have the participants think about the default use of the interface, both in terms of language and accessibility. The participants though cognizant of the need to have a large number of users, preferred to have only textual input into the interface, not anticipating the accessibility concerns.

The choices between access vs cost, and accessibility vs scalability were also questioned by the participants during the workshop. They enquired about the meaning of the terms as well as discussed the difficulty in having an all inclusive interface. Some of the responses consisted only of text inputs, especially for sensitive issues involving interactions, such as for therapy or helplines. This exercise made the participants think about the end user as well as the ‘AI for all’ narrative. We decided to add these questions that made the participants think about how the default ability, language, and technological capability of the user is taken for granted, and how simple features could help more people interact with the application. This discussion led to the inference that there is a need to think about accessibility by design during the creation of the application and not as an afterthought.

Biases Based on Gender

We intended for the participants to think about the inherent biases that creep into creating an AI concept. These biases were evident from deciding identifiably male names, to deciding a male voice when the application needed to be assertive, or a female voice and name for when it was dealing with school children. Most of the other participants either did not mention the gender or they said that the AI could be gender neutral or changeable.

These observations are also revealing of the existing narrative around AI. The popular AI interfaces have been noted to exemplify existing gender stereotypes. For example, the virtual assistants were given female identifiable names and default female voices such as Siri, Alexa, and Cortana. The more advanced AI were given male identifiable names and default male voices such as Watson, Holmes etc. Although these concerns have been pointed out by several researchers, there needs to be a visible shift towards moving away from existing gender biases.

Concerns around Privacy

Though the participants were aware of the privacy implications of data driven technologies, they were unsure of how their own AI concept could deal with questions of privacy. The participants voiced concerns about how they would procure the data to train the AI but were uncertain about their data processing practices. This included how they would store the data, anonymise the data, or prevent third parties from accessing it. For example, during the activity, it was pointed out to the participants that there would be sensitive data collected in applications such as therapy provision, legal aid for victims of abuse, and assistance for people with social anxiety. In these cases, the participants stated that they would ensure that the data was shared responsibly, but did not consider the potential uses or misuses of this shared data.

Choices between Principles

This part of the exercise was intended to familiarise the participants with certain ethical and policy questions about AI, as well as to look at the possible choices that AI developers have to make. Along with discussing the broader questions around the form and interface of AI, we wanted the participants to also look at making decisions about the way the AI would function. The intent behind this component of the exercise was to encourage the participants to question the practices of AI companies, as well as understand the implications of choices while creating an AI. As the language in this section was based on law and policy, we spent some time describing the terms to the participants. Even as some of the options presented by us were not exhaustive or absolute extremes, we placed this section to demonstrate the complexity in creating an AI that is beneficial for all. We intended for the participants to understand that an AI that is profitable to the company, free for people, accessible, privacy respecting, and open source, though desirable may be in competition with other interests such as profitability and scalability.

The participants were urged to think about how decisions regarding who can use the service, how much transparency and privacy the company will provide, are also part of building an AI. Taking an example from the responses, we talked about how having a closed proprietary software in case of AI applications such as providing legal aid to victims of abuse would deter the creation of similar applications. However, after the terms were explained, the participants mostly chose openness over proprietary software, and access over paid services.

Conclusion

The aim of this exercise was to understand the popular perception of AI. The participants had varied understanding of AI, but were familiar with the term. They also knew of the popular products that claim to use AI. Since the exercise was designed for people as an introduction to AI policy, we intended to keep questions around data practices out of the concept form. Eventually, with this exercise, we, along with the participants, were able to look at how popular media sells AI as an effective and cheaper solution to social issues. The exercise also allowed the participants to understand certain biases with gender, language, and ability. It also shed light on how questions of access and user rights should be placed before the creation of a technological solution. New technologies such as AI are being featured as problem solvers by companies, the media and governments. However, there is a need to also think about how these technologies can be exclusionary, misused, or how they amplify existing socio economic inequities.

[1]. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/08/26/maximizing-the-potential-of-ai-starts-with-trust.html

[2]. https://qz.com/1023448/if-youre-not-a-white-male-artificial-intelligences-use-in-healthcare-could-be-dangerous/

[3]. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/11/29/18118469/instagram-accessibility-automatic-alt-text-object-recognition

[4]. https://www.theguardian.com/pwc-partner-zone/2019/mar/26/why-are-virtual-assistants-always-female-gender-bias-in-ai-must-be-remedied

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ai-for-good-event-report-on-workshop-conducted-at-unbox-festival

Designing a Human Rights Impact Assessment for ICANN’s Policy Development Processes

Collin Kure, Akriti Bopanna and Austin Ruckstuhl — 2019-10-03T14:18:13Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/designing-a-human-rights-impact-assessment-for-icann2019s-policy-development-processes

Analysis on the strategies of Mozilla and Wiki communities on gender gap aspects

bhuvana — 2019-10-03T11:56:37Z

There is a need for research on how Open Source communities are trying to balance the gender ratio and how they provide the safe space environment to its contributors. With this in mind I have come up with this blog as I am an active contributor of Mozilla since 5 years and also got myself recently introduced to Wikimedia and its sister projects, have interacted with few Indian women contributors in both of these communities and came out with a few observations on how I see them in India and what could be improved in both communities.

