The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 51 to 65.
India Study Tour - Report: The South African Telecommunications Sector: Poised for Change
https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/india-study-tour-report-by-sagie-chetty
<b>CIS in collaboration with the LINK Centre, Graduate School of Public and Development Management, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa and in association with different institutions across India organized a Lecture Tour by Sagie Chetty from 19th Oct to 30th Oct. A report on this study tour is given by Sagie Chetty.</b>
<h3 align="left">India Study Tour Report</h3>
<p>
2009-10-17 to 2009-11-01<br />Sagie Chetty, Masters of Management ICT Policy & Regulation<br />Student Number 0617514V<br />Supervision: LINK Centre<br />Graduate School of Public and Development Management<br />University of the Witwatersrand</p>
<div align="left"><br />Sagie Chetty is a Senior Manager at Eskom, South Africa’s largest Electricity Utility and a Masters of Management student in the field of ICT Policy and Regulation at Wits University. My research dissertation is entitled “Analysing processes for regulating interconnection in India and South Africa.” Wits LINK Centre and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore arranged for a study/lecture tour to India for the period from 17th October 2009 to 1st November 2009. As part of the tour, I presented a number of talks to students and faculty members at various universities and institutions around the country, on the subject of the Telecommunications Landscape in South Africa. I used the opportunity to inform students on the development of the telecommunications sector in South Africa; to build relationships between the LINK centre and the institutions I visited; and, most importantly, to conduct interviews with academia, economists and regulatory authorities in India to gather essential material for my research paper.</div>
<p>Presentations were held at a number of universities, namely the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Chennai and IIT, Mumbai; the International Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Bangalore; and the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), the National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies (NISTADS) and the Jamia Millia Islamia University – all based in Delhi. The visit concluded with meetings with officials from the Telecoms Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).</p>
<p>The presentations were well attended and discussions were robust and thought provoking. The South African telecommunications sector was seen as being non-competitive with unnecessarily high ownership by government in the telecommunications sector. From the information provided, students concluded that the SA telecommunications regulator was weak and lacking in the commensurate skills to manage this highly technical sector.</p>
<p>On the other hand, students gravitated between having admiration for India’s own telecommunications regulator, TRAI and criticism of TRAI’s inability to improve broadband take-up in India. Students commended TRAI’s technical skills, independence and its courage in standing up to powerful mobile companies and incumbent telecommunications companies. However, lack of policy direction with regard to broadband rollout is seen as a major failure. Comments regarding this failure are attributed to TRAI’s driving down of telecommunications prices to levels that do not allow for infrastructure investment. </p>
<p>The future for broadband in India lies in mobile technology and some predict that fixed line will be defunct by 2025. Some academics also believe that there are too many players in the telecommunications sector in India making spectrum allocation highly competitive and therefore, very expensive. These costs will have to be recovered and the end users will pay dearly for this. Therefore, the model that the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) is using for spectrum auctions is being questioned by students and academics.</p>
<p>The innovation that I observed in India relates to CIS’s early work in projects assisting the visually impaired to read; the writing of 4G standards at the IITs and the innovation with regard to interconnection usage charges (IUC) at TRAI. These are some of the lessons that I have taken back to South Africa.</p>
<p>My observation of students in India is that they are highly motivated and eager to learn. Entrance to the universities is highly sought after and universities have high standards and are generally difficult to get into. The IITs certainly are increasing the requirements for students to get into them. The institutions are vibrant and are fertile grounds for thought leadership and innovation. India is producing a veritable number of PhDs and institutions seem to offer funding for capable students. South Africa needs to re-examine the funding model for students here. My impression is that students in South Africa do not have similar support as their counterparts in India.</p>
<p>The talks generally concluded with a re-affirmation of the strong historical and cultural links between South Africa and India. Mahatma Gandhi’s time spent in South Africa developing his notion of non-violent protest is well known in India and will always bind our countries together.</p>
<p>India is a vibrant country with an economic engine that is gathering revolutions. Its future is bright and its institutions are producing bright young minds to take their place in this awakening economic giant. South Africans can do well in learning from this super power in the making.</p>
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/telecom/SC%20Study%20Tour%20Report%202009-11-08%20_2_.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Sagie Chetty- Report">Report</a></p>
<h3>Videos</h3>
<embed width="250" height="250" src="http://blip.tv/play/g_dIga_dIgA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
<p> </p>
<embed width="250" height="250" src="http://blip.tv/play/g_dIga_daAA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
<p> </p>
<embed width="250" height="250" src="http://blip.tv/play/g_dIga_fPwA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
<p> </p>
<embed width="250" height="250" src="http://blip.tv/play/g_dIga_9IgA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
<p> </p>
<embed width="250" height="250" src="http://blip.tv/play/g_dIga_%2BHwA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/india-study-tour-report-by-sagie-chetty'>https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/india-study-tour-report-by-sagie-chetty</a>
</p>
No publisherradhaTelecomPublications2011-08-24T08:02:09ZBlog EntryArguments Against the PUPFIP Bill
https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/why-no-pupfip
<b>The Protection and Utilisation of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill (PUPFIP Bill) is a new legislation being considered by Parliament, which was introduced in the 2008 winter session of the Rajya Sabha. It is modelled on the American Bayh-Dole Act (University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act) of 1980. On this page, we explore some of the reasons that the bill is unnecessary, and how it will be harmful if passed.</b>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;"><a title="How is the legislation unnecessary?" href="#how-is-the-legislation">How is the legislation
unnecessary?</a></h2>
<ol><li><a title="1) The Indian government
does not have vast reserves of underutilized patents, as the U.S. did
in 1980." href="#1-the-indian-government">The Indian government does not have vast reserves of underutilized patents, as the U.S. did in 1980.</a></li><li><a title="2) Technology transfer is very important, but pushing IPRs aggressively is not the best way of ensuring technology transfer." href="#2-technology-transfer-is">Technology transfer is very important, but pushing IPRs aggressively is not the best way of ensuring technology transfer.</a></li></ol>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;"><a title="How is the legislation
harmful?" href="#how-is-the-legislation-1">How is the legislation
harmful?</a></h2>
<ol><li><a title="1) It's very foundation
is flawed and unproven: excessive patenting lead to gridlocks and
retard innovation." href="#1-it-s-very">Excessive patenting lead to
gridlocks and retards innovation.
</a></li><li><a title="2) The legislation makes
mandatory that which is optional now, and is anyway being followed in
many institutions." href="#2-the-legislation-makes">The legislation
makes mandatory that which is optional now, and is anyway being
followed in many institutions.</a></li><li><a title="3) Copyright, trademark,
etc., seem to be covered under the definition of public funded
IP." href="#3-copyright-trademark-etc">Copyright,
trademark, etc., seem to be covered under the definition of “public
funded IP”.</a></li><li><a title="4) It will result in
a form of double taxation for research, and will increase the consumer cost of
all products based on publicly-funded..." href="#4-it-will-result">It will result in
a form of double taxation for research, and will increase the consumer cost of
all products based on publicly-funded research.</a></li><li><a title="5) It could have
unintended consequences of varied kinds, including discouraging
fundamental research as well as discouraging industrial..." href="#5-it-could-have">It could have
unintended consequences of varied kinds, including discouraging
fundamental research as well as discouraging industrial research.</a></li><li><a title="6) Non-disclosure
requirements in the Bill restricts the dissemination of research within the academic community, and curtails freedom of..." href="#6-non-disclosure-requirements">Non-disclosure
requirements in the Bill restricts the dissemination of research within the academic community, and curtails freedom of speech.</a></li><li><a title="7) Exclusive licensing enables restriction on the dissemination of
academic research in the marketplace, and increase in cost of products..." href="#7-exclusive-licensing-enables">Exclusive
licensing enables restriction on the dissemination of academic research in the marketplace, and increase in cost of products based on public-funded research.</a><br /></li></ol>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h2 align="justify"><a title="Additional Resources" href="#additional-resources">Additional resources</a></h2>
<ul><li><a title="On the PUPFIP Bill" href="#on-the-pupfip-bill">On the PUPFIP Bill</a></li><li><a title="On Bayh-Dole" href="#on-bayh-dole">On Bayh-Dole</a></li></ul>
<h2 align="justify"><br /></h2>
<h2 align="justify">Arguments<br /></h2>
<h2 align="justify"><a name="how-is-the-legislation"></a>How is the legislation unnecessary?<br /></h2>
<h3 align="justify"><a name="1-the-indian-government"></a>1) The Indian government
does not have vast reserves of underutilized patents, as the U.S. did
in 1980.</h3>
<p align="justify">The idea behind the
Bayh-Dole Act was that the research funded by the government (and
owned, in the US, by the government) was being underutilized. In 1980, over 28,000 unlicensed patents lay with the U.S. government.[1] The Act shifted the title of such works
from the government to the University or small business that
conducted the research, thus allowing them to take out patents on the
research outputs. In India, under present laws, the researcher(s)
own the rights over their research whether they be government-funded
or not. Usually, due to employment contracts, the research
institutes already have the right to patent their inventions. Thus,
currently, there is no need for an enabling legislation in this
regard, as there was in the U.S. </p>
<p align="justify">In fact, currently, the Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has over 5173 patents
(counting both those in force and those under dispute), while only
222 patents are licensed (with 68 of them being under dispute).
