The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 51 to 65.
The Internet in the Indian Judicial Imagination
https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_the-internet-in-the-indian-judicial-imagination
<b>This post by Divij Joshi is part of the 'Studying Internets in India' series. Divij is a final year student at the National Law
School of India University, Bangalore and is a keen observer and researcher on issues of law, policy and technology. In this essay, he traces the history of the Internet in India through the lens of judicial trends, and looks at how the judiciary has defined its own role in relation to the Internet.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>On the 14th of August, 1995, the eve of the 48th anniversary of Indian Independence, India began a new, and wholly unanticipated tryst with destiny - Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) launched India's first full Internet service for public access [1]. In 1998, just a few years after VSNL introduced dial-up Internet, around 0.5% of India’s population had regular Internet access. By 2013, the latest estimate, 15% of the country was connected to the Internet, and the number is growing exponentially [2]. As the influence of the Internet grew, the law and the courts began to take notice. In 1998, there were four mentions of the Internet in the higher judiciary (the High Courts in States and the Supreme Court of India), by 2015, it was referred to in hundreds of judgements and orders of the higher judiciary [3].</p>
<p>The revolutionary capacity of the Internet cannot be understated. It has played a critical part in displacing, creating and enhancing social structures and institutions – from the market, to ideas of community – and its potential still remains unexplored. The Internet has also unsettled legal systems around the world, because of its massive potential to create very new forms of social and legal relationships and paradigms which extant law was unequipped for. The dynamism of the Internet means that legislation and statutory law, being static and rigid, is inherently ill suited for the governance of the Internet, and much of this role is ultimately ceded to the judiciary. In a widely unregulated policy background, the role played by this institution in identifying and dealing with the peculiar nature of regulatory issues on the Internet – such as the central role of intermediaries, the challenges of intellectual property rights concerns, the conflicts of law between different jurisdictions, and the courts’ own role in being a regulator – is tremendously important. In this article, an attempt is made to weave a thread through judicial decisions as well as judicial <em>obiter</em> (or peripheral text) regarding the Internet, to explain how the judiciary has captured and defined the Internet and its capacities, potentials and actors, and what effects this has on the Internet and on society. Inter alia, this article examines how judicial disputes have shaped internet policy in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>The Internet and the Role of the Courts</h2>
<p>The relationship between the law and technology is reminiscent of the famous paradox posed by the greek philosopher Zeno – Achilles and a tortoise agree to race. The tortoise has a head start, and, by the logic of the paradox, Achilles is never able to catch up to him. Every time Achilles covers the distance between himself and the tortoise at any point, the tortoise has moved ahead some distance, which need to be covered once again. As Achilles covers that distance, the tortoise has once again moved a distance away, and so on, to infinite progression, proving that Achilles can never catch up to the tortoise [4].</p>
<p>The legal regulation of the Internet follows a similar path. The Internet was not an immediate concern for law and policy, which meant that its evolution was largely determined in a space free from centralized governmental regulation. By the time parliaments and courts began to understand the implications of Internet regulation, it was apparent that such regulation would be constrained by the very features of the Internet. The core feature of the Internet is decentralization of control, which is necessarily antithetical to creating a centralized legal regulation with. Moreover, the constant mutation in the function and use of the technology renders statutory law incredibly ineffective in being an adequate regulator. Even where legislatures determined a need to step in and draw special regulations for the Internet, they need to be either so broad or vague that they cede much of the regulatory space to interpreters – the courts – or be so specific that much of the regulation quickly becomes obsolete. Most importantly, the final authority to determine matters of constitutional import such as the content and scope of fundamental rights rests with the higher judiciary. In this scenario, the courts become the <em>de facto</em> policy makers for regulating technology. In light of our current political and social context, where the level of legislative debate on issues of public importance and constitutional import is negligible, the judiciary’s analysis of Internet regulation becomes even more important [5].</p>
<p>The judiciary is thus in a unique position to decide Internet policy and governance. The preliminary question is whether there is even a need to talk about the Internet as a special system with distinct policy concerns. The regulation of the Internet is certainly fundamental to the development of knowledge and education in societies, but do its unique features merit a departure from traditional law? The second and connected question is whether the law can actually play a role in determining how the Internet is shaped, i.e. how does technology respond to the law? The architecture of the system that defines the functionality of the Internet – like the TCP/IP protocol – has embodied certain values such as decentralization, autonomy, openness and privacy [6], which have to a large extent underlined the social and ethical implications of the Internet – the way it is used, the way it functions and the way it grows. These were the values explicitly introduced into the systems we use today to communicate and interact on the Internet [7]. However, there is no <em>a priori</em>, fixed nature of the Internet. The form the technologies that make up the Internet take, depend upon its architecture and its design, which are malleable, and to which laws contribute by incentivizing certain values and encumbering others. The legal regulation of the Internet, therefore critically affects the architecture of the system, and promotes and secures certain values.</p>
<p>Recognizing the effect of law upon the architecture of the Internet is critical to any balancing exercise that the judiciary has to conduct when it decides disputes about the Internet. The Internet is a unique public resource, in that its participants are (mostly) private actors pursuing a vareity of goals and interests. The values outlined above emerged in this context, where control was decetnralized and regulation depended to a large extent upon how these disparate parties act. However, the same values also disturb existing structures to control information for legitimate causes - such as protecting intellectual property rights or preventing hate speech. Adjudicating these values, often in the absence of any explicit social or political moral framework (with respect to lack of legislative or constitutional guidance on these values), the judicial responses end up as policy directions that shape the Internet. Seen outside a broader, progressive social context, which takes into account the impact of shaping technologies to reflect values, interests on the Internet are generally adjudicated and enforced as proprietary rights between private actors, which ultimately results in changing the dynamics and relative distribution of control over the technologies that make up the Internet. This proprietory conception of interests on the Internet is highly insular, and tends to undermine the intersts of the public as a stakeholder in the regulation of the Internet. This can play out in many ways – from regulation being overwhelmingly determined according to private interests like restricting new technologies in order to protect intellectual property; or with private actors imputed as the focal point of regulation, and therefore given massive control over the Internet. However, the courts can take a different approach to regulating the Internet. The judiciary, especially the Indian Supreme Court, has a generally activist trend, especially in environmental matters [8]. One of the most elegant principles invoked by the courts for the protection of the common environment, has been the public trust doctrine, which postulates that certain (environmental) resources exist for the public benefit and can only be eroded upon to ensure that they develop in the most beneficial way for the common resources [9]. A commons approach to the Internet would require a comprehensive evaluation of the roles played by different actors across different layers of the Internet and how to regulate them [10], but would be principally similar, in that rules of private property would be constrained by potential spillover effects on intellectual information resources.</p>
<p>As a prelude to examining the judicial analysis of the Internet, it is interesting to examine the judiciary’s own perception of its role in Internet regulation. Courts are constrained in their exercise of power by rules of jurisdiction, which become incredibly convoluted on the Internet. A broad assertion of state power over the net can potentially fragment it, which is an obvious problem. At the same time, state sovereignty and protection of the interests of its citizens and laws has to be balanced with the above concerns [11]. The judiciary in India first attempted to grapple with the problem by exercising ‘universal jurisdiction’ over all actions on the Internet, which allowed the Court to claim jurisdiction over a defendant as long as the website or service could be accessed from within its jurisdiction [12]. This broad-reaching standard was antithetical to the development of a harmonized, unfragmented Internet and created problems of jurisdictional and sovereign conflict. As the implications of such a direction became clear, the court evolved different standards for jurisdiction which were based on whether the Internet service had some connection with the territorial jurisdiction of the court in question. The judiciary began to develop caution in its approach towards exercising personal jurisdiction in Internet cases, first applying the ‘interactivity test’ and then the ‘specific targeting’ standards for questions of jurisdiction [13]. However, the judiciary continues to adhere to a ‘long-arm’ standard for copyright and trademark violations, which allows it to extend its jurisdiction extra-territorially under those laws, through rather specious analogies with pre-internet technologies. For example, in <em>WWE v Reshma</em> [14], the Court explicitly analogized sale of services or goods on the Internet with contracts concluded over the telephone. Although analogies provide a comfortable framework for analysis, they also shield important distinctions between technologies from legal analysis. Problems arising from Internet cases – where many actors across many jurisdictions are involved in varying degrees – are unique to Internet technologies and such analogies ignore these important distinctions. Morever, in all the above cases, the judiciary’s assertions of power over the Internet seems to be restricted only by pragmatic regulatory concerns (such as whether personal obedience of the defendant can be secured) and its evolving understanding of questions of jurisdiction are explicitly linked to changes in the use and perception of the Internet and an understanding of interactivity and communication on the Internet.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>The Early Internet and Judicial Perceptions</h2>
<p>The Internet crept into the judicial vocabulary in 1996; a year after public access was made available, when the Supreme Court first took cognizance of ‘Internet’ as a means of interlinking countries and gathering information instantaneously [15]. Several other cases in the High Courts also spoke of the ‘Information Highway’ [16] and the various services that companies were offering, which could be availed by individuals on the Internet [17]. This corresponded with the popular understanding of the ‘first wave’ of the Internet, mostly relating to business providing services and information to users on the World Wide Web or as a space for limited personal interaction (such as through email) [18].</p>
<p>Some of the earliest cases where the Courts had the opportunity to examine the nature of the Internet were related to Intellectual Property on the Internet, specifically trademark and copyright in the online world. The Domain Name System, which serve to identify devices accessible on the Internet, was one of the first regulatory challenges on the Internet. Domain name disputes were unprecedented in the analog world of intellectual property, since domain names were uniquely scarce goods due to the limitations of the DNS technology. In India, the Delhi High Court in the case of <em>Yahoo v Akash Arora</em> first took cognizance of regulatory challenges of the DNS system on the Internet, a space which it conceptualized as a large public network of computers, and held that domain names serve the same functions on the Internet as trademarks. This case saw the recognition of the Internet as a separate, regulable space, which the Court defined as <em>“a global collection of computer networks linking millions of public and private computers around the world.”</em> The Court recognized some of the core, democratic features of the Internet: <em>“The Internet is now recognized as an international system, a communication medium that allows anyone from any part of the lobe with access to the Internet to freely exchange information and share data.”</em> In this case, the Court upheld traditional trademark rights in the case of use of domain names. The Court’s first recognition of trademark on the Internet heralded the imputation of proprietary interests on the decentralized, shared network that was the Internet, and was a precursor to the many such cases, which mostly focused on private commercial concerns. Even as the Court understood the importance of the Internet commons, i.e. the information and architecture that makes up the Internet, it chose to ignore concerns of public interest in the openness of those commons, in its balancing of proprietary rights for trademark cases. The commercial significance of the Internet was echoed in the <em>Rediff</em> case, where the Bombay High Court opined that <em>“Undoubtedly the Internet is one of the important features of the Information Revolution. It is increasingly used by commercial organisations to promote themselves and their product and in some cases to buy and sell”</em> [19]. Moreover, in these early cases, the law of the analog age was applied wholesale to the Internet, without examining in-depth the possible differences in principle and approach, providing no precedent for the development of an ‘internet law’ [20]. Overly focussed on the proprietary nature of Internet interests, the conception of the Internet as a non-commercial space for collaboration at a decentralized or an individual level is absent from the judicial vocabulary at this stage.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Private Actors and Public Interest</h2>
<p>The Internet permits decentralization in the hands of several private actors, which makes control of information over it so difficult. However, the information and technology that makes up the Internet are also highly centralized at certain nodal points, such as the services which provide the physical infrastructure of the Internet (like ISPs) or intermediaries which create platforms for distribution of information. Since the Internet has no centralized architecture to enable governmental control, these private intermediaries fall squarely in the crosshairs of regulatory concerns, specifically concerning their liability as facilitators of offensive or illegal content and actions. Facebook, Ebay, Twitter, Myspace, YouTube and Google are examples of private actors that have emerged as dominant service providers that host, index or otherwise facilitate access to user-generated content. Other forms of intermediaries, such as software like Napster or torrent databases like The Pirate Bay, are responsible for driving the growth of Internet-based technologies, like new modes of information sharing and communication. These services have emerged as the most important platform for sharing of information and free speech on the Internet. Most of the interaction and communication on the Internet takes place through these intermediaries and therefore they are in a position to control much of the speech that takes place online. The implications of regulating such actors are quite enormous, and its context is unique to the Internet. These private actors now control the bulk of the information that is shared online, and many of them have almost monopolistic control over certain unique forms of information sharing – think Google in the case of search engines. Developing an adequate regulatory mechanism for them is therefore critical to the future of the net. If the laws do not adequately protect their ability to host content without being liable for the same, it is likely that these actors will lean towards collateral censorship of speech beyond that which is prohibited by law, simply to protect against liability. Secondly, such liability would tend to disincentivise the creation of new platforms and services that increase access to knowledge, which have been integral to innovation on the Internet [21]. The issue of intermediary liability at this scale is unique to the Internet. The court has to adequately frame policy considerations which strike at the fundamental nature of the Internet, such as intellectual property and access to information. At the same time, concerns about legal accountability need to also be addressed. The approach that courts have taken towards the role of intermediaries is therefore critical towards any examination of Internet regulation [22].</p>