Opening note

Wikipedia community

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of articles where many users can edit it freely and it has become so large that you run across it all the time in Google. It is so popular that it is now one of the Top 5 websites in the world! The reason behind the growth is because the articles are simple and useful.

Wikipedians are the contributors who do a communal work to improve the content by editing bits of text and cluster them to the large database. Beyond this there are other sister projects of Wikimedia which interest the audience on whichever they are expertise about. The main motivation for these contributors is their freedom to contribute in their own native language which they are more passionate about. This is a great social cause they are contributing towards.

Mozilla community

Mozilla makes browsers, apps, code and tools that put people before profit. In fact, there’s a non-profit Foundation at the heart of the enterprise.Their mission is to keep the internet open and accessible to all. Hope everyone uses or had at least at some point seen Firefox browser/logo, so this is the prime product of Mozilla. There are various projects to support the Firefox browser and they are mostly Open Source.

Mozillians are the volunteers who contribute in the improvement of these projects thus helping the world to access the internet and the Open web.Mozilla Volunteers are passionate to learn,collaborate and knowledge share among a large world-wide community and the crew is a mix of coder, non-coders, policy makers and anyone who supports Open Web. The point that drives everyone to contribute is that the community creates a vibe to contribute and to create a safe and better experience in accessing the digital world.

WikiProject Women

This a group of editors who aim to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's topics. It brings Wikipedia users of all genders, sexual orientations, geographic locations, and personal backgrounds together to discuss and collaborate on coverage of women's content across Wikipedia.There are various streams in which women can be part of the larger mission for instance:

Art and Feminism

Women in Red

Wiki loves women

Womoz

Women & Mozilla ("WoMoz") a community composed of members from different Open Source projects.It is mainly dedicated to improving women's visibility and involvement in Free/Open Source and Mozilla, and to increase the number of women contributors. Anyone can participate in this project, regardless of sex, age, job, etc. We are united by the common goal of promoting women's visibility and involvement in open source communities. They also believe that the Internet, FLOSS projects and computing must remain open and participatory. This also means accessible in the same way to all - women and men alike.

It also believe solutions should continuously be proposed in order to improve the visibility of all minorities, who for various reasons might not have equal access to computers or the Internet. This project is an example of this, as it aims at ameliorating women's presence and participation in Mozilla and open source. But currently this group is not very active, except for a few regional contributors where they find massive necessity to focus on the women participation.

Overview of the strategies used for increasing women participation

Methodologies used

Both the communities are great supporters of the Free Softwares and licenses and so the methods that is used in addressing the gender gap issues is as follows:

Conduct gender neutral events like hack-a-thons/ edit-a-thons where the tutor is a woman or there is a large ratio of under represented community in the event.
Host monthly offline/online meetups.
Work on projects which are gender neutral based.
Following up special protocols like CoCs strictly at these events.
Days like “International Women’s Day” and on similar significant occasions some unique events will be hosted and contributors will be appreciated.

Impact on Indian communities

The WikiProject woman and WoMoz programs play a very important role among the Indian communities. Although I do not see a single or uniform progress there is always a good scale-up among the regional communities. For a country like India where there is still necessity for uplifting the presence and awareness of these type of FOSS programs I feel that most of these programs are extensively hosted in urban or developed phases of the country. Recently, the internet access has spread across but then the basic knowledge of contributing to Open Source is still abandoned. The end result and the what the contributors shall get on contributing to these communities must be emphasised more.

Closing note

My study and analysis on these two communities is drawn from personal interest and engagement with these communities since I have been contributing and interacting with the contributors for the last few years. The objective of this post is basically to bring about an awareness on the accessible resources on bridging the digital divide , and how these resources can be modified and taken further for a country like India. The efforts taken to improve the gender neutrality by the above communities is laudable but more light has to be thrown on improving the measures taken to sustain women contributors

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/contribute/

http://www.womoz.org/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/analysis-on-the-strategies-of-mozilla-and-wiki-communities-on-gender-gap-aspects-1

Draft Rules and Manila Principles

Akriti Bopanna and Gayatri Puthran — 2019-10-13T05:45:08Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/draft-rules-and-manila-principles-1