Thus, even with the IP being in the institute's hands, there is a
"problem" situation similar to that which necessitated
Bayh-Dole in the U.S. Thus, quite contrary to the aims of the Act,
further patenting will only lead to a situation of even more
underutilized patents.</p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;"><a name="2-technology-transfer-is"></a>2) Technology transfer is very important, but pushing IPRs aggressively is not the best way of ensuring technology transfer.</h3>
<p align="justify">At a recent seminar held at NUJS Kolkata on
the PUPFIP Bill, it was revealed that while IIT-Kharagpur’s
TTO-equivalent (called the Sponsored Research & Industrial
Consultancy division - SRIC) currently handles over Rs.300 crores
through 850 projects, only around Rs. 5-15 crores (exact figures
weren't available) are currently made through its patent
portfolio.[2] Thus patents don't seem, on the face of things, to be the
best way of ensuring technology transfer. Indeed, the oft-cited 28,0000 unlicensed patents held by the U.S. government were composed primarily of patents for which industry had refused to take exclusive licences.[3]</p>
<p align="justify">Many contend that one of the most important functions of a patent is to get inventors to disclose their inventions rather than keep them as secrets. This reason for awarding a patent is invalidated if stronger protection is granted to trade secrets (no term limit, for instance) than for patents. Secondly, this reason for granting patents is not valid in case of government-funded research in academia and research
institutes. The culture of publication and the economy of reputation
are sufficient to ensure disclosure. Even without these intrinsic factors, there grant requirements can necessitate publication. If mere publication is believed to be insufficient, then the government would do well to ask for technology dissemination plans before grants are made. At any rate, monopoly rights in the form of patents are
thoroughly unnecessary.</p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;"><a name="how-is-the-legislation-1"></a>How is the legislation
harmful?</h2>
<h3 align="justify"><a name="1-it-s-very"></a>1) Excessive patenting lead to gridlocks and
retard innovation.</h3>
<p align="justify">It sees protection of IPR
as the sole means of encouraging innovation and driving research to
the doorstep of consumers. The trend around the world is that of
exploring alternative forms of spurring innovation. Even in India,
CSIR has gone for an innovative "<a class="external-link" href="http://www.osdd.net/">Open Source Drug Discovery</a>"
project, which has proven very successful so far. Furthermore, recent literature shows that excessive
patenting is harming research and innovation by creating gridlocks.[4] If platform technologies and basic research (such as SNP) gets mired in patents, then the transaction costs increase (not only in terms of money, but more importantly in administrative terms). This ends up in research clearances getting blocked, and thus retards innovation. It must be remembered that intellectual property is not only an output, but also an input. The more aggressively the outputs are guarded and prevented from being shared, the more the inputs will be affected. The study of patent thickets and gridlocks has reached such a stage that the U.S. law has been changed to reflect this. Firstly, the Bayh-Dole Act was amended in 2000 to state that the objectives of the Bayh-Dole Act were to be carried out "without unduly encumbering future research and discovery". Now, the courts (in the <em>Bilski</em> case) have increased the standard of obviousness in patent law (which means that less patents will be granted). Furthermore, the U.S.P.T.O. and the U.S. Senate are currently considering means of overhauling the U.S. patent system, which many fear is close to breaking down due to over-patenting. All these are signs that the footsteps we are seeking to follow are themselves turning back.</p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h3 align="justify"><a name="2-the-legislation-makes"></a>2) The legislation makes
mandatory that which is optional now, and is anyway being followed in
many institutions.</h3>
<p align="justify">While the CSIR labs
pursue patents aggressively, they also run the OSSD project. The latter
might not be permissible if the Act is passed as it stands.
Furthermore, this would increase the number of underutilized patents,
which is a problem faced currently by CSIR, which has had an
aggressive patent policy since the 1990s. Unlicensed patents constitute around 93% of CSIR's total patent portfolio. (In contrast, MIT averages
around 50% licensing of patents.) If aggressive patenting is made mandatory, it adds substantially to administrative costs of all institutes which receive any grants from the government. These institutes might not be large enough to merit a dedicated team of professionals to handle</p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h3 align="justify"><a name="3-copyright-trademark-etc"></a>3) Copyright, trademark,
etc., seem to be covered under the definition of "public funded
IP".</h3>
<p align="justify">This leads to a ridiculous need to attempt to commercialise
all government-funded research literature (and the government funds
science research, social sciences, arts, etc.). Furthermore, while the definition of "public funded IP" includes copyrights, trademarks, etc., yet the substantive provisions seem to only include those forms of IP which have to be registered compulsorily (copyright and trademark don't -- copyright comes into existence when an original work is expressed in a medium, and trademark can come into existence by use). Importantly, seeking to commercialise all copyrighted works of research would hamper
the movement for open access to scholarly literature. The inititative towards open access to scholarly literature is something that National Knowledge Commission has recommended, and is a move that would result in increased dissemination of public-funded research, which seems to be an aim of the PUPFIP Bill as well.</p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h3 align="justify"><a name="4-it-will-result"></a>4) It will result in
a form of double taxation for research, and will increase the consumer cost of
all products based on publicly-funded research.</h3>
<p align="justify">This bill would increase the
consumer cost of all products based on publicly-funded research,
because of the additional burden of patent royalties. </p>
<p align="justify">Public funds research -> Institute patents research -> Pharma MNC gets exclusive license over research -> Drug reaches market.</p>
<p align="justify">Assuming an exclusive licence: Cost of the drug = cost of manufacturing, storage, etc. + <em>mark-up (monopolistic) cost</em> + <em>cost of licence</em>.</p>
<p align="justify">Thus, in
effect, the public has to pay twice for the research: it pays once to enable the
scientist to conduct the research, and once again in the form of royalties to have that research brought to the marketplace. </p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h3 align="justify"><a name="5-it-could-have"></a>5) It could have
unintended consequences of varied kinds, including discouraging
fundamental research as well as discouraging industrial research.</h3>
<p align="justify">The former could happen since
institutions and individual scientists have a financial incentive to
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/2003_5b.htm">shift their focus away from fundamental research</a>; the latter,
conversely, because the filings and bureaucracy involved <a class="external-link" href="http://www.spicyip.com/docs/ppt-premnath-pdf.pdf">could drive
scientists away from reporting or even engaging in industrial
research</a> [pdf]. Faculty and researcher involvement in the business of
licensing is a sub-optimal usage of their talents, and there are
scientists who would rather stay away from business (as is shown by
the intake of former industry-researchers into government-funded labs
such as those of CSIR).</p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h3 align="justify"><a name="6-non-disclosure-requirements"></a>6) Non-disclosure
requirements in the Bill restricts the dissemination of research within the academic community, and curtails freedom of speech.<br /></h3>
<p align="justify">This will bring about a shift in science and research which is always done upon others' work. This is why in the U.S., the National Institute of Health (N.I.H.) has sought to ensure (without any legal authority) that it only finances that research that on single nucleotide polymorphism (S.N.P.) which is not patented, and is shared freely amongst scholars. Since this requirement of the N.I.H.'s does not have any legal backing (since it is contradictory to the Bayh-Dole Act), institutions are free to get the grant from N.I.H. and then go ahead and patent their inventions.</p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h3 align="justify"><a name="7-exclusive-licensing-enables"></a>7) Exclusive licensing enables restriction on the dissemination of
academic research in the marketplace, and increase in cost of products
based on public-funded research.</h3>