<p>In India, the first court to explicitly examine the public importance in issues of online intermediary liability was in the context of regulation of pornography, specifically child pornography, which has been a mainstay of regulatory concerns on the Internet. The case prompted legislative action in the form of creating rules to secure intermediary immunity. In this case the Court imputed liability for the listings of certain offensive content upon the owners of the website, Bazzee.com. Hard cases make bad law, and the same was true of this case. Referring to the challenges of regulating content on the Internet, due to the <em>inability</em> of methods to screen and filter such content, the Court held that intermediaries must be strictly liable for all offensive content on their site. The Court held that:</p>
<blockquote>The proliferation of the internet and the possibility of a widespread use through instant transmission of pornographic material, calls for a strict standard having to be insisted upon. Owners or operators of websites that offer space for listings might have to employ content filters if they want to prove that they did not knowingly permit the use of their website for sale of pornographic material…even if for some reason the filters fail, the presumption that the owner of the website had the knowledge that the product being offered for sale was obscene would get attracted.</blockquote>
<p>Intermediaries, therefore, were imputed with the liability of controlling ‘obscene’ speech – a vague and over-broad standard which did not account for the realities of online speech [23]. The above analysis reflects the judiciary’s refusal to take into account the technical concerns on the Internet which ultimately shape its architecture – and the limitations of the judiciary in reflecting upon their own role in policy making on the internet. Ultimately, the decision was overturned by a legislative act, which invoked different standards of liability for intermediaries.</p>
<p>In <em>Consim Info Pvt. Ltd vs Google India Pvt. Ltd</em> [24], the Madras High Court considered “Keyword Advertising” and the liability of search engines and competitors for ‘meta-tags’ that resulted in search engine results which may divert a trademark holder’s traffic. Google’s AdWord programme, which allows purchase of certain ‘keywords’ for the search engine results, and can potentially enable certain forms of trademark infringement, was at issue [25]. Trademarks as AdWords or search terms fulfil and important social utility of information access [26]. However, the Court’s reasoning was conspicuously missing an analysis of the public interest in protecting and promoting search engines, which were important concerns taken into account when these issues were deliberated in other forums [27]. The Court saw this dispute only taking into account private property interests and not public interest considerations, such as the general public benefit of technology which enables new forms of searching and indexing. In fact, an argument by the defendant based on the fundamental right to free (commercial) speech was raised and ignored by the court. The Court therefore ignored the public importance of search engines in favour of protecting proprietary interests which arose in a different context.</p>
<p>Copyright law also has tremendous implications on the Internet. As the Internet became the primary mode for the distribution of different kinds of information and creative content, the very ease of sharing that contributed to its popularity made it prone to violations of copyright, and this created a conflict between the interests of traditional rights holders and the development of the Internet as a means of better sharing of information and knowledge. The problem of holding intermediaries liable for conduct has been compounded in cases where the Court ordered ex-parte ‘John Doe’ orders against unknown defendants likely to be infringing copyright, and imputed the liability for removal of such content on the intermediaries or ISP’s, effectively issuing wide blocking orders without considering their implications or even providing a fair hearing [28]. In <em>RK Productions</em> [29], for instance, when holding that ISPs could be liable for failure to follow blocking orders against infringing content, the Madras High Court described the role of ISPs, such as Airtel and VSNL, as <em>“vessels for others to use their services to infringe third party works.”</em> Once again, the court took a particularly pessimistic view of the Internet’s capabilities, limiting its analysis to the ISP’s function in facilitating infringement and holding that <em>“Without the ISPs, no person would be in a position to access the pirated contents nor would the unknown persons be in a position to upload the pirated version of the film.”</em> In <em>Myspace</em>, the Delhi High Court held that no different standard for secondary infringement (by intermediaries) applied on the Internet, and imputed the same standard as in the 1957 Copyright Act. (In fact, it explicitly compared Myspace to brick and mortar shops selling infringing DVD’s or CD’s) [30]. The Court held that the principles of immunity under the IT Act were overridden by the provisions of the Copyright Act, and then went on to impute a strict standard for intermediaries seeking safe harbor for infringing material, including, inexplicably, that provision of some means to tackle infringement would be sufficient proof of knowledge of actual infringement, and therefore implicating mere passive platforms as infringers. Further, the Court expressly rejected a post-hoc solution for the same, and held that the intermediaries must ensure prior restraint of infringing works to escape liability. The claims that arise in cases of infringement of intellectual property on the Internet, specifically in the liability of intermediaries, are unique, and have unique implications. The inability or refusal of the judiciary to identify claims of freedom of speech and freedom of information of the larger public within the internet commons, in response to broad censorship orders for preventing infringement means that implicitly, policy takes a direction that favours private interests.</p>
<p>An analysis of the above cases shows that important implications of intermediary liability such as the effect on the public’s access to information and the freedom of speech in the context of the Internet did not play a role in the Courts decisions. In particular, the examination of cases above shows that private disputes are now at the forefront of issues of public importance. The Courts have unfortunately taken an insular view of these disputes, adjudicating them as inter-party, without considering the public function that private players on the Internet provide, and how their decisions should factor in these considerations.</p>
<p>However, the recent case of <em>Shreya Singhal v Union of India</em> [31], decided by the Supreme Court this March, hopefully announces a departure from this insular examination of the Internet towards a constitutional analysis, where framing an appropriate public policy for the Internet is at the forefront of the Court’s analysis.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Shreya Singhal and Constitutionalizing the Internet</h2>
<p>In March, 2015, the Supreme Court of India struck down the notoriously abused Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which criminalized certain classes of speech, and hopefully heralded a new phase of Internet jurisprudence in India, which imports constitutionalism into matters of cyberspace. Section 66A, premised on the pervasiveness of the Internet, criminalized online speech on vague grounds such as ‘grossly offensive’ or ‘menacing’. The Court’s examination of the nature of the Internet is particularly important. While dismissing a challenge that speech on the Internet should not be treated as distinct from other speech, the Supreme Court opined that <em>“the internet gives any individual a platform which requires very little or no payment through which to air his views”</em>, and by this reasoning concluded that to a limited extent, specific offences could be drawn for online speech. However, this understanding of the features of the Internet – the democratization of knowledge sharing by making it cheap and expansive, was implicit throughout the Court’s judgement, which upheld the idea of the Internet as a ‘marketplace of ideas’ and a space for free and democratic exchange, and struck down the impugned restrictive provisions as unconstitutional, in part because of their vagueness and likelihood to censor legitimate speech, bearing no relation to the constitutional restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2). Moreover, the Court understood the importance of collateral censorship and intermediary safe harbor, although only briefly examined, and read down expansive intermediary liability terms under the IT Rules to include prior judicial review of takedown notices [32].</p>
<p>Hopefully, the Shreya Singhal judgement marks the beginning of constitutional engagement of the judiciary with the Internet. At this moment itself, the Supreme Court is grappling with questions of limitations of online pornography [33]; search engine liability for hate speech [34]; intermediary liability for defamation [35]; and liability for mass surveillance. How the Supreme Court takes cognizance of these cases, how they ultimately proceed, and how they take into account the principles sounded by the <em>Shreya Singhal</em> court, will have a tremendous impact on the internet and society in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>This article was an attempt to study the Internet in India, and look at the relationship between the judiciary and the Internet. But ‘the Internet’ is not some fixed, immutable space, and any study has to take this into account. The function of the Internet depends upon the values built in to it. These values can be in favor of free speech, or enable censorship. They can protect privacy, or enable mass surveillance. The growth of the Internet as a medium of free speech and expression has been fuelled to a large extent in the spaces free of legal regulation, but the law is perhaps the most important regulator of the Internet, in its ability to use state power to create incentives for certain values, and to change the nature of the Internet. This study, therefore, charted the dynamic relationship between judicial law and other factors responsible for the regulation of the Internet.</p>
<p>For a technology which is so pervasive in our daily lives, and growing in importance day by day, it is surprising that the Supreme Court of India has only recently taken cognizance of constitutional issues on the Internet. While important internet-specific issues have arisen in disputes before the judiciary, judicial examination has generally ignored technical nuances of the new technology, and furthermore ignored the wider implications of framing Internet policy by applying rules that applied in other contexts, such as for copyright or trademark. Without a clear articulation of political and moral bases to guide Internet policy, a clear policy-driven approach to the Internet remains absent, and the regulatory space has been captured by fragmented interest groups without an assessment of larger interests in maintaining the Internet commons, such as allowing peer-based production and sharing of information.</p>
<p>There is, however, reason to be optimistic about the courts and the Internet. The Supreme Courts reaffirmation and identification of the freedom of speech on the Internet in <em>Shreya Singhal</em>, will, hopefully, resonate in the policy decisions of both the courts and legislators, and the internet can be reformulated as a space deserving constitutional scrutiny and protection.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>References</h2>
<p>[1] VSNL Starts India's First Internet Service Today, The Indian Technomist, (14th August, 1995), available at <a href="http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/vsnlnow.html">http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/vsnlnow.html</a>.</p>
<p>[2] Internet Statistics by Country, International Telecommunication Union, available at <a>http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx</a>.</p>
<p>[3] Source: <a href="http://manupatra.com/">http://manupatra.com/</a>.</p>
<p>[4] Nick Huggett, Zeno's Paradoxes, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), available at <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/paradox-zeno/">http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/paradox-zeno/</a>.</p>
<p>[5] See: <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/a-little-reminder-no-one-in-house-debated-section-66a-congress-brought-it-and-bjp-backed-it/">http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/a-little-reminder-no-one-in-house-debated-section-66a-congress-brought-it-and-bjp-backed-it/</a>; Publicly available records of Lok Sabha debates also show no mention of this controversial law.</p>
<p>[6] I take values to mean certain desirable goals and methods, which could be both intrinsically good to pursue and whose pursuit allows other instrumental goods to be achieved. See Michael J. Zimmerman, Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), available at <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/">http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/</a>.</p>
<p>[7] Hellen Nissenbaum, How Computer Systems Embody Values, Computer Magazine, 118, (March 2001), available at <a href="https://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/papers/embodyvalues.pdf">https://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/papers/embodyvalues.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>[8] S.P. Sathe, Judicial Activism: The Indian Experience, 6 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 29, (2001).</p>
<p>[9] M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors., 2000(5) SCALE 69.</p>
<p>[10] Yochai Benkler, From Consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation Toward Sustainable Commons and User Access, 52(3) Federal Communications Law Journal, 561, (2000).</p>
<p>[11] Thomas Shultz, Carving up the Internet: Jurisdiction, Legal Orders, and the Private/Public International Law Interface, 19(4) European Journal Of International Law, 799, (2008); Wendy A. Adams, Intellectual Property Infringement in Global Networks: The Implications of Protection Ahead of the Curve, 10 Int’l J.L. & Info. Tech, 71, (2002).</p>
<p>[12] Casio India Co. Limited v. Ashita Tele Systems Pvt. Limited, 2003 (27) P.T.C. 265 (Del.) (India).</p>
<p>[13] Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr., CS(OS) 894/2008.</p>
<p>[14] World Wrestling Entertainment v. Reshma Collection (FAO (OS) 506/2013 (Delhi).</p>
<p>[15] Dr. Ashok v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2298.</p>
<p>[16] Rajan Johnsonbhai Christy vs State Of Gujarat, (1997) 2 GLR 1077.</p>
<p>[17] Union Of India And Ors. Vs. Motion Picture Association And Ors, 1999 (3) SCR 875; Yahoo!, Inc. vs Akash Arora & Anr., 1999 IIAD Delhi 229 – “The Internet provides information about various corporations, products as also on various subjects like educational, entertainment, commercial, government activities and services.”</p>
<p>[18] Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks.</p>
<p>[19] Rediff Communication Limited vs Cyberbooth & Another, 1999 (4) Bom CR 278.</p>
<p>[20] Even when the Supreme Court finally recognized these concerns a few years later, when the Internet had morphed into a massive commercial platform and an important forum for free speech, in the Satyam Infotech case (2004(3)AWC 2366 SC), it discussed the unique problem of domain name identifiers and scarcity of domain names, yet went on to hold that an even higher standard of passing off for trademarks should apply in domain names, disregarding the prior standard of an ‘honest concurrent user’.</p>
<p>[21] Jack Balkin, The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age, 36 Pepperdine Law Review, (2008)</p>
<p>[22] Id.</p>
<p>[23] Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi), 3 Comp. L.J. 364 (2005).</p>
<p>[24] 2013 (54) PTC 578 (Mad)</p>
<p>[25] The judgement also reveals the predominance of Google’s search engine service. The Court defines the operation of “search engines” as synonymous with Google’s particular service – including adding elements like the ‘I’m Feeling Lucky’ option as defining elements of search engines.</p>
<p>[26] David J. Franklyn & David A. Hyman, Trademarks As Search Engine Keywords: Much Ado About Something?, 26(2) Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 540, (2013).</p>
<p>[27] Id.</p>
<p>[28] Reliance Big Entertainment v. Multivision Network and Ors, Delhi High Court, available at <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-reliance-entertainment-v-multivision-network-and-ors.-movie-singham">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-reliance-entertainment-v-multivision-network-and-ors.-movie-singham</a>; Sagarika Music Pvt. Ltd. v. Dishnet Wireless Ltd., C.S. No. 23/2012, G.A. No. 187/2012 (Calcutta High Court Jan. 27, 2012) (order); See Generally, Ananth Padmanabhan, Give Me My Space and Take Down His, 9 Indian Journal of Law and Technology, (2013).</p>
<p>[29] R.K. Productions v. BSNL Ltd and Ors. O.A.No.230 of 2012, Madras High Court.</p>
<p>[30] Super Cassetes Industries Ltd. v. Myspace Inc. and Anr., 2011 (47) P.T.C. 49 (Del.)</p>
<p>[31] Shreya Singhal and Ors. V Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl).No. 167 of 2012, Supreme Court, (2015).</p>
<p>[32] The courts refusal to address important questions of intermediary responsibility has also been criticized, see Jyoti Pandey, The Supreme Court Judgment in Shreya Singhal and What It Does for Intermediary Liability in India?, Centre for Internet and Society, available at <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/sc-judgment-in-shreya-singhal-what-it-means-for-intermediary-liability">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/sc-judgment-in-shreya-singhal-what-it-means-for-intermediary-liability</a>.</p>
<p>[33] See: <a href="http://sflc.in/kamlesh-vaswani-v-uoi-w-p-c-no-177-of-2103/">http://sflc.in/kamlesh-vaswani-v-uoi-w-p-c-no-177-of-2103/</a>.</p>
<p>[34] See: <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/search-engine-and-prenatal-sex-determination">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/search-engine-and-prenatal-sex-determination</a>.</p>
<p>[35] See: <a href="https://indiancaselaws.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/google-india-pvt-ltd-vs-visaka-industries-limited/">https://indiancaselaws.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/google-india-pvt-ltd-vs-visaka-industries-limited/</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<em>The post is published under <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</a> license, and copyright is retained by the author.</em>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_the-internet-in-the-indian-judicial-imagination'>https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_the-internet-in-the-indian-judicial-imagination</a>
</p>
No publisherDivij JoshiInternet StudiesInternet LawJudiciaryRAW BlogResearchers at Work2015-09-09T05:26:50ZBlog EntryStudying the Internet Discourse in India through the Prism of Human Rights
https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_studying-the-internet-discourse-in-india-through-the-prism-of-human-rights
<b>This post by Deva Prasad M is part of the 'Studying Internets in India' series. Deva Prasad is Assistant Professor at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore. In this essay, he analyses key public discussions around Internet related issues from the human rights angle, and explores how this angle may contribute to understanding the features of the Internet discourse in India.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The significance of Internet as an important element and tool in day-to-day life of mankind is an established experiential fact. The intrinsic value that Internet brings to our lives has transformed the access to Internet as a necessity. Internet’s intrinsic value acts an enabling tool for information, communication and commerce to be effectively and expeditiously carried forward. It is to due to this enormous intrinsic value attached with Internet that there is an emerging trend of exploring Internet from the perspective of human rights. Moreover, Internet as a medium also helps in furtherance of human rights [1]. Social movements have attained a new lease of life with the digital activism over Internet. Arab spring is an epitome of this phenomenon.</p>
<p>There is an emerging positive trend of linking established norms of human rights with Internet. The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression has vividly explained the possibility and feasibility of extending and extrapolating the right of freedom of opinion and expression to Internet medium (Article 19 of the UDHR and the ICCPR) [2]. The Special Rapporteur also highlights the need to have access to Internet for effective enjoyment of right to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital sphere. The UN High Commissioner on Human Right’s report on‘The Right To Privacy In The Digital Age’ also explicitly highlights the significance of protecting the right to privacy in the internet medium in light of extensive “surveillance and the interception of digital communications and the collection of personal data” [3]. The extensive interception and blocking of the online communication is also a pertinent reason, which calls for human right protection to be extended to Internet.</p>
<p>The WSIS Declaration for Building of Information Society [4] and the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet [5] also have played a significant role in furthering the inter-linkage between human rights and Internet.</p>
<p>The Internet and human rights policy developments have gathered significant relevance in international human rights law and Internet policy fora. But it is interesting to note that the Indian government and state institutional mechanisms have not yet pro-actively accepted relevance of applying human rights norm to the Internet medium in India.</p>
<p>As an essay in the Studying Internet series, it is important to highlight how human rights acts as underlying factors in many socio-political issues pertaining to Internet in India. Analysis of these issues helps us to understand that, even though the Indian state turns a blind eye to the human rights element in the various socio-political issues relating to Internet, the digitally conscious Indian’s have realized their rights and even fought their own battle for exercising their rights.</p>
<p>In recent years, the Internet discourse in India has witnessed many socio-political concerns. This essay would be exploring the pertinent socio-political issues in Indian context and the underlying link to human rights thread. Globally, exploring Internet from the perspective of human rights brings out multitude of issues, which requires application of established human rights norms of right to privacy, freedom of expression, access. The story in India is no different. In this regard, three socio-political issues relating to Internet, which gained much attention in India roughly in last one year, are being analyzed. Interestingly, all three issues have an underlying thread of human right perspective connecting them and need pertinent deliberation from human rights perspective.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Section 66A and Freedom of Speech and Expression</h2>
<p>The lack of freedom of expression on Internet and Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 is an interesting case study. Indian government used Section 66A as a tool for extensive surveillance and had taken criminal legal action against the Internet and social media users for posting the offensive comments and posts. But Section 66A was badly drafted allowing the government to initiate criminal legal action in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. Thus such a provision could be misused by the state for curbing the freedom of expression in the Internet sphere. The rampant usage of the Indian state machinery of Section 66A had led to sharp reaction amongst the Internet and social media users in India. The vagueness in language and unconstitutionality of Section 66A were criticized by legal experts. The action of state machinery in arresting a cartoonist, a professor and two girls in Maharashtra [6] (and many others) for comments and post on social media against politicians, had made it evident the lack of respect for freedom for speech and expression on Internet by the Indian state machinery (Most of these incidents took place during the year 2012). These incidents led to wide spread protest for violation of human right to freedom of speech and expression by the digital media users. When the Public Interest Litigation [7] filed by Shreya Singhal led to the Supreme Court striking down the Section 66A on 24th March, 2015 for lack of due process being followed, it was a water shed moment for internet discourse in India. The significance of human rights (especially the freedom of speech and expression) in the Internet medium got asserted.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Net Neutrality and Internet Access Issue</h2>
<p>The recent net neutrality debate in India has also evoked deliberation about the right of equal access to Internet and the need to maintain Internet as a democratic space. The net neutrality debate on keeping Internet a democratic space that is equally accessible to everyone has got much vogue in India. An important point that needs to be emphasized in the debate regarding net neutrality in India is the equal access question being raised. The equal access question is more a product of the lack of regulatory clarity regarding TRAI’s (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) capacity to regulate the Over-the top (OTT) services; coupled with the lack of well stipulated right to internet access in the Indian context.</p>
<p>The net neutrality rides on the premise that the entire data available on the Internet should be equally accessible to everyone. No discrimination should be allowed regarding access to a particular website or any particular content on the Internet. Tim Wu, a renowned scholar in Internet and communication law has mentioned in his seminal work, <em>Network Neutrality and Broadband Discrimination</em>, that network neutrality signifies “an Internet that does not favor one application” [8].</p>
<p>In this regard, there has been a constructive dialogue between the Federal Communication Commission in United States and the various stakeholders. An interesting development was a proposition, which attempted to classify broadband internet service access as a public utility [9]. There is much relevance for such debates in the Indian context. India also needs public participation (especially strong voices from internet user’s perspective) to highlight these access concerns regarding Internet. Human right’s concerns regarding Internet should be pro-actively brought to the attention of regulatory institutions such as TRAI. There is need to balance the economic and for-profit interest of service providers with the larger public interest based on equal access.</p>
<p>The pressure created by public opinion through online activism upon the TRAI’s proposal to regulate the OTT services helps in understanding the power of public participation in the pertinent human rights issues relating to Internet [10]. The broader design in which the principle of human rights in the context of Internet medium would have to be asserted in India is also vividly seen in the case of protest against OTT regulation.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Right to be Forgotten in EU and Repercussions in India</h2>
<p>The repercussions of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ judgment of European Union also had led to debate of similar rights in Indian context. The Google v. AEPD and Mario Cosjeta [11] is an interesting case decided by the Court of Justice of European Union, where the court held that based on the right to privacy and data protection, persons could ask databases (this case was against the search engine Google) on Internet medium to curtail from referring to certain aspects of their personal information [12]. This is basically referred to as ‘right to be forgotten’.</p>
<p>Viktor Mayor Schonberg in his book <em>Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in Digital Age</em> has elaborated the problem of how the digital age coupled with the Internet has led to store, disseminate and track information in a substantially easy way and advocates for the more informational privacy rights [13]. In this judgment, the Court of Justice of European Union has furthered the information privacy rights in the European Union with the ‘right to be forgotten’.</p>
<p>In the Indian context, it is important to note that information privacy rights are yet to evolve to the extent that of European Union with definite privacy and data protection law. But interestingly, there was a request made to a media news website by a person attempting to enforce the right to be forgotten [14]. Even though the application of right to be forgotten is not directly applicable in the Indian context, this event throws light to the fact that Internet users in India are becoming conscious of their rights in the Internet space. The way Indian news media gave relevance to the right to be forgotten ruling also is an example of how there is an implicit recognition of the interlink between human rights and Internet that is slowly seeping into the Indian milieu.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Internet Discourse in India and Human Rights</h2>
<p>Discussion of the three issues mentioned above points out to an important fact that human rights are not pro-actively applied to the Internet medium by the Indian state machinery. Even though the international human rights law and various Internet policy organizations are pushing the Internet and human rights agenda, the same is yet to gain momentum in India.</p>
<p>But at the same time, an interesting development that could be witnessed from the above discussion is the manner in which the Internet users are asserting their rights over the Internet and slowly paving the path for an enriching view towards applying the human rights perspective to Internet. In the first instance, the freedom of speech and expression was not pro-actively applied to the digital space and Internet. This has happened when Article 19 of Constitution of India has clearly provided for freedom of speech and expression. The second instance of net neutrality has thrown wide open the lack of clear policy regarding Internet access in Indian context. The public opinion has pointed out to the fact that there is a public interest demand to ensure that there is no discrimination in the case of Internet access. The third instance of looking at ‘right to be forgotten’ in Indian perspective, provides the understanding that the users of Internet are becoming conscious of their individual rights in the digital space in a more affirmative manner.</p>
<p>Further, the operationalization of human rights in these three instances also needs to be critically looked into. The assertion of the freedom of speech and expression in the Internet medium could be made possible effectively due to the fact that Article 19 of the Constitution of India, 1950, protects freedom of speech and expression. The vast amount of precedence existing in the field of freedom of speech and expression relating to constitutional litigation and allied jurisprudence has helped in crafting the extension of the right of freedom of expression to the digital medium of Internet. Further, using the social action tool of Public Interest Litigation, the unconstitutionality of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, 1950 could be brought before the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>But interestingly, the net neutrality issue, which is concerning the access to Internet in a non-discriminatory manner, is yet to be perceived in Indian context from a strong human rights perspective. Internet access as a public utility concept is yet to be evolved and articulated in concrete manner in the Indian context. Further, the Indian network neutrality discourse attempts to operationalize through the free market approach. In the free market approach the entire non-discriminatory access has to be ensured by the market competition with the necessary regulatory bodies. In this sense, the human rights angle of access to Internet will have to be ensured by effective competition in the market along with the proper oversight of regulatory bodies such as TRAI and Competition Commission of India. It is important for the regulatory bodies to have broad goals for furthering public interest by ensuring non-discriminatory access to Internet. Further, with the financial and infrastructure led limitations of government’s capability of ensuring access to Internet for all, the market-led model with sufficient regulation might be the right way forward.</p>
<p>Looking at the issue of the right to be forgotten, it could be easily perceived that the Indian milieu is yet to articulate privacy rights to that high standard. Even though the right to privacy is being understood in the constitutional law context through effective interpretation by the judiciary, the concept of digital privacy has not yet evolved in India. There is no collective understanding, till now, that has emerged regarding right to be forgotten in India. Even though individual attempts to assert the right was witnessed, there is much room for an evolved collective understanding in Indian context. Civil society organizations would have a crucial role to play in this regard.</p>
<p>There is an emerging consciousness amongst a set of Internet users in India, who values and gives importance to the Internet being a democratic space, without unwanted restriction from the government machinery or even the private entities. Hence looking at the Internet discourse of India from the perspective of human rights, there is an implicit way in which the human rights are being applied to the Internet space. The lack of a state’s pro-active approach in asserting human rights to Internet space is highlighted by the assertions being made by the Internet users in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Way Forward</h2>
<p>For Internet to remain as a democratic space, there is need for pro-active application of these human rights norms and clear understanding in Internet governance. At present, the state of affairs in India regarding application of human rights to Internet is far from satisfactory.</p>
<p>This essay which is part of the ‘Studying Internet in India’ series, has till now done a stock taking analysis of emerging dimension of human rights and Internet in India. Lack of interest from government and state machinery to further the human rights and Internet dimension need to be seriously reconsidered. Attempting to intervene in Internet law and policy in India from the rights based approach should be an important agenda for furthering digital rights in India. For this, civil society organizations have an important role to play. Exploring the public interest could be done effectively with public participation of stakeholders. Here in, platforms such as India Internet Governance Forum could play a crucial role.</p>
<p>Apart from the civil society organizations, it is also pertinent for state and governmental institutional mechanism to also take a pro-active stance. For ensuring that the rights based approach to Internet has to be duly included in the Internet law and policy; and there should be institutional mechanism, which could look into areas pertaining to human rights and Internet. It is a well know fact that India lacks institutional mechanism for looking into communication and privacy issues regulation. Further, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) also needs to look at the relevance of human rights for Internet. Inspiration could be drawn from the pioneering work of Australian Commission of Human Rights on applying human rights norms and standards to Internet medium [15]. This essay has only flagged the need to apply the established human rights norms to Internet space. Much more issues such as access to Internet by disabled, safety of children and Internet medium are also pertinent areas.</p>
<p>Moreover, it is important to have digital rights of Internet users in India to be explicitly enshrined in a legal framework. Presently, a gap in law and policy framework regarding human rights and Internet is evident, as highlighted in this essay. The pertinent questions regarding access, privacy and freedom of expression are to be taken seriously by the government and state machinery for which clear and well-defined rights relating to Internet space have to be framed. For Internet and human rights to be taken seriously, it is high time that legal and institutional framework to explore these issues also are evolved.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Emphasizing the Right to Communication in India</h2>