<p>The bill allows for both assignment of licences as well as exclusive licences. Both of these enable monopolistic pricing to be undertaken by the licensee/assignee. There are not even any mechanisms in the Act to ensure, for instance, that a public call is made to ascertain that no parties are willing to consider a non-exclusive licence. Patents are generally said to grant a monopoly right because of the opportunity to recover costs of research and development. When the research is being done by public-funded money, there is no justification for monopoly rights on that research, since there are no excessive costs to recover.</p>
<p> </p>
<p align="justify">Footnotes:</p>
<p align="justify">[1] See <a class="external-link" href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060262">So et al.</a> and <a class="external-link" href="http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/Thursby.pdf">Thursby and Thursby</a>, quoted in the <a class="external-link" href="http://knowledgecommission.gov.in/downloads/recommendations/LegislationPM.pdf">National Knowledge Commission's letter to the Prime Minister</a>.</p>
<p align="justify">[2] See Prof. Vivekanandans' presentation "<a class="external-link" href="http://www.spicyip.com/docs/ppt-vivek.pdf">Patenting and Technology Transfer-the IIT Khargpur Experience</a>"</p>
<p align="justify">[3] See <a class="external-link" href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060262">Anthony So et al., <em>Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries</em>, 6 PLoS Biol e262 (2008)</a></p>
[4] See <a class="external-link" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5364/698">Michael A. Heller & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, 280 Science 698 (1998)</a>
<p> </p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;"><a name="additional-resources"></a>Additional Resources</h2>
<h3><a name="on-the-pupfip-bill"></a>On the PUPFIP Bill</h3>
<ul><li>February 5, 2004: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.expresspharmaonline.com/20040205/happenings05.shtml">NIPER holds parallel session of Indian Science Congress (Express Pharma)</a> <br /></li><li>October 27, 2006: <a class="external-link" href="http://bayhdole25.org/node/40">Susan
Finston, India to Propose New Technology Transfer Legislation
(Bayh-Dole 25)</a></li><li><span id="__citationid396739" class="citation">January 16, 2007: <a class="external-link" href="http://knowledgecommission.gov.in/downloads/recommendations/LegislationPM.pdf">National Knowledge Commision's Letter to Indian Prime Minister (National Knowledge Commission)</a> </span></li><li>April 15, 2007: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20070415&filename=news&sid=23&page=2&sec_id=50">Archita Bhatta, Proposed IPR law raises concern (Down to Earth)</a></li><li>May 31, 2007: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=28342">Science & Technology needs to be core of the economic development says Kapil Sibal (<span class="Apple-style-span"></span></a><a class="external-link" href="http://www.pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=28342">PIB Press Release)</a></li><li>November 13, 2007: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.pib.nic.in/release/rel_print_page.asp?relid=32628">Government Accords Approval to National Biotechnology Development Strategy (PIB Press Release)</a></li><li>February 1, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/319/5863/556a">Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, Indian Government Hopes Bill Will Stimulate Innovation (Science)</a> </li><li>February 19, 2008: Shamnad Basheer, Exporting Bayh Dole to India: Whither Transparency? <a class="external-link" href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2008/02/exporting-bayh-dole-to-india-whither.html">(Part 1)</a> <a class="external-link" href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2008/02/exporting-bayh-dole-to-india-whither_21.html">(Part 2)</a> (SpicyIP)<br /></li><li>March 17, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=317122">Kalpana Pathak, Varsities may soon own patent rights (Business Standard)</a> <br /></li><li>March 17, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/03/17/stories/2008031751080100.htm">P.T. Jyothi Datta, Public-funded research may pay dividends for scientists (Business Line)</a></li><li>March 17, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=c2472b7c-0f57-4e16-b1ea-389c44c3b4a6">Joff Wild, India considers Bayh-Dole style legislation (IAM Magazine)</a><br /></li><li>April 30, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.pharmabiz.com/article/detnews.asp?articleid=44083&sectionid=46">M.K. Unnikrishnan and Pradeepti Nayak, Lessons from Bayh Dole Act and its relevance to India (PharmaBiz)</a></li><li>July 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1265343">Sean M. O'Connor, Historical Context of U.S. Bayh-Dole Act: Implications for Indian Government Funded Research Patent Policy (STEM Newsletter)</a><br /></li><li>July 7, 2008: Shamnad Basheer, <a class="external-link" href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2008/07/mysterious-indian-bayh-dole-bill.html">Mysterious Indian "Bayh Dole" Bill: SpicyIP Procures a Copy (SpicyIP)</a></li><li>July 09, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=328187">Latha Jishnu, Does India need a Bayh-Dole Act? (Business Standard)</a><br /></li><li>September 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/2036">V.C. Vivekanandan, Transplanting Bayh-Dole Act- Issues at Stake Authors (13 Journal of Intell. Prop. 480)</a></li><li>September 18, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/indian-patent-bill-let-s-not-be-too-hasty.html">Shamnad Basheer, Indian Patent Bill: Let's not be too hasty (SciDev.net)</a></li><li>October 28, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060262">Anthony So et al., <em>Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries</em>, 6 PLoS Biol e262 (2008)</a></li><li>October 31, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=44316">Cabinet gives approval for Protection and Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill, 2008 (</a><a class="external-link" href="http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=44316">PIB Press Release)</a></li><li>November 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.essentialmedicine.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/uaem-white-paper-on-indian-bd-act.pdf">Annette Lin et al., The Bayh-Dole Act and Promoting the Transfer of Technology of Publicly Funded-Research (UAEM White Paper on the Proposed Indian Bayh-Dole Analogue)</a> <br /></li><li>November 1, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2008/10/11002336/2008/11/01001052/Not-in-public-interest.html?d=2">Editorial: Not in Public Interest (Mint)</a><br /></li><li>November 12, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.genomeweb.com/biotechtransferweek/india-mulls-bill-modeled-bayh-dole-critics-claim-it-may-stifle-innovation">Ben Butkus, As India Mulls Bill Modeled on Bayh-Dole, Critics Claim It May Stifle Innovation (Biotech Transfer Weekly)</a> <br /></li><li>December 16, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/2008-December/002973.html">Pranesh Prakash, Indian "Bayh Dole" Bill before Parliament (Commons Law)</a></li><li>January 23, 2009: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/time-to-rethink-intellectual-property-laws-.html">Editorial: Time to Rethink Intellectual Property Laws (SciDev.net)</a><br /></li><li>March 12, 2009: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/seta/2009/03/12/stories/2009031250021400.htm">Feroz Ali Khader, Does Patenting Research Change the Culture of Science? (The Hindu)</a><br /></li><li>April 24, 2009: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/450560/">Sunil Abraham & Pranesh Prakash, Does India Need Its Own Bayh-Dole? (Indian Express)</a></li><li>September 21, 2009: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2009/09/20235448/Proposed-patent-Bill-is-flawed.html?h=A1">C.H. Unnikrishnan, Proposed Patent Bill Is Flawed, Say Experts (Mint)</a></li><li>September 23, 2009: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Articles/PrintArticle.aspx?artid=F92B5F6A-A789-11DE-A362-000B5DABF613">Editorial: An Idea That's A Patent Misfit (Mint)</a><br /></li><li>October 2009: <a class="external-link" href="http://ictsd.org/downloads/2009/11/sampat-policy-brief-5.pdf">Bhaven N. Sampat, The Bayh-Dole Model in Developing Countries: Reflections on the Indian Bill on Publicly Funded Intellectual Property (UNCTAD - ICTSD Policy Brief No. 5)</a><br /></li><li>January 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.icrier.org/publication/WorkingPaper244.pdf">Amit Shovon Ray & Sabyasachi Saha, Patenting Public-Funded Research for Technology Transfer: A Conceptual-Empirical Synthesis of US Evidence and Lessons for India (ICRIER Working Paper No. 244)</a></li><li>January 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/7196/1/JIPR%2015%281%29%2019-34.pdf">Mrinalini Kochupillai, <em>The Protection and Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill, 2008: A Critique in the Light of India's Innovation Environment</em>, 15 J. Intell. Prop. Rights 19 (2010)</a><br /></li><li>January 16, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.financialexpress.com/printer/news/567807/">Amit Shovon Ray & Sabyasachi Saha, Intellectual Bottlenecks (Financial Express)</a><br /></li><li>January 21, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/latha-jishnu-perilsthe-us-model/383179/">Latha Jishnu, Perils of the US Model (Business Standard)</a></li><li>January 22, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Scientists-fume-over-new-patent-bill/articleshow/5486588.cms">Rema Nagarajan, Scientists Fume Over New Patent Bill (Times of India)</a></li><li>January 26, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2010/01/26202909/The-problem-with-patents.html">Shamnad Basheer, The Problem with Patents (Mint)</a><br /></li><li>February 5, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2010/02/05/stories/2010020550960900.htm">Shalini Butani, Public Research May Become More Private (Business Line)</a></li><li>February 8, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2010/02/07225403/Scientists-want-changes-in-inn.html">Anika Gupta, Scientists Want Changes in Innovation Bill (Mint)</a></li><li>February 9, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Articles/PrintArticle.aspx?artid=AD533A7C-15A2-11DF-A92D-000B5DABF636">C.H. Unnikrishnan, Parliament Panel Wants Govt Review on Innovation Bill (Mint)</a><br /></li><li>February 15, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20100215&filename=croc&sec_id=10&sid=2">Leena Menghaney, A Bad Example from the U.S. (Down to Earth)</a></li><li>February 19, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/581701/">Pranesh Prakash, A Patent Conundrum (Indian Express)</a><br /></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/search/label/Bayh%20Dole">SpicyIP coverage by tag 'Bayh Dole'</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://spicyip.com/ip-resources">Presentations from NUJS, Kolkata conference on the PUPFIP Bill</a><br /></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3><a name="on-bayh-dole"></a>On Bayh-Dole</h3>
<strong>Newspapers and Magazines</strong>
<ul><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244">Marcia Angell, The Truth About the Drug Companies, New York Review of Books, July 15, 2004</a><br /></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/09/19/8272884/index.htm">Clifton Leaf, The Law of Unintended Consequences, Fortune Magazine, Sept. 19, 2005</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.economist.com/science/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=5327661">The Bayh-Dole act's 25th birthday, The Economist, Dec. 20, 2005</a><br /></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/technology/07unbox.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print">Janet Rae-Dupree, When Academia Puts Profit Ahead of Wonder, N.Y. Times, Sept. 7, 2008</a><br /></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Academic Journals</strong>
<ul><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/20_02_02.pdf">Amy Kapczynski et al., Addressing Global Health Inequities: An Open Licensing Approach for University Innovation, 20 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1031 (2005) </a><br /></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060262">Anthony So et al., <em>Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries</em>, 6 PLoS Biol. e262 (2008)</a><br /></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?66+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+289+%28WinterSpring+2003%29">Arti K. Rai & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, <em>Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine</em>, 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 289 (2003)</a></li><li>David C. Mowery & Arvids A. Aiedonis, <em>Numbers, Quality, and Entry: How Has the Bayh-Dole Act Affected U.S. University Patenting and Licensing?</em>, 1 Innovation Pol'y Econ. 187 (2000)</li><li>David C. Mowery, et al., <em>Learning to Patent: Institutional Experience, Learning, and the Characteristics of U.S. University Patents After the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992</em>, 48 Mgmt. Sci. 73 (2002)</li><li>Donald Kennedy, <em>Editorial: Enclosing the Research Commons</em>, 294 Science 2249 (2001)</li><li>F.M. Scherer, <em>The Political Economy of Patent Policy Reform in the United States</em>, 7 Colorado J. Telecomm. High Tech. L. 167 (2009)</li><li>Henry Steck, <em>Corporatization of the University: Seeking Conceptual Clarity</em>, 585 Annals of Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 66 (2003)</li><li>Jason Owen-Smith, <em>Trends and Transitions in the Institutional Environment for Public and Private Science</em>, 49 Higher Educ. 91 (2005)</li><li>Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, <em>University Licensing and the Bayh-Dole Act</em>, 301 Science 1052 (2003)</li><li>Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, <em>Who is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing</em>, 48 Mgmt. Sci. 90 (2002)</li><li>Josh Lerner,<em> Review of 'Ivory Tower'</em>, 43 J. Econ. Litt. 510 (2005)</li><li>Joshua B. Powers,<em> R&D Funding Source and University Technology Transfer: What is Stimulating Universities to Be More Entrepreneurial?</em>, 45 Research in Higher Educ. 1 (2004)</li><li>Lita Nelsen, <em>The Rise of Intellectual Property Protection in the American University</em>, 279 Science 1460 (1998)</li><li>Marcia Angell & Arnold S. Relman, <em>Patents, Profits & American Medicine: Conflicts of Interest in the Testing & Marketing of New Drugs</em>, 131 Daedalus 102 (2002)</li><li>Maria Jelenik, <em>Review: Two Books on Technology Transfer</em>, 50 Admin. Sci. Q. 131 (2005) (Review of '<em>Ivory Tower</em>')</li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5364/698">Michael
A. Heller & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The
Anticommons in Biomedical Research, 280 Science 698 (1998)</a></li><li>Rebecca Henderson, et al., <em>Universities as a Source of Commercia Technology: A Detailed Analsis of University Patenting, 1965-1988</em>, 80 Rev. Econ. Statistics 119 (1998)</li><li>Rebecca S. Eisenberg, <em>Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government-Sponsorded Research</em>, 82 Virginia L. Rev. 1663 (1996)</li><li>Rebecca S. Eisenberg & Richard R. Nelson, <em>Public vs. Proprietary Science: A Fruitful Tension?</em>, 131 Daedalus 89 (2002)</li><li>Richard Jensen & Marie Thursby,<em> Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions</em>, 91 Am. Econ. Rev. 240 (2001)</li><li>Roberto Mazzoleni & Richard R. Nelson, <em>Economic Theories about the Benefits and Costs of Patents</em>, 32 J. Econ. Issues 1031 (1998)</li><li>Thomas A. Massaro,<em> Innovation, Technology Transfer, and Patent Policy: The University Contribution</em>, 82 Virginia L. Rev. 1729 (1996)</li><li>Walter W. Powell & Jason Owen-Smith, <em>Universities and the Market for Intellectual Property in the Life Sciences</em>, 17 J. Pol'y Analysis Mgmt. 253 (1998)</li><li>William M. Sage, <em>Funding Fairness: Public Investment, Proprietary Rights and Access to Health Care Technology</em>, 82 Virginia L. Rev. 1737 (1996)</li><li>Zach W. Hall & Christopher Scott, <em>University-Industry Partnership</em>, 291 Science 553 (2001)</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Resources</strong>
<ul><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/issue2003_5.htm">TIIP Newsletter: Patents and University Technology Transfer (2003) </a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.bayhdole25.org">Bay-Dole 25</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<img src="file:///C:/Users/REBECCA/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png" alt="" />
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/why-no-pupfip'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/why-no-pupfip</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshBayh-DoleAccess to KnowledgeAccess to MedicineIntellectual Property RightsPUPFIPPatentsPublications2011-09-12T11:03:09ZPageComments on the Draft Rules under the Information Technology Act
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-draft-rules
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society commissioned an advocate, Ananth Padmanabhan, to produce a comment on the Draft Rules that have been published by the government under the Information Technology Act. In his comments, Mr. Padmanabhan highlights the problems with each of the rules and presents specific recommendations on how they can be improved. These comments were sent to the Department of Information and Technology.</b>
<h2><em>Comments on the Draft Rules under the Information Technology Act as Amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008</em></h2>
<p><em><strong>Submitted by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong>Prepared by Ananth Padmanabhan, Advocate in the Madras High Court</strong></em></p>
<h2>Interception, Monitoring and Decryption</h2>
<h3>Section 69</h3>
<p>The section says:</p>
<ol><li>Where the Central Government or a State Government or any of its officer specially authorised by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource. </li><li>The procedure and safeguards subject to which such interception or monitoring or decryption may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed.</li><li>The subscriber or intermediary or any person in-charge of the computer resource shall, when called upon by any agency referred to in sub-section (1), extend all facilities and technical assistance to-</li></ol>
<p> (a) provide access to or secure access to the computer resource
generating transmitting, receiving or storing such information; or</p>
<p>
(b) intercept, monitor, or decrypt the information, as the case may be; or</p>
(c) provide information stored in computer resource.