<p>Further, the present understanding of right to communication in India, which is perceived in narrow manner, could be re-worked with the help of a pro-active application of human rights norms to the Internet governance. The intrusion into the freedom of speech and expression especially in the telecommunication context has to be highlighted. Protection of communal harmony has been used as rationale for capping the number of the SMS messages that could be sent per day during the exodus of people of Northeastern states origin from Bangalore, Pune and other major cities in India.</p>
<p>This move has been criticized for being unreasonable and universality of capping the number of SMS messages [16]. Further, the telecommunication and Internet services (especially Facebook and YouTube) were blocked in Kashmir for restricting the protest [17]. The telecommunication and Internet services were blocked on the grounds of protection of national security. The reasonableness of restrictions that could be imposed on right to communication is a major concern in the above-mentioned instances. Making a blanket ban applicable in a universal manner undermines the right to communication of various genuine users of bulk messaging and social media sites.</p>
<p>The right to communication especially in the digital and telecommunication media needs to be emphasized. Applying human rights perspective and norms to Internet governance would help in articulating and evolving the right to communication in India. With adequate institutional oversight, the human rights norms could make the digital right to communication an effective right.</p>
<p>To conclude, the Internet discourse in India has already paved path for human rights norms to be applied to Internet space. The seriousness that could be attributed to those rights is evident by the assertions by the Internet users in India. But the state and government machinery in India also should explore the human rights and Internet agenda seriously.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Endnotes</h2>
<p>[1] Frank La Rue, Report Of The Special Rapporteur On The Promotion And Protection Of The Right To Freedom Of Opinion And Expression, Available at <a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf">http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf</a> (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).</p>
<p>[2] Ibid, Special Rapporteur in the Report points out that the language of Article 19 of ICCPR is media neutral and is applicable to online media technological developments also. Para 20 and 21 of the Report.</p>
<p>[3] UN High Commissioner on Human Right, Report on ‘The Right To Privacy In The Digital Age’, Available at <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A.HRC.27.37_en.pdf">http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A.HRC.27.37_en.pdf</a> (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).</p>
<p>[4] WSIS Declaration for Building of Information Society, Available at <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html">http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html</a>. (Last accessed on 25/05/2015). Article 58, WSIS Declaration reads as follows: “The use of ICTs and content creation should respect human rights and fundamental freedoms of others, including personal privacy, and the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion in conformity with relevant international instruments”.</p>
<p>[5] Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet Available at <a href="http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IRP_booklet_final1.pdf">http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IRP_booklet_final1.pdf</a>, (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).</p>
<p>[6] See Section 66A:Six Cases That Sparked Debate, Available at <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/xnoW0mizd6RYbuBPY2WDnM/Six-cases-where-the-draconian-Section-66A-was-applied.html">http://www.livemint.com/Politics/xnoW0mizd6RYbuBPY2WDnM/Six-cases-where-the-draconian-Section-66A-was-applied.html</a>, (Last accessed on 25/05/2015). Also see, Facebook Trouble:10 Cases of Arrest Under Section 66A of IT Act, Available at <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/facebook-trouble-people-arrested-under-sec-66a-of-it-act/article1-1329883.aspx">http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/facebook-trouble-people-arrested-under-sec-66a-of-it-act/article1-1329883.aspx</a> (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).</p>
<p>[7] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, Available at <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/">http://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/</a> (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).</p>
<p>[8] Tim Wu, Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination, Available at <a href="https://cdt.org/files/speech/net-neutrality/2005wu.pdf">https://cdt.org/files/speech/net-neutrality/2005wu.pdf</a> (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).</p>
<p>[9] F.C.C. Approves Net Neutrality Rules, Classifying Broadband Internet Service as a Utility, Available at <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html</a> (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).</p>
<p>[10] The online campaign by www.savetheinternet.in and the AIB video have played a crucial role in gathering public support.</p>
<p>[11] Court of Justice of European Union, Case C-131/12.</p>
<p>[12] Rising like a Phoenix: The ‘Right to be Forgotten’ before the ECJ, Available at <a href="http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=2351">http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=2351</a> (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).</p>
<p>[13] Viktor Mayor Schonberg, Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in Digital Age, Princeton University Press (2009).</p>
<p>[14] Right to be Forgotten Poses A Legal Dilemma in India, Available at <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Industry/5jmbcpuHqO7UwX3IBsiGCM/Right-to-be-forgotten-poses-a-legal-dilemma-in-India.html">http://www.livemint.com/Industry/5jmbcpuHqO7UwX3IBsiGCM/Right-to-be-forgotten-poses-a-legal-dilemma-in-India.html</a>, (Last accessed on 25/05/2015). Also see We received a Right to be Forgotten request from an Indian user, Available at <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2014/06/223-right-to-be-forgotten-india/">http://www.medianama.com/2014/06/223-right-to-be-forgotten-india/</a> (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).</p>
<p>[15] Human Rights and Internet, Available at <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/projects/human-rights-and-internet">https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/projects/human-rights-and-internet</a> (Last accessed on 25/05/2015).</p>
<p>[16] Chinmayi Arun, SMS Block as Threat to Free Speech, Available at <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www-the-hindubusinessline-op-ed-sep-1-2012-chinmayi-arun-sms-block-as-threat-to-free-speech">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www-the-hindubusinessline-op-ed-sep-1-2012-chinmayi-arun-sms-block-as-threat-to-free-speech</a> (Last accessed on 15/07/2015).</p>
<p>[17] Pamposh Raina and Betwa Sharma, Telecom Services Blocked to Curb Protests in Kashmir, Available at <a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/telecom-services-blocked-to-curb-protests-in-kashmir/?_r=0">http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/telecom-services-blocked-to-curb-protests-in-kashmir/?_r=0</a> (Last accessed on 15/07/2015).</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Author's Note: All the views expressed are my own and in no way are linked to the opinion of my employers. I thank CIS for this opportunity to explore Internet and Human Rights interface in India as part of the Studying Internet in India essay series.</em></p>
<p><em>Note: The post is published under <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</a> license, and copyright is retained by the author.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_studying-the-internet-discourse-in-india-through-the-prism-of-human-rights'>https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_studying-the-internet-discourse-in-india-through-the-prism-of-human-rights</a>
</p>
No publisherDeva Prasad MHuman RightsInternet StudiesRAW BlogHuman Rights OnlineResearchers at Work2015-07-22T04:18:37ZBlog EntryUsers and the Internet
https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_users-and-the-internet
<b>This post by Purbasha Auddy is part of the 'Studying Internets in India' series. Purbasha is a SYLFF PhD fellow at the School of Cultural Texts and Records (SCTR), Jadavpur University, with more than eight years of work experience in digital archiving. She has also been teaching for the last two years in the newly-started post-graduate diploma course in Digital Humanities and Cultural Informatics offered by the SCTR. In this essay, Purbasha explores the constructions of the ideas of the Indian Internet users through the advertisements that talk about data packages, mobile phones or apps.</b>
<p> </p>
<p><iframe src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/rg37kafMsWk?rel=0" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe></p>
<p>A baby [1] is refusing to be born as (as we learn later, ‘his’) parents cannot afford high-speed internet for smartphones but wi-fi plans offered by an internet service provider satisfy the baby as if the baby is being born for the internet.</p>
<p>The baby [2] comes out of the womb, searches the net on a smartphone, cuts his own umbilical cord, takes a selfie with the nurse, opens every possible social media- account, takes his blue baby boy balloons and finds his own way out of the building leaving behind dumbstruck parents.</p>
<p>The two unreal situations that are described above are the two storylines of two advertisements of the same company trying to sell an internet connection. No, this article will not talk about the aesthetic appeal of these ads, but will look into such creative ways to locate the explanation of the internet and its users instead; to be precise internet and its Indian users.</p>
<p>The two ads described at the beginning do not show any Indian-ness but makes the viewer wonder about how far this ‘born for the internet’ baby can travel with an internet-enabled smartphone. Are these two ads trying to define the internet as a smart product or are they trying to classify the users of the internet rather as smart? Moreover how does one define the internet? It means more than a conglomeration of networks. At this point as I am trying to coin a definition of the internet on my own, my thought-process is occupied with the activities I do on the net but I fail to define it.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>A personal note…</h2>
<p>In 1995, when VSNL launched the internet in India, I was 10, and engrossed in story books and comics. As I was growing up, I was discovering the world around through books, television, radio and newspapers. I was totally unaware of the practicality of the internet and it remained a fact of general knowledge. Not only me! Not a single friend of mine happened to use the internet or discussed keenly about it. My school did not offer a computer course either. After my +10 board exam, I requested (read demanded) my parents to enroll me in a computer training center which was near my house and had a government affiliation. I learnt basics of computer applications, the programming language Foxpro and basics of the internet. I even got to know how to create a basic webpage. Only when I was required to write a dissertation for my graduation, did I start going to a cyber café to type my dissertation and surf the internet. My parents were really apprehensive about what I was doing in a cyber café which was costing 30 rupees per hour!</p>
<p>Though my parents are still uneasy with the fact that ‘my generation’ remains glued to the internet most of the time, they are amazed on the other hand; how we do net banking, shop online, study, Facebook, exchange email, call a cab or order pizza etc. from the internet. They are happy to remain on the other side of the digital divide.</p>
<p>It has been twenty years that the Indian society has seen the ‘wrong side’ of the internet like hacking, phishing and other grave matters related to social networks. India is a complex society and so is the internet. But India, being the one of the largest potential markets, various services related to the internet are encouraging the probable consumers. Through the advertisements and publicity measures, they are trying to cleanse away the negative notions. They are capturing stories and characters that one can relate herself or himself to, very promptly. Even the ideas of Indian-ness, national integrity and the dreams of aspiring Indians are getting linked with the internet as mobile internet is penetrating very fast to balance the digital divide. Various events of online forgery, hacking and getting access to dicey websites (read pornography) and those matters which came as some sort of a cultural shock, made people less confident to use the internet.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Overcoming the fear…</h2>
<p>Recently, these notions have been countered by commercials by an antivirus company. The commercial shows a mother [3] who is no longer anxious to let her son surf the internet because now the antivirus allows her to enable parental control. It is helping the mother as she no longer has to keep constant vigil on the internet-related activities of her son. Other commercial shows a retired old man [4] is not sceptical anymore that his son sends money using online banking. His son and the man use the antivirus which offers safe online banking.</p>
<p>There are two more advertisements I want to describe; the first one features a young man [5] shopping online and updating the viewers that an antivirus protection means safe online transactions. In the second ad, a fashion designer [6] is not bothered to use pendrives as the antivirus scan will protect her computer. These four commercials attempt to confront the fear that pesters the minds of the potential consumers. No beautiful models, male or female, no beyond the world creativity, but simple and set with regular characters discussing vital issues were chosen to reach out to these potential customers.</p>
<p>The next commercial I would like to refer to is about an antivirus for smart phones. The ad creates a euphoria that portrays a bunch of college goers [7] who have the power to protect themselves from spyware and malware and can download various applications seamlessly. Thus the point of overcoming the ‘fear’ of the unknown and the uncontrollable is very important. Maybe the two ads featuring the ‘born for the internet’ baby I begun with, find relevance here. And the question should be asked here again: that how far can one travel along the path of life by means of a smartphone with an internet connection? The adverts suggest a very intelligent and exciting life for those who can access to internet. Everything is sorted if you can stay online. A lonely individual [8] can be a Twitter celebrity. Someone can showcase her or his talent [9] through social media; like one ad shows a girl becoming an online singing sensation by garnering lots of ‘likes’ and ‘shares’.</p>
<p>As mobile phones remains with us most of the time, accessing the internet from it is easier (compared to a computer) and a mobile phone is thus able to furnish prompt services. There are quite a few service providers that woo us with different approaches. Compared to selling internet connections, it is perhaps far less complicated to produce campaigns for fast moving consumer goods. At least in the case of FMCG it is easier to explain the product which is within range of our four senses. But it is quiet a troublesome project to explain the internet given the social back drop in a country like India. This article will not take names of any of the service providers. Instead it will point out the strategies they are adopting to touch an emotional chord for the probable consumers keeping the existing ones. Furthermore, it would like to find out the nature and meaning of the internet and outlook of its users in the Indian scenario.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Power redefined…</h2>
<p>The internet providers proclaim through the advertisements that an internet connection on one’s mobile is a ‘power’ for her or him. The power that has the ability to bring all the nuances that is available around. Only the burning questions are:</p>
<ul>
<li>How to use the power? Whether to play online games, immerse oneself in social networking, and use a search engine to search for the unknown or perhaps read an academic article from Jstor? There are immense possibilities to the power.</li>
<li>How long can the power be used (read limited or unlimited connection)?</li>
<li>How much time does it take to get the result of the power (read the speed of the connection)? </li>
<li>And lastly and very importantly how much does this power cost?</li></ul>
<p>These uncertainties are answered by adverts with creativity and almost 20% of the Indian population tries to grab this power. But of course a large segment is still to be included (inclusion may be harder due to various socio-economic conditions that are deep-rooted within the Indian scenario) in the benefit-circle of this power called the internet. The following storyline of another television commercial shows the power called the internet which can allow pictures or videos to be exchanged instantaneously. An ad shows that the internet is a great help for a mother as she sends a picture of her wailing son after a hair-cut, to her husband. As soon as the mother reaches home with her sad boy, the father having got the same hair-cut also returns and is ready to soothe the boy.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Confidence building apparatus…</h2>
<p>Thus, through creative commercials, internet service providers are trying to tell that one should keep an internet connection handy to be confident so that Indians cannot be fooled by anybody anywhere. Several adverts are showcasing the following events that will not occur if one has a mobile internet connection. Such events are quite common and thus one can easily associate oneself with them.</p>
<ul>
<li>Not a single person on earth can fool you [10].</li>
<li>A corrupt political leader cannot go way without fulfilling the promises s/he made [11].</li>
<li>Baseless prediction of religious leaders can be countered [12].</li>
<li>And one of the ads went even further ahead to suggest that the population of India can be controlled if married couples spend time doing various activities that the internet has to offer [13]!</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h2>Self-learning tool…</h2>
<p>The ads promote that one of the activities could be self-learning. There is an enormous package of everything available and it is a flexible way to learn. A slow learner [14] in school may not be given special attention in order to overcome learning difficulties but the internet is very patient and it will not complain. Learn how to write poems [15], how to cook, how to make a drone [16], learn French [17]. Furthermore these ads suggest that an internet user is a self-sufficient human being who can find her or his own way using a Google map! Just like two friends learning culinary skills from internet and opening up a restaurant.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>An institution…</h2>
<p>At this point, the creative pursuit of the commercials take a leap and declare the internet (or the internet connection the particular company is providing) as an institution which is very much inclusive in nature. Those who are barred from getting admission in schools, colleges or universities, are welcome to learn through the institution called the internet and can establish themselves in mainstream society or can learn for the sake of learning. In this case, these ads have pointed out girls are not allowed [18] to go to school, a eunuch [19] is refused everywhere. But they are learning from the internet and compete with the more privileged in mainstream society. Other cases show a mother could not complete [20] her study in law, and her daughter is encouraging her to complete it through the internet. Lastly, these ads try to convince that the institution of the internet is cheaper than regular institutions.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Utility…</h2>
<p>Besides the ambitions of the internet stated above, the internet influences human minds in several other aspects. For example, generation gap can be healed if the society takes the bridge of the internet. About two years ago a commercial was produced with the one-liner: ‘Made for the young’ [21]. This ad shows an old man who parties with young boys, has a social network account, plays online games late at night, does video chat. These activities of the elderly character, who has a very optimistic approach towards life, are set in a mundane surrounding. Here it seems, the internet is bridging the generation gap by bringing into its fold and into the mainstream those people who might not have thought of using the internet in real life.</p>
<p>The notion of a huge expense that is incurred in maintaining an internet connection was busted when some service providers brought out ads which said that it was letting people watch a video for only one rupee. Very precisely, this one rupee campaign enacted the frequent quarrels [22] between a taxi-driver and his passenger over loose change and the taxi driver somehow not returning one rupee but instead showing a popular video to the passenger from his phone in lieu of that one rupee. The basic point of all the campaigns is to intensify the market and push the consumers to pay for it anyhow as an internet connection can bring magic to the consumers’ lives as the service providers claim. But who will pay for the internet connection? So they bring out campaign such as a family plan campaign [23] in which the earning member of the family is being encouraged to pay the cost for the internet packs of the other mobile connections in the family which are also provided by the same mobile service operator. These adverts show a family consisting of a super-lazy boy, an ever-angry father, a protective mother and a sweet, little sister needing the internet more than any other services like roaming, calls, or SMS [24].</p>
<p>Service provides are also trying to entice the consumers by providing some utilitarian services which are needed in day to day life. The following are examples of the storylines of a few other advertisements that help its service-takers to transfer money without even going to the banks. The service provider keeps the notion of flexibility of the internet, which can be used according to the need of the people of every segment of the society: a taxi driver [25] from the city sends money to his father in the village; a husband sends money to his pregnant wife [26], a college-going boy [27] requesting his elder brother to send money for mending his scooter. These characters are common and can be found in our everyday surroundings but such characters may be afraid to use such an online service for transferring money. The soothing and caring tone of theses adverts try to assure people to use the service.</p>
<p>As some of the adverts aim to clear the dilemma among prospective consumers, another set of ads celebrate friendship and urge consumers to go back to their roots. In this regard, a storyline of another commercial can be taken into consideration. It tells a story about some school friends [28] who become successful in their own vocations and who remain connected with the help of smartphones and internet connections. One of them locates an old ice-cream vendor in front of the school they used to study in. They came together to meet that vendor from whom they used to buy ice-cream to help him in his business. Here the online activities result in something meaningful.</p>
<p>This article tried to weave one narrative out of many narratives created by several internet service providers. The main intention of the article was to find out how the internet has been defined in the Indian context and how the users are being defined in the commercials. It is found that the internet may seem super-real (if we are not aware of the technical aspects, it is a real wonder!) at first glance but the commercials through the dramatizing efforts are trying to prove its usefulness in many ways. Just like when a young woman [29] finds out someone is retiring from her office, she starts sending photos of the man to their colleagues and instantly it creates a chain of forwarded messages and then everybody gathers to arrange a surprise farewell party. A happy picture indeed!</p>
<p>However something not bright and prosperous also needs to be mentioned. The internet service providers have been offering high speed internet and portray a happy smart life of Indians irrespective of social background and vocation but almost 80% of India remains untouched and are yet to receive the benefits of an internet connection.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Endnotes</h2>
<p>[1] MTS India. 2014. "MTS Internet Baby Full Version." YouTube. February 24. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg37kafMsWk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg37kafMsWk</a>.</p>
<p>[2] Premium Adverts. 2015. "Baby - MTS TV Commercial Ad." YouTube. February 18. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3krdHUji8A">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3krdHUji8A</a>.</p>
<p>[3] Mukherjee, Pamela. 2014. "Quick Heal - TVC (Hin) Mother’s VO." YouTube. November 4. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so-bjUuErBQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so-bjUuErBQ</a>.</p>
<p>[4] Thoughtshop Advertising & Film Productions Pvt. Ltd. 2014. "QUICK HEAL 'OLD MAN.'" YouTube. July 16. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1kOcz_1Ra8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1kOcz_1Ra8</a>.</p>
<p>[5] Thoughtshop Advertising & Film Productions Pvt. Ltd. 2014. "QUICK HEAL 'COOL DUDE.'" YouTube. July 16. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2ot0J4ps4A">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2ot0J4ps4A</a>.</p>
<p>[6] Subarna Enterprise. 2014. "Stay protected from virus infected pendrives with Quick Heal Total Security." YouTube. April 10. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rLh0ng70Lc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rLh0ng70Lc</a>.</p>
<p>[7] Quick Heal. 2013. "Quick Heal Mobile Security TVC (Hindi)." YouTube. March 3. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWiomVUHVHk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWiomVUHVHk</a>.</p>
<p>[8] MTS India. 2012. "MTS MBLAZE ‘Always On’ LATEST TVC - Anupam Mukerji." YouTube. July 24. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWfyHMbKtsg"">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWfyHMbKtsg</a>.</p>
<p>[9] afaqs. 2012. "MTS MBLAZE TVC - Shraddha Sharma." YouTube. July 17. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsaJtPYTUF8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsaJtPYTUF8</a>.</p>
<p>[10] Idea. 2014. "Idea ‘No Ullu Banaoing’ Anthem TVC." YouTube. August 8. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZhXSnJ8sXY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZhXSnJ8sXY</a>.</p>
<p>[11] Idea. 2014. "Idea ‘No Ullu Banaoing’ Politician TVC." YouTube. March 13. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OahDrQDU24k">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OahDrQDU24k</a>.</p>
<p>[12] Idea. 2014. "Idea ‘No Ullu Banaoing’ Baba TVC." YouTube. May 11. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf2hYaHtBF4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf2hYaHtBF4</a>.</p>
<p>[13] Celeburbia Entertainment Media. 2011. "Idea 3G Funny Ad Campaign - India Over Population - Abhishek Bachchan Sir Ji Ad Series." YouTube. July 23. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqtB-IaeEo8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqtB-IaeEo8</a>.</p>
<p>[14] Idea. 2015. "Idea Internet Network (IIN) Slow Learner 25 sec TVC." YouTube. May 4. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXFk4VL9rWM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXFk4VL9rWM</a>.</p>
<p>[15] Idea. 2015. "Idea Internet Network (IIN) Military 25 sec TVC." YouTube. May 4. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwAP6PmGzRs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwAP6PmGzRs</a>.</p>
<p>[16] Neela, Pradeep. 2015. "Idea Internet Network IIN TV Ad - Drone wala." YouTube. January 11. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPTC945gsDo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPTC945gsDo</a>.</p>
<p>[17] Idea. 2015. "Idea Internet Network IIN Guide 20 sec TVC." YouTube. May 5. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkQma9Tyt8E">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkQma9Tyt8E</a>.</p>
<p>[18] Falguni, Vineet. 2015. "Idea Internet Network IIN Haryanvi 25 sec TVC." YouTube. January 20. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdVRGxw4ROI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdVRGxw4ROI</a>.</p>
<p>[19] iDiotube. 2015. "Idea Internet Network IIN Eunuch 25 second TVC HD." YouTube. April 26. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIZS_-Qm5Ro">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIZS_-Qm5Ro</a>.</p>
<p>[20] Idea. 2015. "Idea Internet Network IIN Mother Daughter 20 sec TVC." YouTube. May 5. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBHtLU7QGbE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBHtLU7QGbE</a>.</p>
<p>[21] Indian Tv Commercials. 2013. "Vodafone Commercial(Sep 2013)-Network(Latest Indian TV Ad)." YouTube. September 28. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6ULTFCWBQw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6ULTFCWBQw</a>.</p>
<p>[22] Airtel India. 2013. "airtel Re 1 Mobile Video - Taxi Ad (TVC)." YouTube. May 22. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpi2sOOfeIw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpi2sOOfeIw</a>.</p>
<p>[23] Airtel India. 2015. "Airtel my plan Coffee TVC." YouTube. February 5. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ElCIhsobXc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ElCIhsobXc</a>.</p>
<p>[24] Airtel India. 2014. "airtel money TVC - Pay Electricity Bills." YouTube. January 19. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFHurfXS9uI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFHurfXS9uI</a>.</p>
<p>[25] Vodafone India. 2015. "Vodafone m-pesa™– Babuji – HD." YouTube. March 16. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktgDPTlFxsU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktgDPTlFxsU</a>.</p>
<p>[26] Vodafone India. 2014. "Vodafone m-pesa™ - Cable TV – HD." YouTube. June 12. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIMYZDzyHeM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIMYZDzyHeM</a>.</p>
<p>[27] Vodafone India. 2014. "Vodafone m-pesa™ - Scooter – HD." YouTube. June 2. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQAtnQktHLI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQAtnQktHLI</a>.</p>
<p>[28] Advartisement. 2015. "Uncle’s Ice Cream Airtel Network In India." YouTube. March 27. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFsG1G7Ombo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFsG1G7Ombo</a>.</p>
<p>[29] Nirvana Films. 2015. "VODAFONE – Farewell." YouTube. March 19. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqZVO815MiM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqZVO815MiM</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>The post is published under <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</a> license, and copyright is retained by the author.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_users-and-the-internet'>https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_users-and-the-internet</a>
</p>
No publisherPurbasha AuddyResearchers at WorkInternet StudiesRAW Blog2015-07-10T04:20:54ZBlog EntryStudying Internet in India: Selected Abstracts
https://cis-india.org/raw/studying-internet-in-india-selected-abstracts
<b>We received thirty five engaging abstracts in response to the call for essays on 'Studying Internet in India.' Here are the ten selected abstracts. The final essays will be published from June onwards.</b>
<p> </p>
<h3>Deva Prasad M - 'Studying the Internet Discourse in India through the Prism of Human Rights'</h3>
<p>Exploring Internet from the perspective of human rights gives rise to the multitude of issues such as right to privacy, freedom of expression, accessibility. Pertinent socio-political and legal issues related to Internet which was widely debated upon in the past one year in India includes lack of freedom of expression on Internet and Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000. The recent net neutrality debate in India has also evoked deliberation about the right of equal accessibility to Internet and to maintain Internet as a democratic space. The repercussions of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ law of European Union also had led to debate of similar rights in Indian context. Interestingly all these issues have an underlying thread of human right perspective connecting them and need pertinent deliberation from human rights perspective.</p>
<p>This paper is an attempt to understand and analyze theses issues from the human rights angle and also how they have contributed in evolving an understanding and perspective amongst the digitally conscious Indian’s to ensure the democratic nature of “Internet” is perceived. Moreover, analysis of these three issues would also help in emphasizing upon the need for a right-based approach in studying Internet in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Dibyajyoti Ghosh - 'Indic Scripts and the Internet'</h3>
<p>Whereas the status of the internet in India is similar to the status of the internet in similar economies with low-penetration and a primarily mobile-based future, an alphabetically diverse nation such as India has its added worries. Whereas the 1990s saw an overdomination of English given the linguistic communities which were developing the world of computers and the world of the internet, by 2015, some of the disparity with offline linguistic patterns has been reduced. However, for Indic scripts, much less development has taken place. If one is studying the internet in India, chances are one is studying it in English.</p>
<p>What does this hold for the future of these Indic scripts? Given the multilingual skills of Indian school-goers and the increasing amount of daily reading time of those connected to the internet (which is somewhere between 12% and 20% of the population) being devoted to reading on the internet, chances are reading is increasingly in English. In this essay, I shall attempt to study the effects this has on the internet population of India, some of which are as follows.</p>
<ul>
<li>The kind of mimetic desire it causes</li>
<li>The degneration in spelling skills caused due to transliteration</li>
<li>The effacement of non-digitised Indic verbal texts</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Divij Joshi - 'The Internet in the Indian Judicial Imagination'</h3>
<p>The first mention of the 'Internet' in the vocabulary of Indian judicial system was a fleeting reference to its radical capability to allow access to knowledge. In one of its most recent references, it expounded upon and upheld the idea of the Internet as a radical tool for free expression, announcing its constitutional significance for free speech.</p>
<p>The judicial imagination of the Internet – the understanding of its capabilities and limitations, its actors and constituents, as reflected in the judgements of Indian courts – plays a major role in shaping the Internet in India, both reflecting and defining conceptions of the Internet and its relationship with society, law, and public policy.</p>
<p>This essay is an attempt to use legal and literary theory to study the archives of judicial decisions, tracing the history of the Internet in India through the lens of judicial trends, and also to look at how the judiciary has defined its own role in relation to the Internet. It attempts a vital study of how courts in India have conceptualized and understood the Internet, and how these conceptions have, in turn, impacted the influence of the Internet on Indian society.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Ipsita Sengupta</h3>