<ol><li>The subscriber or intermediary or any person who fails to assist the agency referred to in sub-section (3) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. <br /></li></ol>
<p><strong><br /></strong></p>
<p><strong>Recommendation #1</strong><br />Section 69(3) should be amended and the following proviso be inserted:</p>
<p class="callout">Provided that only those intermediaries with respect to any information or computer resource that is sought to be monitored, intercepted or decrypted, shall be subject to the obligations contained in this sub-section, who are, in the opinion of the appropriate authority, prima facie in control of such transmission of the information or computer resource. The nexus between the intermediary and the information or the computer resource that is sought to be intercepted, monitored or decrypted should be clearly indicated in the direction referred to in sub-section (1) of this section.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Reasons for the Recommendation </strong><br />In the case of any information or computer resource, there may be more than one intermediary who is associated with such information. This is because “intermediary” is defined in section 2(w) of the amended Act as,</p>
<p class="callout">“with respect to any electronic record means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record, including telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, webhosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes”. </p>
<p><br />The State or Central Government should not be given wide-ranging powers to enforce cooperation on the part of any such intermediary without there being a clear nexus between the information that is sought to be decrypted or monitored by the competent authority, and the control that any particular intermediary may have over such information.</p>
<p>To give an illustration, merely because some information may have been posted on an online portal, the computer resources in the office of the portal should not be monitored unless the portal has some concrete control over the nature of information posted in it. This has to be stipulated in the order of the Central or State Government which authorizes interception of the intermediary. </p>
<p><br /><strong>Recommendation #2</strong><br />Section 69(4) should be repealed.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Reasons for the Recommendation</strong><br />The closest parallels to Section 69 of the Act are the provisions in the Telegraph Rules which were brought in after the decision in PUCL v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301, famously known as the telephone tapping case.</p>
<p>Section 69(4) fixes tremendous liability on the intermediary for non-cooperation. This is violative of Article 14. Similar provisions in the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, which demand cooperation from members of the public as regards production of documents, letters etc., and impose punishment for non-cooperation on their part, impose a maximum punishment of one month. It is bewildering why the punishment is 7 years imprisonment for an intermediary, when the only point of distinction between an intermediary under the IT Act and a member of the public under the IPC and CrPC is the difference in the media which contains the information.</p>
<p>Section 69(3) is akin to the duty cast upon members of the public to extend cooperation under Section 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by way of providing information as to commission of any offence, or the duty, when a summons is issued by the Court or the police, to produce documents under Sections 91 and 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The maximum punishment for non-cooperation prescribed by the Indian Penal Code for omission to cooperate or wilful breach of summons is only a month under Sections 175 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code. Even the maximum punishment for furnishing false information to the police is only six months under Section 177 of the IPC. When this is the case with production of documents required for the purpose of trial or inquiry, it is wholly arbitrary to impose a punishment of six years in the case of intermediaries who do not extend cooperation for providing access to a computer resource which is merely apprehended as being a threat to national security etc. A mere apprehension, however reasonable it may be, should not be used to pin down a liability of such extreme nature on the intermediary.</p>
<p>This would also amount to a violation of Articles 19(1)(a) as well as 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, not to mention Article 20(3). To give an example, much of the information received from confidential sources by members of the press would be stored in computer resources. By coercing them, through the 7 year imprisonment threat, to allow access to this computer resource and thereby part with this information, the State is directly infringing on their right under Article 19(1)(a). Furthermore, if the “subscriber” is the accused, then section 69(4) goes against Article 20(3) by forcing the accused to bear witness against himself.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Draft Rules under Section 69 <br /></h3>
<p><strong>Rule 3</strong><br />Directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource under sub- section (2) of section 69 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) shall not be issued except by an order made by the concerned competent authority who is Union Home Secretary in case of Government of India; the Secretary in-charge of Home Department in a State Government or Union Territory as the case may be. In unavoidable circumstances, such order may be made by an officer, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who has been duly authorised by the Union Home Secretary or by an officer equivalent to rank of Joint Secretary to Government of India duly authorised by the Secretary in-charge of Home Department in the State Government or Union Territory, as the case may be:</p>
<p>Provided that in emergency cases – <br />(i) in remote areas, where obtaining of prior directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of information is not feasible; or <br />(ii) for operational reasons, where obtaining of prior directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource is not feasible;</p>
<p>the required interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource shall be carried out with the prior approval of the Head or the second senior most officer of the Security and Law Enforcement Agencies (hereinafter referred to as the said Security Agencies) at the Central Level and the officers authorised in this behalf, not below the rank of Inspector General of Police or an officer of equivalent rank, at the State and Union Territory level. The concerned competent authority, however, shall be informed of such interceptions or monitoring or decryption by the approving authority within three working days and that such interceptions or monitoring or decryption shall be got confirmed by the concerned competent authority within a period of seven working days. If the confirmation from the concerned competent authority is not received within the stipulated seven working days, such interception or monitoring or decryption shall cease and the same information shall not be intercepted or monitored or decrypted thereafter without the prior approval of the concerned competent authority, as the case may be. </p>
<p><br /><strong>Recommendation #3</strong><br />In Rule 3, the following proviso may be inserted:</p>
<p class="callout">“Provided that in the event of cooperation by any intermediary being required for the purpose of interception, monitoring or decryption of such information as is referred to in this Rule, prior permission from a Supervisory Committee headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Courts shall be obtained before seeking to enforce the Order mentioned in this Rule against such intermediary.”</p>
<p><strong><br /></strong></p>
<p><strong>Reasons for the Recommendation </strong><br />Section 69 and the draft rules suffer from absence of essential procedural safeguards. This has come in due to the blanket emulation of the Telegraph Rules. Additional safeguards should have been prescribed to ensure that the intermediary is put to minimum hardship when carrying on the monitoring or being granted access to a computer resource. Those are akin to a raid, in the sense that it can stop an online e-commerce portal from carrying out operations for a day or even more, thus affecting their revenue. It is therefore recommended that in any situation where cooperation from the intermediary is sought, prior judicial approval has to be taken. The Central or State Government cannot be the sole authority in such cases.</p>
<p>Furthermore, since access to the computer resource is required, an executive order should not suffice, and a search warrant or an equivalent which results from a judicial application of the mind (by the Supervisory Committee, for instance) should be required.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Recommendation #4</strong><br />The following should be inserted after the last line in Rule 22:</p>
<p class="callout">The Review Committee shall also have the power to award compensation to the intermediary in cases where the intermediary has suffered loss or damage due to the actions of the competent authority while implementing the order issued under Rule 3.</p>
<p><strong><br /></strong></p>
<p><strong>Reasons for the Recommendation</strong><br />The Review Committee should be given the power to award compensation to the loss suffered by the intermediary in cases where the police use equipment or software for monitoring/decryption that causes damage to the intermediary’s computer resources / networks. The Review Committee should also be given the power to award compensation in the case of monitoring directions which are later found to be frivolous or even worse, borne out of mala fide considerations. These provisions will act as a disincentive against the abuse of power contained in Section 69. </p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Blocking of Access to Information</h2>
<h3>Section 69A</h3>
<p>The section provides for blocking of websites if the government is satisfied that it is in the interests of the purposes enlisted in the section. It also provides for penalty of up to seven years for intermediaries who fail to comply with the directions under this section. <br />The rules under this section describe the procedure which have to be followed barring which the review committee may, after due examination of the procedural defects, order an unblocking of the website.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Section 69A(3)</strong><br />The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Recommendation #5</strong><br />The penalty for intermediaries must be lessened.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Reasons for Recommendations </strong><br />The penal provision in this section which prescribes up to seven years imprisonment and a fine on an intermediary who fails to comply with the directions so issued is also excessively harsh. Considering the fact that various mechanisms are available to escape the blocking of websites, the intermediaries must be given enough time and space to administer the block effectively and strict application of the penal provisions must be avoided in bona fide cases.</p>
<p>The criticism about Section 69 and the draft rules in so far as intermediary liability is concerned, will also apply mutatis mutandis to these rules as well as Section 69A.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Draft Rules under Section 69A</h3>
<p><strong>Rule 22: Review Committee</strong><br />The Review Committee shall meet at least once in two months and record its findings whether the directions issued under Rule (16) are in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 69A of the Act. When the Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions referred to above, it may set aside the directions and order for unblocking of said information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource for public access.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Recommendation #6</strong><br />A permanent Review Committee should be specially for the purposes of examining procedural lapses. </p>