<p>The proposed essay will make observations of a specific kind of conversation that takes place on the social media platform of YouTube. The conclusive argument is imagined along questions of high versus low culture, as described below.</p>
<p>Under study are two objects- one, particular YouTube videos which play Rabindra-Sangeet, i.e. songs penned and composed in the late 19- early 20th centuries by the Bengali writer and artist Rabindranath Tagore, the body of work which today has become a genre of Indian music; and the second, comments that these videos receive from users of the site.</p>
<p>Visuals of YouTube song videos of Rabindra-Sangeet are of many kinds. So are renditions, with solitary or duet or band performances, and with varying pace and instrumental accompaniment.</p>
<p>The videos which have visuals from contemporary cinema, like images of urban youth, and the remixed renditions have often been found to receive comments which reflect/ reveal hurt sentiments of people trying to preserve some kind of sanctity of Rabindra-Sangeet, comments which state how the ethics of presenting the genre have been violated, via their notation and design, by either makers of the film in the song’s incorporation, or by the way young pop stars have been placed in particular montages.</p>
<p>Some examples:</p>
<p><iframe src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/1aGwOBgyWTo?rel=0" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe></p>
<p><iframe src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/8_z3blCxCCQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe></p>
<p>In such a scenario, YouTube as medium of user-generated expression becomes interesting to analyse individual and group dynamics- given the space for commenting (below the video), and statistical data such as “Likes”, “Dislikes”, and “Views”. The debate here is that in Tagore’s “Nationalism”, when he himself is seen to have an imagination of the human race beyond patriotic groupings and consequent othering, does this apparent need to avoid “insulting” his compositions by preserving an intangible art form in a particular way, become then a type of jingoism of region or identity? And what is this Benjaminian “aura” of the “original” that listeners look for in their experience of these videos?</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Laird Brown - 'Dharamsala Networked'</h3>
<p>Three hours after regulations governing public access to WiFi in India were changed in 2005 the first router went up in Dharamsala. It was homemade, open source, and eventually, “monkey proof.” Something unimaginable had happened: high-speed Internet access in one of India’s most difficult physical geographies. Dharamsala has also become one of India's interesting information networks and has a burgeoning, unlikely 'tech scene’. But is it so unlikely?</p>
<p>Since 1959 Dharamsala has been home to the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan people and, government in exile. This single, significant incident possibly set in motion a number of factors that made it possible for the mountain-town to become a political, global, communications. However, much like the rest of India, the region struggles for human and environmental rights against fractured ideas of 'development'. This essay will draw on archives and interviews to unpack this microcosmic tale of Internet access, its histories and economics and the factors at play in shaping it - mundane and maverick, familiar and outlier.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Maitrayee Deka - 'WhatsApp Economy'</h3>
<p>Everyone around us is connected to the Internet through some or other electronic devices, phones, laptops, and tablets. However, not everyone use Internet for the same purpose. Through an ethnographic account of the usage of WhatsApp messages by the traders in three electronic bazaars in Delhi, Palika Bazaar, Nehru Place and Lajpat Rai Market, we see how Internet on the phone is used predominantly for business purpose. The paper seeks to examine how Whatsapp messages, which are for most of the users a medium for social communication, for the traders in Delhi, become a mode to establish business contact with their counterparts in China. From sharing of pictures of new tools to quoting prices of different products, Whatsapp messages become the lifeline of what many has termed as ‘globalization from below’. This paper argues what has started as economic exchanges through Whatsapp messages may start a new political alliance of similar mass markets in Asia. With the electronic bazaars in Delhi facing stiff competition from formal business actors both online and offline, the WhatsApp messages that is a space of new innovations and trade alliances could sustain the mass markets in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Purbasha Auddy - 'Citizens and their Internet'</h3>
<p>Suddenly it seems internet data package on mobile phones is the reply to the problems in India. As mobile phones remain with us most of the time, it is as if we are ready to face the world if our mobile phones have a data package. Yes, several television commercials in India are gleefully harping on the notes of knowledge, empowerment and freedom. Moreover, internet is being identified as a virtual institution.</p>
<p>The essay proposes to look into those advertisements which talk about the internet to promote data packages, mobile phones or apps. Through this, the essay firstly, would like to construct the idea of the internet using the Indian citizen who is depicted as smart and almost infallible. Secondly, on the other hand, the essay would analyse how an affirmative and constructive view of using the internet in the minds of citizens has been generated by these advertisements, like the virtual world of the internet can save you from any drastic situation.</p>
<p>Advertisements are creative constructs, which have a strong aptitude to entice target consumers. While studying the internet in India, studying the ‘texts’ of Indian advertisements which refer to the act of ‘consuming’ the internet could result in an interesting study.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Sailen Routray - 'The Many Lives and Sites of Internet in Bhubaneswar'</h3>
<p>Those of us who have jumped or meandered across to the wrong (or perhaps the right) side of thirty by now, first came to consume internet in what were called, and are still called, cyber cafes or internet cafes. Their numbers in big Indian cities is dwindling because of the increasing ubiquity of smartphone, and netbooks and data cards. The cyber café seems to be inexorably headed the way of the STD booth in the geography of large Indian cities. The present paper is a preliminary step towards capturing some of the experience of running and using internet cafes. With ethnographic fieldwork with cyber café owners and internet users in these cafes in the Chandrasekharpur area of Bhubaneswar (where the largest section of the computer industry in the state of Odisha is located), this paper tries to capture experiences that lie at the interstices of ‘objects’ and spaces - experiences that are at the same time a history of the internet as well as a personal history of the city.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Sarah McKeever - 'Quantity over Quality: Social Media and the New Class System in India'</h3>
<p>From the humblest mobile phones to the most sophisticated computers, the Internet is everywhere and nowhere in India. The boundaries, the contours of the space remain nebulous and opaque. When engaging with social media in urban India in particular, we are bound to the conventions of corporations which demand quantity over quality creating a new class system of the Internet: those who are “active” – and therefore a “better” user – and those who have seemingly failed to keep up with the demands of the medium, buried in the ever‐growing noise and chaos. The creation of a new class system on the Internet, based on Western corporate desire for data, has shaped who is seen and heard on the Internet in India.</p>
<p>Based on fieldwork in New Delhi which examines the impact of the Internet on offline social movements – including the anti corruption movement in 2011 and the Delhi Rape Case in 2012 – I will argue that the study of the Internet in India can reinforce Western corporate conceptions of how to use the Internet properly among various users involved in the movements. By challenging these preconceptions, this essay will engage with issues of Western corporate notions of Internet use and how we engage with and find participants, how we evaluate what is “good” use of the Internet, and the creation of a new class system on the Internet in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Smarika Kumar - 'Governing Speech on the Internet: Transforming the Public Sphere through Policymaking'</h3>
<p>In the privatised spaces of the World Wide Web and the internet, how does one make sense of speech? Should speech in such a space be understood as the product of a marketplace of ideas? Or should its role in democratic participation be recognised by contextualising the internet as part of the Habermasian public sphere? These questions have interesting implications for the regulation of speech on the internet, as they employ different principles in understanding speech. Recent scholarship has argued for the benefits of employing the public sphere approach to the internet and thus recognising its democratic potential. But taking into account that all speech is inherently made in private spaces on the internet, the application of this
approach is far from simple.</p>
<p>This creates a tension between the marketplace of ideas and the public sphere approaches to speech on the internet in policymaking. I propose to explore how legal and regulatory mechanisms manage these tensions by
creating governance frameworks for the internet: I argue that through the use of policy and regulation, the private marketplace of the internet is sought to be reined in and reconciled to the public sphere, which is mostly represented through legislations governing the internet. I propose that this less-than-perfect reconciliation then manages to modify the very idea of the public sphere itself in the Indian context, by infusing participation of the "other" on the internet through indirect means.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/studying-internet-in-india-selected-abstracts'>https://cis-india.org/raw/studying-internet-in-india-selected-abstracts</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroResearchers at WorkFeaturedInternet StudiesRAW Blog2015-08-28T06:53:33ZBlog EntryCall for Essays: Studying Internet in India
https://cis-india.org/raw/call-for-essays-studying-internet-in-india
<b>As Internet makes itself comfortable amidst everyday lives in India, it becomes everywhere and everyware, it comes in 40 MBPS Unlimited and in chhota recharges – and even in zero flavour – the Researchers at Work (RAW) programme at the Centre for Internet and Society invites abstracts for essays that explore what it means to study Internet(s) in India today.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>We are interested in the many experiences of Internet(s) in India; its histories and archaeologies; how we use it to read, write, create, relate, learn, and share; the data that is produced, and the data that is consumed; the spaces that are created, and the spaces that are inhabited; the forms that political expressions take on the Web; and of course, where and how should one be studying Internet(s) in India?</p>
<p>This call is for researchers, workers, and others interested in closely – or from a distance – commenting on these topics and questions.</p>
<p>Please send abstracts (200 words) to <a href="mailto:raw@cis-india.org">raw@cis-india.org</a> by <strong>Sunday, April 26, 2015</strong>. The subject of the email should be 'Studying Internet in India.'</p>
<p>We will select up to 10 abstracts and announce them on <strong>Friday, May 01, 2015</strong>.</p>
<p>The selected authors will be asked to submit the final longform essay (2,500-3,000 words) by <strong>Sunday, May 31, 2015</strong>. The final essays will be published on the RAW Blog. The authors will be offered an honourarium of Rs. 5,000.</p>
<p>We understand that not all essays can be measured in words. The authors are very much welcome to work with text, images, sounds, videos, code, and other mediatic forms that the Internet offers. We will not be running a Word Count on the final 'essay.' The basic requirement is that the 'essay' must offer an <em>argument</em> – through text, or otherwise.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/call-for-essays-studying-internet-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/raw/call-for-essays-studying-internet-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroInternet StudiesRAW BlogFeaturedNoticesResearchers at Work2015-08-28T07:09:39ZBlog EntryCivil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in Asia and India – Section Outlines
https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-asia-and-india-outlines
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society has been invited to contribute two sections to the Asia Internet History - Third Decade (2001-2010) book edited by Dr. Kilnam Chon. The sections will discuss the activities and experiences of civil society organisations in Asia and India, respectively, in national, regional, and global Internet governance processes. The draft outlines of the sections are shared here. Comments and suggestions are invited.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>In the (draft) Foreword to the <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/internethistoryasia/book3" target="_blank">Asia Internet History – Third Decade (2001-2010)</a>, Prof. David J. Farber <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/annex3asia/home/foreword14629.docx?attredirects=0&d=1" target="_blank">writes</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>One of the early attempts to extend the reach of the Internet to Asia was via the “Johnny Appleseed” approach. That is a set of people responded to queries by people in Asian countries asking how they could connect with the growing Internet by offering to supply tapes to key people in the requesting countries, often by physically going with the tapes, as well as providing access points to the USA Internet. The people that we, I was one of the seeders, worked, with became the leaders in their nation and founded the initial national networks that blossomed with time and often formed the basis of commercial Internets. The traditions that these network frontier pioneers established lead to the eventual spread of the benefits of Internet access to not only their nations but became models for the spread to the rest of Asia…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I am honoured to contribute to the pioneering series titled <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/internethistoryasia/home" target="_blank">Asia Internet History</a>, edited by Dr. Kilnam Chon, by foregrounding a range of other individuals and organisations that often worked outside but in engagement with the national governments, and technical and academic institutions that govern <em>the connecting tapes</em> of the Internet, to ensure mass access to and effective usages of Internet in Asia.</p>
<p>The two sections, to be authored me, provides an overview of ‘civil society organisations’ working across Asian countries that have played a critical role in the shaping of policy-making and discourse around Internet governance during 2000-2010, and then undertakes a closer look at the organisations working in India and their interventions at national, regional, and global levels.</p>
<p>Please read the draft outlines of the <a href="https://github.com/ajantriks/writings/blob/master/sumandro_asia_internet_history_civil_society_overview_outline.md" target="_blank">overview section</a> and the <a href="https://github.com/ajantriks/writings/blob/master/sumandro_asia_internet_history_civil_society_india_outline.md" target="_blank">section on Indian organisations</a>, and share your comments. The comments can be posted on the GitHub page where the outlines are hosted, on this page, or over email: sumandro[at]cis-india[dot]org.</p>
<p>The outlines can also be directly downloaded as markdown files: the <a href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ajantriks/writings/master/sumandro_asia_internet_history_civil_society_overview_outline.md" target="_blank">overview</a> and the <a href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ajantriks/writings/master/sumandro_asia_internet_history_civil_society_india_outline.md" target="_blank">India</a> section.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Asian Civil Society Organisations and Internet Governance</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>Here is a tentative list of key civil society organisations from Asia that have participated and intervened in Internet governance processes during 2001-2010. Please suggest organisations missing from the list.</p>
<p> </p>
<strong>Bangladesh</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://bfes.net/" target="_blank">Bangladesh Friendship Education Society (BFES)</a></li><li><a href="http://www.bnnrc.net/" target="_blank">Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)</a></li><li>
<a href="http://www.bytesforall.net/" target="_blank">Bytes for All, Bangladesh</a></li><li>
<a href="http://www.isoc.org.bd/dhaka/" target="_blank">Dnet</a></li><li>
<a href="http://www.isoc.org.bd/dhaka/" target="_blank">Internet Society Dhaka Chapter</a></li><li><a href="http://www.voicebd.org/" target="_blank">VOICE</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Cambodia<br /><br /></strong>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.ccimcambodia.org/" target="_blank">Cambodian Center for Independent Media (CCIM)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.open.org.kh/en" target="_blank">Open Institute</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>China</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://english.cast.org.cn/" target="_blank">China Association for Science and Technology (CAST)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.isoc.hk/" target="_blank">Internet Society Hong Kong</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.isc.org.cn/english/" target="_blank">Internet Society of China</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.isoc.org.tw/" target="_blank">Internet Society Taiwan Chapter</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.isoc.org.tw/" target="_blank"></a><br /></li>