<p><br /><strong>Reasons for Recommendation </strong><br />Rule 22 provides for a review committee which shall meet a minimum of once in every two months and order for the unblocking of a site of due procedures have not been followed. This would mean that if a site is blocked, there could take up to two months for a procedural lapse to be corrected and it to be unblocked. Even a writ filed against the policing agencies for unfair blocking would probably take around the same time. Also, it could well be the case that the review committee will be overborne by cases and may fall short of time to inquire into each. Therefore, it is recommended that a permanent Review Committee be set up which will monitor procedural lapses and ensure that there is no blocking in the first place before all the due procedural requirements are met. <br /><br /></p>
<h2>Monitoring and Collection of Traffic Data</h2>
<h3>Draft Rules under Section 69B</h3>
<p>The section provides for monitoring of computer networks or resources if the Central Government is satisfied that conditions so mentioned are satisfied.</p>
<p>The rules provide for the manner in which the monitoring will be done, the process by which the directions for the same will be issued and the liabilities of the intermediaries and monitoring officers with respect to confidentiality of the information so monitored.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Grounds for Monitoring </strong><br /><strong>Rule 4</strong><br />The competent authority may issue directions for monitoring and collection of traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource for any or all of the following purposes related to cyber security:<br />(a) forecasting of imminent cyber incidents;<br />(b) monitoring network application with traffic data or information on computer resource;<br />(c) identification and determination of viruses/computer contaminant;<br />(d) tracking cyber security breaches or cyber security incidents;<br />(e) tracking computer resource breaching cyber security or spreading virus/computer contaminants;<br />(f) identifying or tracking of any person who has contravened, or is suspected of having contravened or being likely to contravene cyber security;<br />(g) undertaking forensic of the concerned computer resource as a part of investigation or internal audit of information security practices in the computer resource;<br />(h) accessing a stored information for enforcement of any provisions of the laws relating to cyber security for the time being in force;<br />(i) any other matter relating to cyber security.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Rule 6</strong><br />No direction for monitoring and collection of traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource shall be given for purposes other than those specified in Rule (4).</p>
<p><br /><strong>Recommendation #7</strong><br />Clauses (a), (b), (c), and (i) of Rule 4 must be repealed.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Reasons for Recommendations </strong><br />The term “cyber incident” has not been defined, and “cyber security” has been provided a circular definition. Rule 6 clearly states that no direction for monitoring and collection of traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource shall be given for purposes other than those specified in Rule 4. Therefore, it may prima facie appear that the government is trying to lay down clear and strict safeguards when it comes to monitoring at the expense of a citizens' privacy. However, Rule 4(i) allows the government to monitor if it is satisfied that it is “any matter related to cyber security”. This may well play as a ‘catch all’ clause to legalise any kind of monitoring and collection and therefore defeats the purported intention of Rule 6 of safeguarding citizen’s interests against arbitrary and groundless intrusion of privacy. Also, the question of degree of liability of the intermediaries or persons in charge of the computer resources for leak of secret and confidential information remains unanswered. <br /><br /><strong>Rule 24: Disclosure of monitored data </strong><br />Any monitoring or collection of traffic data or information in computer resource by the employee of an intermediary or person in-charge of computer resource or a person duly authorised by the intermediary, undertaken in course of his duty relating to the services provided by that intermediary, shall not be unlawful, if such activities are reasonably necessary for the discharge his duties as per the prevailing industry practices, in connection with :<br />(vi) Accessing or analysing information from a computer resource for the purpose of tracing a computer resource or any person who has contravened, or is suspected of having contravened or being likely to contravene, any provision of the Act that is likely to have an adverse impact on the services provided by the intermediary.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Recommendation #8</strong><br />Safeguards must be introduced with respect to exercise of powers conferred by Rule 24(vi). </p>
<p><br /><strong>Reasons for Recommendations </strong><br />Rule 24(vi) provides for access, collection and monitoring of information from a computer resource for the purposes of tracing another computer resource which has or is likely to contravened provisions of the Act and this is likely to have an adverse impact on the services provided by the intermediary. Analysis of a computer resource may reveal extremely confidential and important data, the compromise of which may cause losses worth millions. Therefore, the burden of proof for such an intrusion of privacy of the computer resource, which is first used to track another computer resource which is likely to contravene the Act, should be heavy. Also, this violation of privacy should be weighed against the benefits accruing to the intermediary. The framing of sub rules under this clearly specifying the same is recommended. </p>
<p><br />The disclosure of sensitive information by a monitoring agency for purposes of ‘general trends’ and ‘general analysis of cyber information’ is uncalled for as it dissipates information among lesser bodies that are not governed by sufficient safeguards and this could result in outright violation of citizen’s privacy.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Manner of Functioning of CERT-In</h2>
<h3>Draft Rules under Section 70B(5)</h3>
<p>Section 70B provides for an Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) which shall serve as a national agency for performing duties as prescribed by clause 4 of this section in accordance to the rules as prescribed.<br />The rules provide for CERT-In’s authority, composition of advisory committee, constituency, functions and responsibilities, services, stakeholders, policies and procedures, modus operandi, disclosure of information and measures to deal with non compliance of orders so issued. However, there are a few issues which need to be addressed as under:</p>
<p><br /><strong>Definitions</strong><br />In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires, “Cyber security incident” means any real or suspected adverse event in relation to cyber security that violates an explicit or implied security policy resulting in unauthorized access, denial of service/ disruption, unauthorized use of a computer resource for processing or storage of information or changes to data, information without authorization.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Recommendation #9</strong><br />The words ‘or implied’’ must be excluded from rule 2(g) which defines ‘cyber security incident’, and the term ‘security policy’ must be qualified to state what security policy is being referred to.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Reasons for Recommendation</strong><br />“Cyber security incident” means any real or suspected adverse event in relation to cyber security that violates an explicit or implied security policy resulting in unauthorized access, denial of service/disruption, unauthorized use of a computer resource for processing or storage of information or changes to data, information without authorization. </p>
<p><br />Thus, the section defines any circumstance where an explicit or implied security policy is contravened as a ‘cyber security incident’. Without clearly stating what the security policy is, an inquiry into its contravention is against an individual’s civil rights. If an individual’s actions are to be restricted for reasons of security, then the restrictions must be expressly defined and such restrictions cannot be said to be implied.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Rule 13(4): Disclosure of Information </strong><br />Save as provided in sub-rules (1), (2), (3) of rule 13, it may be necessary or expedient to so to do, for CERT-In to disclose all relevant information to the stakeholders, in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence relating to cognizable offence or enhancing cyber security in the country.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Recommendation #10</strong><br />Burden of necessity for disclosure of information should be made heavier. </p>
<p><br /><strong>Reasons for the Recommendation</strong><br />Rule 13(4) allows the disclosure of information by CERT-In in the interests of ‘enhancing cyber security’. This enhancement however needs to be weighed against the detriment caused to the individual and the burden of proof must be on the CERT-In to show that this was the only way of achieving the required. </p>
<p><br /><strong>Rule 19: Protection for actions taken in Good Faith </strong><br />All actions of CERT-In and its staff acting on behalf of CERT-In are taken in good faith in fulfillment of its mandated roles and functions, in pursuance of the provisions of the Act or any rule, regulations or orders made thereunder. CERT-In and its staff acting on behalf of CERT-In shall not be held responsible for any unintended fallout of their actions.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Recommendation #11</strong><br />CERT-In should be made liable for their negligent action and no presumption of good faith should be as such provided for. </p>
<p><br /><strong>Reasons for the Recommendation </strong><br />Rule 19 provides for the protection of CERT-In members for the actions taken in ‘good faith’. It defines such actions as ‘unintended fallouts’. Clearly, if information has been called for and the same is highly confidential, then this rule bars the remedy for any leak of the same due to the negligence of the CERT-In members. This is clearly not permissible as an agency that calls for delicate information should also be held responsible for mishandling the same, intentionally or negligently. Good faith can be established if the need arises, and no presumption as to good faith needs to be provided.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Draft Rules under Section 52</h3>
<p>These rules, entitled the “Cyber Appellate Tribunal (Salary, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2009” are meant to prescribe the framework for the independent and smooth functioning of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. This is so because of the specific functions entrusted to this Appellate Tribunal. Under the IT Act, 2000 as amended by the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008, this Tribunal has the power to entertain appeals against orders passed by the adjudicating officer under Section 47.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Recommendation #12</strong><br />Amend qualifications Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003, to require judicial training and experience.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Reasons for the Recommendation</strong><br />It is submitted that an examination of these rules governing the Appellate Tribunal cannot be made independent of the powers and qualifications of Adjudicating Officers who are the original authority to decide on contravention of provisions in the IT Act dealing with damage to computer system and failure to furnish information. Even as per the Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003, persons who did not possess judicial experience and training, such as those holding the post of Director in the Central Government, were qualified to perform functions under Section 46 and decide whether there has been unauthorized access to a computer system. This involves appreciation of evidence and is not a merely administrative function that could be carried on by any person who has basic knowledge of information technology.</p>