<li><a href="http://knowledgedialogues.com/" target="_blank">Knowledge Dialogues, Hong Kong</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Indonesia</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.engagemedia.org/" target="_blank">EngageMedia, Australia and Indonesia</a> <br /></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ilab.or.id/" target="_blank">ICT Laboratory for Social Change (iLab)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://id-config.org/" target="_blank">Indonesian CSOs Network for Internet Governance</a></li>
<li><a href="http://ictwatch.id/" target="_blank">Indonesian ICT Partnership Association (ICT Watch)</a> <br /></li>
<li><a href="http://www.isoc.or.id/" target="_blank">Internet Society Indonesia Chapter</a> [website is under construction]</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>India</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://censorship.wikia.com/wiki/Bloggers_Collective_group" target="_blank">Bloggers Collective</a></li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/" target="_blank">Centre for Internet and Society (CIS)</a> <br /></li>
<li><a href="http://www.csdms.in/" target="_blank">Centre for Science, Development and Media Studies (CSDMS)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://defindia.org/" target="_blank">Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://fsf.org.in/" target="_blank">Free Software Foundation India (FSFI)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://fsmi.in/" target="_blank">Free Software Movement of India (FSMI)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://internetdemocracy.in/" target="_blank">Internet Democracy Project</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.isocbangalore.org/" target="_blank">Internet Society Bangalore Chapter</a></li>
<li><a href="http://isocindiachennai.org/" target="_blank">Internet Society Chennai Chapter</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.isocdelhi.in/" target="_blank">Internet Society Delhi Chapter</a> <br /></li>
<li><a href="http://www.isocindiakolkata.in/" target="_blank">Internet Society Kolkata Chapter</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.itforchange.net/" target="_blank">IT for Change</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.itu-apt.org/" target="_blank">ITU-APT Foundation of India (IAFI)</a> <br /></li>
<li><a href="http://www.orfonline.org/" target="_blank">Observer Research Foundation (ORF)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.knowledgecommons.in/" target="_blank">Society for Knowledge Commons (Knowledge Commons)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sflc.in/" target="_blank">Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC)</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Iran</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.ictgroup.org/" target="_blank">Iranian Civil Society Organizations Training and Research Centre (ICTRC)</a> [URL is not working]</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Japan</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.glocom.ac.jp/e/" target="_blank">Centre for Global Communications (GLOCOM)</a> [Academia?]</li>
<li><a href="http://www.isoc.jp/" target="_blank">Internet Society Japan Chapter</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.jcafe.net/" target="_blank">Japan Computer Access for Empowerment (JCAFE)</a> [URL is not working]</li>
<li><a href="http://www.jca.apc.org/" target="_blank">Japan Computer Access Network (JCA-NET)</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Kuwait</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.ijma3.org/" target="_blank">iJMA3 - Kuwait Information Technology Society (KITS)</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Lebanon</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.lccelebanon.org/" target="_blank">Lebanese Center for Civic Education (LCCE)</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Malaysia</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.isoc.my/" target="_blank">Internet Society Malaysia Chapter</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Myanmar</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://myanmarido.org/en" target="_blank">Myanmar ICT for Development Organization (MIDO)</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Nepal</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.internetsociety.org.np/" target="_blank">Internet Society Nepal Chapter</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Pakistan</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="https://content.bytesforall.pk/" target="_blank">Bytes for All, Pakistan</a></li>
<li><a href="http://isocibd.org.pk/" target="_blank">Internet Society Islamabad Chapter</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Philippines</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://democracy.net.ph/" target="_blank">Democracy.Net.PH</a> <br /></li>
<li><a href="http://www.fma.ph/" target="_blank">Foundation for Media Alternatives (FMA)</a> [URL not working</li>
<li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ph" target="_blank">Internet Society Philippines Chapter</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Regional</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.forum-asia.org/" target="_blank">Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://discfoundation.com/" target="_blank">Developing Internet Safe Community (DISC) Foundation</a></li>
<li><a href="http://lirneasia.net/" target="_blank">LIRNEasia</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Singapore</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://isoc.sg/" target="_blank">Internet Society Singapore Chapter</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>South Korea</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.jinbo.net/" target="_blank">Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet</a></li>
<li><a href="http://opennet.or.kr/" target="_blank">OpenNet</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Sri Lanka</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://isoc.lk/?lang=en" target="_blank">Internet Society Sri Lanka Chapter</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Thailand</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.isoc-th.org/" target="_blank">Internet Society Thailand Chapter</a> <br /></li><li><a href="https://thainetizen.org/" target="_blank">Thai Netizen Network</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-asia-and-india-outlines'>https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-asia-and-india-outlines</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroInternet StudiesResearchFeaturedInternet HistoriesResearchers at Work2015-11-13T05:40:49ZBlog EntryWSIS+10 High Level Event: A Bird's Eye Report
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report
<b>The WSIS+10 High Level was organised by the ITU and collaborative UN entities on June 9-13, 2014. It aimed to evaluate the progress on implementation of WSIS Outcomes from Geneva 2003 and Tunis 2005, and to envision a post-2015 Development Agenda. Geetha Hariharan attended the event on CIS' behalf.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) +10 </span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/">High Level Event</a><span> (HLE) was hosted at the ITU Headquarters in Geneva, from June 9-13, 2014. The HLE aimed to review the implementation and progress made on information and communication technology (ICT) across the globe, in light of WSIS outcomes (</span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/index-p1.html">Geneva 2003</a><span> and </span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/index-p2.html">Tunis 2005</a><span>). Organised in three parallel tracks, the HLE sought to take stock of progress in ICTs in the last decade (High Level track), initiate High Level Dialogues to formulate the post-2015 development agenda, as well as host thematic workshops for participants (Forum track).</span><span> </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level Track:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/copy2_of_HighLevelTrack.jpg/@@images/be5f993c-3553-4d63-bb66-7cd16f8407dc.jpeg" alt="High Level Track" class="image-inline" title="High Level Track" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Opening Ceremony, WSIS+10 High Level Event </i>(<a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/ITU/status/334587247556960256/photo/1">Source</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level track opened officially on June 10, 2014, and culminated with the endorsement by acclamation (as is ITU tradition) of two <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/inc/doc/outcome/362828V2E.pdf">Outcome Documents</a>. These were: (1) WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes, taking stock of ICT developments since the WSIS summits, (2) WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015, aiming to develop a vision for the post-2015 global information society. These documents were the result of the WSIS+10 <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/">Multi-stakeholder Preparatory Platform</a> (MPP), which involved WSIS stakeholders (governments, private sector, civil society, international organizations and relevant regional organizations).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <strong>MPP</strong> met in six phases, convened as an open, inclusive consultation among WSIS stakeholders. It was not without its misadventures. While ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun I. Touré consistently lauded the multi-stakeholder process, and Ambassador Janis Karklins urged all parties, especially governments, to “<i>let the UN General Assembly know that the multi-stakeholder model works for Internet governance at all levels</i>”, participants in the process shared stories of discomfort, disagreement and discord amongst stakeholders on various IG issues, not least human rights on the Internet, surveillance and privacy, and multi-stakeholderism. Richard Hill of the Association for Proper Internet Governance (<a href="http://www.apig.ch/">APIG</a>) and the Just Net Coalition writes that like NETmundial, the MPP was rich in a diversity of views and knowledge exchange, but stakeholders <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/06/16/what-questions-did-the-wsis10-high-level-event-answer/">failed to reach consensus</a> on crucial issues. Indeed, Prof. Vlamidir Minkin, Chairman of the MPP, expressed his dismay at the lack of consensus over action line C9. A compromise was agreed upon in relation to C9 later.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some members of civil society expressed their satisfaction with the extensive references to human rights and rights-centred development in the Outcome Documents. While governmental opposition was seen as frustrating, they felt that the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">MPP had sought and achieved a common understanding</span></strong>, a sentiment <a href="https://twitter.com/covertlight/status/476748168051580928">echoed</a> by the ITU Secretary General. Indeed, even Iran, a state that had expressed major reservations during the MPP and felt itself unable to agree with the text, <a href="https://twitter.com/covertlight/status/476748723750711297">agreed</a> that the MPP had worked hard to draft a document beneficial to all.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Concerns around the MPP did not affect the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">review of ICT developments</span></strong> over the last decade. High Level Panels with Ministers of ICT from states such as Uganda, Bangladesh, Sweden, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and others, heads of the UN Development Programme, UNCTAD, Food and Agriculture Organisation, UN-WOMEN and others spoke at length of rapid advances in ICTs. The focus was largely on ICT access and affordability in developing states. John E. Davies of Intel repeatedly drew attention to innovative uses of ICTs in Africa and Asia, which have helped bridge divides of affordability, gender, education and capacity-building. Public-private partnerships were the best solution, he said, to affordability and access. At a ceremony evaluating implementation of WSIS action-lines, the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), India, <a href="https://twitter.com/covertlight/status/476748723750711297">won an award</a> for its e-health application MOTHER.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The Outcome Documents themselves shall be analysed in a separate post. But in sum, the dialogue around Internet governance at the HLE centred around the success of the MPP. Most participants on panels and in the audience felt this was a crucial achievement within the realm of the UN, where the Tunis Summit had delineated strict roles for stakeholders in paragraph 35 of the </span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html">Tunis Agenda</a><span>. Indeed, there was palpable relief in Conference Room 1 at the </span><a href="http://www.cicg.ch/en/">CICG</a><span>, Geneva, when on June 11, Dr. Touré announced that the Outcome Documents would be adopted without a vote, in keeping with ITU tradition, even if consensus was achieved by compromise.</span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level Dialogues:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/HighLevelDialogues.jpg/@@images/3c30d94f-7a65-4912-bb42-2ccd3b85a18d.jpeg" alt="High Level Dialogues" class="image-inline" title="High Level Dialogues" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Prof. Vladimir Minkin delivers a statement.</i> (<a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/JaroslawPONDER/status/476288845013843968/photo/1">Source</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level Dialogues on developing a post-2015 Development Agenda, based on WSIS action lines, were active on June 12. Introducing the Dialogue, Dr. Touré lamented the Millennium Development Goals as a “<i>lost opportunity</i>”, emphasizing the need to alert the UN General Assembly and its committees as to the importance of ICTs for development.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As on previous panels, there was <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">intense focus on access, affordability and reach in developing countries</span></strong>, with Rwanda and Bangladesh expounding upon their successes in implementing ICT innovations domestically. The world is more connected than it was in 2005, and the ITU in 2014 is no longer what it was in 2003, said speakers. But we lack data on ICT deployment across the globe, said Minister Knutssen of Sweden, recalling the gathering to the need to engage all stakeholders in this task. Speakers on multiple panels, including the Rwandan Minister for CIT, Marilyn Cade of ICANN and Petra Lantz of the UNDP, emphasized the need for ‘smart engagement’ and capacity-building for ICT development and deployment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A crucial session on cybersecurity saw Dr. Touré envision a global peace treaty accommodating multiple stakeholders. On the panel were Minister Omobola Johnson of Nigeria, Prof. Udo Helmbrecht of the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA), Prof. A.A. Wahab of Cybersecurity Malaysia and Simon Muller of Facebook. The focus was primarily on building laws and regulations for secure communication and business, while child protection was equally considered.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The lack of laws/regulations for cybersecurity (child pornography and jurisdictional issues, for instance), or other legal protections (privacy, data protection, freedom of speech) in rapidly connecting developing states was noted. But the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">question of cross-border surveillance and wanton violations of privacy went unaddressed</span></strong> except for the customary, unavoidable mention. This was expected. Debates in Internet governance have, in the past year, been silently and invisibly driven by the Snowden revelations. So too, at WSIS+10 Cybersecurity, speakers emphasized open data, information exchange, data ownership and control (the <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties">right to be forgotten</a>), but did not openly address surveillance. Indeed, Simon Muller of Facebook called upon governments to publish their own transparency reports: A laudable suggestion, even accounting for Facebook’s own undetailed and truncated reports.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a nutshell, the post-2015 Development Agenda dialogues repeatedly emphasized the importance of ICTs in global connectivity, and their impact on GDP growth and socio-cultural change and progress. The focus was on taking this message to the UN General Assembly, engaging all stakeholders and creating an achievable set of action lines post-2015.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The Forum Track:</h3>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/copy_of_ForumTrack.jpg/@@images/dfcce68a-18d7-4f1e-897b-7208bb60abc9.jpeg" alt="Forum Track" class="image-inline" title="Forum Track" /></p>