<p>Viewed from this angle, the qualifications of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal members should have been made much tighter as per the new draft rules. The above rules when read with Section 50 of the IT Act, as amended in 2008, do not say anything about the qualification of the technical members apart from the fact that such person shall not be appointed as a Member, unless he is, or has been, in the service of the Central Government or a State Government, and has held the post of Additional Secretary or Joint Secretary or any equivalent post. Though special knowledge of, and professional experience in, information technology, telecommunication, industry, management or consumer affairs, has been prescribed in the Act as a requirement for any technical member.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Draft Rules under Section 54</h3>
<p>These Rules do not suffer any defect and provide for a fair and reasonable enquiry in so far as allegations made against the Chairperson or the members of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal are concerned.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Penal Provisions</h2>
<h3>Section 66A</h3>
<p>Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,<br /> (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or<br /> (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,<br /> (c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,<br />shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.<br />Sec. 32 of the 2008 Act inserts Sec. 66A which provides for penal measures for mala fide use of electronic resources to send information detrimental to the receiver. For the section to be attracted the ‘information’ needs to be grossly offensive, menacing, etc. and the sender needs to have known it to be false.</p>
<p>While the intention of the section – to prevent activities such as spam-sending – might be sound and even desirable, there is still a strong argument to be made that words is submitted that the use of words such as ‘annoyance’ and ‘inconvenience’ (in s.66A(c)) are highly problematic. Further, something can be grossly offensive without touching upon any of the conditions laid down in Article 19(2). Without satisfying the conditions of Article 19(2), this provision would be ultra vires the Constitution.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Recommendation #13</strong><br />The section should be amended and words which lead to ambiguity must be excluded.</p>
<p><br /><strong>Reasons for the Recommendation </strong><br />A clearer phrasing as to what exactly could convey ‘ill will’ or cause annoyance in the electronic forms needs to be clarified. It is possible in some electronic forms for the receiver to know the content of the information. In such circumstances, if such a possibility is ignored and annoyance does occur, is the sender still liable? Keeping in mind the complexity of use of electronic modes of transmitting information, it can be said that several such conditions arise which the section has vaguely covered. Therefore, a stricter and more clinical approach is necessary. </p>
<p><br /><strong>Recommendation #14</strong><br />A proviso should be inserted to this section providing for specific exceptions to the offence contained in this section for reasons such as fair comment, truth, criticism of actions of public officials etc. </p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Reasons for the Recommendation </strong><br />The major problem with Section 66A lies in clause (c) as per which any electronic mail or electronic mail message sent with the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience is covered within the ambit of offensive messages. This does not pay heed to the fact that even a valid and true criticism of the actions of an individual, when brought to his notice, can amount to annoyance. Indeed, it may be brought to his attention with the sole purpose of causing annoyance to him. When interpreting the Information Technology Act, it is to be kept in mind that the offences created under this Act should not go beyond those prescribed in the Indian Penal Code except where there is a wholly new activity or conduct, such as hacking for instance, which is sought to be criminalized.</p>
<p>Offensive messages have been criminalized in the Indian Penal Code subject to the conditions specified in Chapter XXII being present. It is not an offence to verbally insult or annoy someone without anything more being done such as a threat to commit an offence, etc. When this is the case with verbal communications, there is no reason to make an exception for those made through the electronic medium and bring any electronic mail or message sent with the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience within the purview of an offensive message.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Section 66F</h3>
<p>The definition of cyber-terrorism under this provision is too wide and can cover several activities which are not actually of a “terrorist” character. <br />Section 66F(1)(B) is particularly harsh and goes much beyond acts of “terrorism” to include various other activities within its purview. As per this provision, <br />“[w]hoever knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons for the security of the State or foreign relations, or any restricted information, data or computer database, with reasons to believe that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause or is likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of individuals or otherwise, commits the offence of cyber terrorism.”</p>
<p>This provision suffers from several defects and hence ought to be repealed. </p>
<p><br /><strong>Recommendation #15</strong><br />Section 66F(1)(B) has to be repealed or suitably amended to water down the excessively harsh operation of this provision. The restrictive nature of the information that is unauthorisedly accessed must be confined to those that are restricted on grounds of security of the State or foreign relations. The use to which such information may be put should again be confined to injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order. A mere advantage to a foreign nation cannot render the act of unauthorized access one of cyber-terrorism as long as such advantage is not injurious or harmful in any manner to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order. A mens rea requirement should also be introduced whereby mere knowledge that the information which is unauthorisedly accessed can be put to such uses as given in this provision should not suffice for the unauthorised access to amount to cyber-terrorism. The unauthorised access should be with the intention to put such information to this use. The amended provision would read as follows:</p>
<p class="callout">“[w]hoever knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons for the security of the State or foreign relations, with the intention that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, commits the offence of cyber terrorism.”</p>
<p class="callout"> </p>
<p><strong>Reasons for the Recommendation </strong><br />The ambit of this provision goes much beyond information, data or computer database which is restricted only on grounds of security of the State or foreign relations and extends to “any restricted information, data or computer database”. This expression covers any government file which is marked as confidential or saved in a computer used exclusively by the government. It also covers any file saved in a computer exclusively used by a private corporation or enterprise. Even the use to which such information can be put need not be confined to those that cause or are likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, or friendly relations with foreign States. Information or data which is defamatory, amounting to contempt of court, or against decency / morality, are all covered within the scope of this provision. This goes way beyond the idea of a terrorist activity and poses serious questions. While there is no one globally accepted definition of cyberterrorism, it is tough to conceive of slander as a terrorist activity.</p>
<p>To give an illustration, if a journalist managed to unauthorisedly break into a restricted database, even one owned by a private corporation, and stumbled upon information that is defamatory in character, he would have committed an act of “cyber-terrorism.” Various kinds of information pertaining to corruption in the judiciary may be precluded from being unauthorisedly accessed on the ground that such information may be put to use for committing contempt of court. Any person who gains such access would again qualify as a cyber-terrorist. The factual situations are numerous where this provision can be put to gross misuse with the ulterior motive of muzzling dissent or freezing access to information that may be restricted in nature but nonetheless have a bearing on probity in public life etc. It is therefore imperative that this provision may be toned down as recommended above. <br /><br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-draft-rules'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-draft-rules</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActEncryptionIntellectual Property RightsIntermediary LiabilityPublicationsCensorship2011-09-21T06:13:42ZBlog EntryReport on Open Standards for GISW 2008
https://cis-india.org/publications-automated/cis/sunil/Open-Standards-GISW-2008.pdf
<b>A report on Open Standards prepared by Sunil Abraham, for the Global Information Society Watch 2008. As on their site, GISWatch focuses on monitoring progress made towards implementing the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) action agenda and other international and national commitments related to information and communications. It also provides analytical overviews of institutions involved in implementation. </b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/publications-automated/cis/sunil/Open-Standards-GISW-2008.pdf'>https://cis-india.org/publications-automated/cis/sunil/Open-Standards-GISW-2008.pdf</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsPublications2011-08-23T02:57:53ZFileResponse to the Draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance
https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/the-response
<b>Pranesh Prakash, Programme Manager at the Centre for Internet and Society, authored a response to the draft Open Standards Policy document published by the National Informatics Centre,
Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology.</b>
<p><span id="parent-fieldname-description" class="kssattr-atfieldname-description kssattr-templateId-widgets/textarea kssattr-macro-textarea-field-view inlineEditable">The National Informatics Centre (NIC),
Department of Information Technology (DIT), Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) has recently published a <a class="external-link" href="http://egovstandards.gov.in/Policy_Open_Std_review">Draft Policy on Open Standards for eGovernance</a>. Members of the public have been invited to provide feedback to the document. The last date for feedback is 21st November 2008.</span></p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society has prepared a draft response to the draft policy. This response letter only deals
with the policy document from the perspective of the global FLOSS
movement. This is not meant to be comprehensive feedback to the
document itself.</p>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Institutional Co-signatories</h3>
<ol><li>Richard Stallman, Founder, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.fsf.org">Free Software Foundation</a>, USA</li><li>Mishi Choudhary, Partner, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.sflc.org">Software Freedom Law Centre</a>, USA <br /></li><li>Dr. Alvin Marcelo, Director for Southeast Asia, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.iosn.net">International Open Source Network</a>, the Philippines <br /></li><li>Lawrence Liang, Founder, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.altlawforum.org">Alternative Law Forum</a>, Bangalore, India<br /></li><li>Dr. G. Nagarjuna, Chaiman, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.gnu.org.in">Free Software Foundation of India</a>, Mumbai, India<br /></li><li>Vinay Sreenivasa, Member, <a class="external-link" href="http://itforchange.net">IT for Change</a>, Bangalore, India <br /></li></ol>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Individual Co-signatories<strong> </strong></h3>
<ol><li>Shahid Akhtar, Founder, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.iosn.net">International Open Source Network</a>, Canada</li><li>Denis Jaromil Rojo, Developer, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.dyne.org">Dyne</a>, Netherlands<br /></li><li>Raj Mathur, Consultant, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.kandalaya.org">Kandalaya</a>, New Delhi, India<br /></li><li>Marek Tuszynski, Founder, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.tacticaltech.org">Tactical Technology Collective</a>, United Kingdom</li></ol>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Text <br /></h3>
<p>Dear Sir or Madam,</p>
<p>The government had done a commendable job of releasing a progressive and forward-looking policy on the usage of open standards in e-governance. Globally the European Union's Electronic Interoperability Framework (EIF) guidelines (version 2 of which is currently in the draft stage) is considered to be the gold standard as far as open standard policy is concerned. The draft National Policy on Open Standards meets all of the EIF's four open standard requirements. However, there is still some room for improvement as discussed below.</p>
<p>While the document talks of the standard being royalty free (4.1 and 5.1.1) and without any patent-related encumbrance (4.1), it limits those requirements "for the life time of the standard" (5.1.1), which seems a bit ambiguous and is not defined in the appendix either. It would be preferable to make it royalty-free for the lifetime of the patents (if any) as open archival material shouldn't one day (after the end of "life time of the standard", and before the expiry of the patents) suddenly be forced to become paid archives. It would be desirable to make declarations of patent non-enforcement irrevocable (as the EU EIF does), by incorporating a wording such as: "irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis, without any patent-related encumbrance". </p>
<p>There should also be a separate provision in the "policy statement on open standards adoption in e-governance" section of the document making explicit that there can be no restraint on use or implementation of the standard (as has been stated in the "guiding principles" section). </p>
<p>Perhaps when talking of specification documents (5.1.5) the words "any restrictions" could be amended to include a few examples of what the term "any restrictions" would include. The document could make explicit that it must be permissible for all to copy, distribute and use the specifications freely, without any cost or legal barriers. </p>
<p>Sometimes private companies can interfere with the standardisation process, the document could perhaps be more explicit regarding remedial measures that could be undertaken in the event – for example use of competition law, as in the case of the EU EIF which states: "Practices distorting the definition and evolution of open standards must be addressed immediately to protect the integrity of the standardisation process." </p>
<p>As it stands, the draft document addresses many notions of openness (freely accessible, at zero cost, non-discriminatory, extensible, and without any legal hindrances, thus preventing vendor lock-in), and there is much to applaud in it. It has a clear implementation mechanism, with a laudable aim of establishing a monitoring agency and an Open Source Solutions Laboratory. It is applicable not only to future e-governance initiatives, but to existing ones as well. Furthermore, it also has an in-built review mechanism, which is crucial given the rate of change of technologies and consequently of the requirements of the government. Thus, the draft policy document very clearly encourages competition and innovation in the software industry and promotes the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) movement and industry. As researchers from UNU MERIT have pointed out, even a nominal fee for usage of a standard can lead to exclusion of open source software implementations, leading to less competition in the software industry. Thus, all in all this draft document represents a commendable effort by the Indian government towards a sustainable and robust e-governance structure based on open standards. However, a few small amendments as suggested in this letter would make it an even greater guarantor of openness.</p>
<p><br />Yours sincerely,<br />Sunil Abraham<br />Director (Policy)<br />Centre for Internet and Society<br /><br /></p>
<p>Please download the draft response in the format you prefer.</p>
<ol><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-10-sept-2008.odt" class="internal-link" title="Oo.org Format">Open Office </a><br /></li><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-10-sept-2008.doc" class="internal-link" title="MS Format">MS Office</a></li><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-09-sept-2008.pdf" class="internal-link" title="PDF Format">PDF</a><br /></li></ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/the-response'>https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/the-response</a>
</p>
No publishersunilOpen StandardsPublications2011-08-23T03:05:56ZPageBook 1: To Be, Digital AlterNatives with a Cause?
https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/dnbook1
<b>In this first book of the Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Collection, we concentrate on what it means to be a Digital Native. Within popular scholarship and discourse, it is presumed that digital natives are born digital. Ranging from Mark Prensky’s original conception of the identity which marked all people born after 1980 as Digital Natives to John Palfrey and Urs Gasser’s more nuanced understanding of specific young people in certain parts of the world as ‘Born Digital’, there remains a presumption that the young peoples’ relationship with technology is automatic and natural. In particular, the idea of being ‘born digital’ signifies that there are people who, at a visceral, unlearned level, respond to digital technologies. This idea of being born digital hides the complex mechanics of infrastructure, access, affordability, learning, education, language, gender, etc. that play a significant role in determining who gets to become a digital native and how s/he achieves it. In this book, we explore what it means to be a digital native in emerging information societies. The different contributions in this book posit what it means to be a digital native in different parts of the world. However, none of the contribution accepts the name ‘Digital Native’ as a given. Instead, the different authors demonstrate how there can be no one singular definition of a Digital Native. In fact, they show how, contextualised, historical, socially embedded, politically nuanced understanding of people’s interaction with technology provide a better insight into how one becomes a digital native.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/dnbook1'>https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/dnbook1</a>
</p>
No publishernishantRAW PublicationsResearchers at WorkPublicationsDigital Natives2015-05-15T12:08:32ZFileDigital Natives with a Cause? Report
https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/publications/dn-report
<b>Youth are often seen as potential agents of change for reshaping their own societies. By 2010, the global youth population is expected reach almost 1.2 billion of which 85% reside in developing countries. Unleashing the potential of even a part of this group in developing countries promises a substantially impact on societies. Especially now when youths thriving on digital technologies flood universities, work forces, and governments and could facilitate radical restructuring of the world we live in. So, it’s time we start listening to them. </b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/publications/dn-report'>https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/publications/dn-report</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaRAW PublicationsResearchers at WorkPublicationsDigital Natives2015-04-17T11:04:51ZFileDigital Natives with a Cause? Thinkathon: Position Paper
https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/publications/position-paper
<b>The Digital Natives with a Cause? research inquiry seeks to look at the potentials of social change and political participation through technology practices of people in emerging ICT contexts. In particular it aims to address knowledge gaps that exist in the scholarship, practice and popular discourse around an increasing usage, adoption and integration of digital and Internet technologies in social transformation processes. A conference called Digital Natives with a Cause? Thinkathon was jointly organised by CIS and Hivos in the Hague in December 2010. The Thinkathon aimed to reflect on these innovations in social transformation processes and its effects on development, and in particular to understand how new processes of social transformation can be supported and sustained, how they can inform our existing practices, and provide avenues of collaboration between Digital Natives and "Analogue Activists". </b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/publications/position-paper'>https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/publications/position-paper</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaRAW PublicationsWeb PoliticsDigital NativesPublicationsResearchers at Work2015-05-08T12:22:29ZFileOpen Spectrum for Development India Case Study
https://cis-india.org/telecom/publications/india-untapped-potential
<b>This report is authored by Shyam Ponappa and jointly produced by APC and CIS.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/telecom/publications/india-untapped-potential'>https://cis-india.org/telecom/publications/india-untapped-potential</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaPublications2012-07-26T08:17:15ZFileA Guide to the Proposed India-European Union FTA
https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/CIS%20Open%20Data%20Case%20Studies%20Proposal.pdf
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/CIS%20Open%20Data%20Case%20Studies%20Proposal.pdf'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/CIS%20Open%20Data%20Case%20Studies%20Proposal.pdf</a>
</p>
No publishergloverPublicationsAccess to Knowledge2011-08-22T13:22:50ZFilePrivacy Act and IT
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/privacy-it-act.docx
<b>word file</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/privacy-it-act.docx'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/privacy-it-act.docx</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaPublications2011-08-21T16:19:51ZFilePrivacy and IT Act (ODT)
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/privacy-it-act.odt
<b>open office</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/privacy-it-act.odt'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/privacy-it-act.odt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaPublications2011-08-21T13:52:15ZFilePrivacy IT Act
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/privacy-it-act.pdf
<b>pdf</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/privacy-it-act.pdf'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/privacy-it-act.pdf</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaPublications2011-08-21T13:43:02ZFilePrivacy and IT Act (PDF)
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/privacy-it.pdf
<b>pdf</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/privacy-it.pdf'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/privacy-it.pdf</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaPublications2011-08-21T16:17:47ZFileJurisdictional Issues in Cyberspace (PDF)
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/jurisdictional-issues
<b>file</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/jurisdictional-issues'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/jurisdictional-issues</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaPublications2011-08-21T13:35:36ZFile