<p><i>Participants at the UNESCO session on its Comprehensive Study on Internet-related Issues</i> (<a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/leakaspar/status/476690921644646400/photo/1">Source</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The HLE was organized as an extended version of the WSIS Forum, which hosts thematic workshops and networking opportunities, much like any other conference. Running in parallel sessions over 5 days, the WSIS Forum hosted sessions by the ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, ICANN, ISOC, APIG, etc., on issues as diverse as the WSIS Action Lines, the future of Internet governance, the successes and failures of <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/18/itu-phobia-why-wcit-was-derailed/">WCIT-2012</a>, UNESCO’s <a href="http://www.unesco.org/new/internetstudy">Comprehensive Study on Internet-related Issues</a>, spam and a taxonomy of Internet governance.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Detailed explanation of each session I attended is beyond the scope of this report, so I will limit myself to the interesting issues raised.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At ICANN’s session on its own future (June 9), Ms. Marilyn Cade emphasized the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">importance of national and regional IGFs</span></strong> for both issue-awareness and capacity-building. Mr. Nigel Hickson spoke of engagement at multiple Internet governance fora: “<i>Internet governance is not shaped by individual events</i>”. In light of <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/04/16/icann-anything-that-doesnt-give-iana-to-me-is-out-of-scope/">criticism</a> of ICANN’s apparent monopoly over IANA stewardship transition, this has been ICANN’s continual <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en">response</a> (often repeated at the HLE itself). Also widely discussed was the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">role of stakeholders in Internet governance</span></strong>, given the delineation of roles and responsibilities in the Tunis Agenda, and governments’ preference for policy-monopoly (At WSIS+10, Indian Ambassador Dilip Sinha seemed wistful that multilateralism is a “<i>distant dream</i>”).<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This discussion bore greater fruit in a session on Internet governance ‘taxonomy’. The session saw <a href="https://www.icann.org/profiles/george-sadowsky">Mr. George Sadowsky</a>, <a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/faculty/kurbalija">Dr. Jovan Kurbalija</a>, <a href="http://www.williamdrake.org/">Mr. William Drake</a> and <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/agenda/session_docs/170/ThoughtsOnIG.pdf">Mr. Eliot Lear</a> (there is surprisingly no official profile-page on Mr. Lear) expound on dense structures of Internet governance, involving multiple methods of classification of Internet infrastructure, CIRs, public policy issues, etc. across a spectrum of ‘baskets’ – socio-cultural, economic, legal, technical. Such studies, though each attempting clarity in Internet governance studies, indicate that the closer you get to IG, the more diverse and interconnected the eco-system gets. David Souter’s diagrams almost capture the flux of dynamic debate in this area (please see pages 9 and 22 of <a href="http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/ISOC%20framework%20for%20IG%20assessments%20-%20D%20Souter%20-%20final_0.pdf">this ISOC study</a>).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There were, for most part, insightful interventions from session participants. Mr. Sadowsky questioned the effectiveness of the Tunis Agenda delineation of stakeholder-roles, while Mr. Lear pleaded that techies be let to do their jobs without interference. <a href="http://internetdemocracy.in/">Ms. Anja Kovacs</a> raised pertinent concerns about <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">including voiceless minorities in a ‘rough consensus’ model</span></strong>. Across sessions, <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">questions of mass surveillance, privacy and data ownership rose</span></strong> from participants. The protection of human rights on the Internet – especially freedom of expression and privacy – made continual appearance, across issues like spam (<a href="http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/CDS/sg/rgqlist.asp?lg=1&sp=2010&rgq=D10-RGQ22.1.1&stg=1">Question 22-1/1</a> of ITU-D Study Group 1) and cybersecurity.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Conclusion:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The HLE was widely attended by participants across WSIS stakeholder-groups. At the event, a great many relevant questions such as the future of ICTs, inclusions in the post-2015 Development Agenda, the value of muti-stakeholder models, and human rights such as free speech and privacy were raised across the board. Not only were these raised, but cognizance was taken of them by Ministers, members of the ITU and other collaborative UN bodies, private sector entities such as ICANN, technical community such as the ISOC and IETF, as well as (obviously) civil society.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Substantively, the HLE did not address mass surveillance and privacy, nor of expanding roles of WSIS stakeholders and beyond. Processually, the MPP failed to reach consensus on several issues comfortably, and a compromise had to be brokered.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>But perhaps a big change at the HLE was the positive attitude to multi-stakeholder models from many quarters, not least the ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun Touré. His repeated calls for acceptance of multi-stakeholderism left many members of civil society surprised and tentatively pleased. Going forward, it will be interesting to track the ITU and the rest of UN’s (and of course, member states’) stances on multi-stakeholderism at the ITU Plenipot, the WSIS+10 Review and the UN General Assembly session, at the least.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaWSIS+10PrivacyCybersecurityHuman Rights OnlineSurveillanceFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceFacebookData ProtectionMulti-stakeholderICANNInternet AccessITUInternet StudiesE-GovernanceICT2014-06-20T15:57:32ZBlog EntryNot a Goodbye; More a ‘Come Again’: Thoughts on being Research Director at a moment of transition
https://cis-india.org/raw/not-a-goodbye-more-a-come-again
<b>As I slowly make the news of my transition from being the Research Director at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, to taking up a professorship at the Leuphana University, Lueneburg, Germany, there is a question that I am often asked: “Are you going to start a new research centre?” And the answer, for the most part, is “No.”</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Not because I don’t see the value of creating institutional spaces like these or that starting and running CIS has been anything short of a dream, but because I don’t how to. When I tell people I don’t know how CIS came into being, they suspect that I am being either facetious or dismissive. But I am not. If somebody asked me to write an Origin Story for CIS, I would be baffled – or probably sum it up by saying that it happened. There was the germ of an idea, a whole lot of people who responded to it, and like the great Tolkienian epic, it was a story that grew in its telling.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I was 27, when Sunil Abraham, the now Executive Director and I met together in New Delhi, to talk about what a research organisation that represents the public interest at the intersections of Internet & Society would look like. We spent three days in the Delhi heat, coming up with the most fantastic ideas about methods, structures and core areas of interest. It was one of those divine exercises where you build the template for your dream work and then, like a fairy-tale, we had incredible people who came and supported us to make that dream a reality. In six months of that first conversation – I had just turned 28 and was completing the last drafts of my Ph.D. dissertation – CIS got officially registered and with some of the most incredible people, who have been with us, both in their generous affective investment as well as in their intellectual and professional support, we kicked-off a research centre, that has become not only hard to ignore but also significantly important in bringing about scholarly and practice based research around the different facets of how the emergence and widespread reach of the Internet is changing the ways in which we become human, social and political in emerging information societies of the Global South.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the 7 years since that first conversation started, I have learned so much from CIS and the networks that built around it, that it would be impossible to write an exhaustive account of it. However, as I now take up a new position at the CIS as a member of its board, and continue to collaborate with the on-the-ground teams intellectually, from my new position as a Professor, there are five things I want to dwell upon, more to remind myself of important lessons learned, but also as approaches that the new director and team might want to reference:</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Research cannot be individually focused</b><br />One of the things that academic training does is that it promotes the idea of an individual researcher. We write, publish, seek grants and present our work, taking individual credit and building a body of work that is centred on us. True, we collaborate and we participate and we are opening up more distributed modes of learning and research, but at the end of the day, there is still an imagination of a research community that is built of individual scholars who work in a happy symbiosis and synthesis.<br /><br />The biggest lesson I learned with the CIS was that research requires collectives – peers, supporters, and critics – that can help materialise a vision. Instead of trying to do ‘my’ research, it was the first time that I was enabling others’ research. I had a say in building the research vision, and establishing protocols of rigour and review, but to have a dream, and then to share it with others, so that it becomes a collective dream was an incredible experience. It was the beginning of a method that I hope informs all my work, where research methods are constantly going to accommodate for and be shaped by collective visions and approaches rather than just the individual as a lone warrior. More than anything else, it reassures us that we are not alone, either in our triumphs or our road-blocks, and it builds a community of thinkers that is more important than just the single authored outputs that we bring out.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Research requires infrastructure</b><br />Institutions are infrastructure. However, our jobs are so segregated, that we don’t always realise the incredible effort that goes into building such institutions and then making them work as efficient infrastructure to support research. It is very rare, in research publications that we thank our everyday office staff, the accounts team that processes the complicated bureaucracies of research funding, the programme managers who create networks and evaluation formats, or the numerous people who perform ‘non-research’ jobs so that we can do the research. <br /><br />I had worked in project and programme manager positions before CIS. I had also worked as an independent researcher and consultant before that. But this was the first time I actually took the dual responsibility of not only initiating research but also providing the infrastructure for it. And I know that I am a wiser person for it. The intricate world of fund-raising, managing and developing networks, of implementing and monitoring research projects and contracts, and the need to constantly find sustainable options for the research programmes is something that requires an incredible amount of effort and resources. The researchers often are kept away from this world, or we often just ignore the intense quotidian activities that give us the privilege of doing our work, and my time with CIS taught me not only to appreciate this, but also to recognise these tasks as research.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>All research must try and answer the ‘So What?’ question</b><br />Within academic circles, research has inherent value. We do have the freedom to develop new frameworks and ideas that might not have any immediate relevance and might in fact even fail without seeing the light of day. Academia is privileged because as long as we perform our pedagogic tasks, we have the space to experiment and often work on areas that might not benefit anybody outside the disciplines that we are located in.<br /><br />At CIS, working at such close quarters with colleagues who are experts in policy and regulation, research became critical for me. It wasn’t research for research’s sake. It was research with a cause. At the same time, making the research relevant was not an exercise in dumbing it down so that it can be reduced to easy implementation. The effort required at making academic and intellectual research accessible, while still retaining its complexity has been a heady experience for me. Since CIS, I have tried to make sure that all research is able to answer the ‘So What?’ question, and every time, it has made the research more robust, more rigorous and having a greater audience and impact than it would otherwise have. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>To be a research organisation is to be unafraid</b><br />One of the most fantastic things about being a young research organisations was that we were not afraid to voice our opinions and voice them loud. In the last 6 years, CIS has evolved into a strong voice that is not unanimous, but is still clear. We have had disagreements with established research and policy actors. We have critiqued decisions taken by policy and development institutions when we felt that they were flawed. We have provided a critical commentary to different instruments of law and regulation when necessary. We have challenged academic researchers in their methodology as well as in their disconnect from the ‘real world’. And we did it, because early on, the people who guided us, taught us, that research organisations have to be unafraid. <br /><br />Unafraid, not just to ask tough questions of those outside, but also of asking tough questions internally. The team, as it has grown, has been a smorgasbord of disciplinary and stakeholder locations. We don’t necessarily speak the same language. We don’t also, agree on many critical points. But we never tried to be a consensus generation institute. Instead, we learned to coexist and even collaborate in our differences – it was something that external partners often had problems with. How can one set of people work towards critically opposing a phenomenon when others might actually write in favour of some of the aspects of that same phenomenon? How is it possible that some in the institute have great collaborations with a network that the others critique persistently in their work? These tensions, for me, have been generative and I hope that they continue, both in the institution but also in my future work.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Researchers are people too</b><br />This is one of the strangest things to realise, but it is a good lesson to remember. Academia and research work through abstractions. At some point, the researchers become names. They become only a body of work, a certain number of words. But dealing with researchers is to deal with human beings. We have to remember that researchers, while they are often driven and passionate and unable to extricate their lives from their work, do have lives and bodies and socialities that need to be managed. Institutions often get driven by matrices of measurement and politics of promotion and evaluation, at the neglect of the people who actually build it. The constant push at CIS was to recognise that we are all too human in our everyday lives. And to build work environments, relationships and spaces that nurture the people we work with is the primary responsibility of all research. <br /><br />These points are probably too vague, but this blog post is already too long. I just wanted to take this opportunity to write some ‘Notes to the self’ about things that have been the most important to me in being the co-founder and Research Director at the Centre for Internet and Society. And now, it is time for me to move on. I want to place myself in an academic setting where I learn, I get some headspace to think and write, and do the one thing that I enjoy the most – teach. Starting 1st October 2014<a href="#fn*" name="fr*">[*] </a>I am stepping down as the Research Director and taking up a professorship in a new and exciting university, designing courses and research agendas at the intersections of internet studies, media studies, culture studies and aesthetic studies, bringing together some of my most passionate areas of interest. However, I continue to be interested and invested in CIS’ institutional growth. I shall be a part of the search committee as we invite a new Research Director in the Bangalore office, I shall be a part of the Board that governs the CIS, and I shall always think of CIS as my home, continuing mentoring and implementing existing collaborations but also building more, especially towards the pedagogic and knowledge production side of things.<br /><br />When the final decisions about this transition were made last week, I had thought I would be emotional and heart broken. Instead, I only feel excited. I have a wonderful set of colleagues in Bangalore, and they, in turn, are at the centre of networks of support, love, empathy and trust. CIS will benefit from having a new Research Director who will bring new visions, new methods, new processes and infrastructure to the table, and I hope that as my own academic career grows, I shall find myself returning to CIS in different capacities and roles, both for what I could contribute to it, but also for what I continue to learn from the rich range and variety of activities that it anchors.</li>
</ol>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr*" name="fn*">*</a>].For me, this is not a goodbye, but just a change in roles at the CIS. I will continue to use my CIS credentials and email address, and will be found on the existing contact details there for any queries or interactions with and on behalf of the CIS. So no need to change your address books, just yet.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/not-a-goodbye-more-a-come-again'>https://cis-india.org/raw/not-a-goodbye-more-a-come-again</a>
</p>
No publishernishantResearchers at WorkFeaturedInternet StudiesResearch2014-06-15T02:17:06ZBlog Entry10 Ways to Say Nothing New
https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/indian-express-january-19-2014-nishant-shah-10-ways-to-say-nothing-new
<b>The rise of the listicle, a safe, non-thinking information piece that tells us what we already know.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify;">Nishant Shah's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://epaper.indianexpress.com/216222/Eye-The-Sunday-Express-Magazine/19-January-2014#page/20/2">published in the Indian Express</a> on January 19, 2014.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify;">I Always Like to begin the New Year with a self-fulfilling prophecy, assured in the fact that like New Year resolutions, it will quickly be forgotten in the attention deficit times that we live in. Nevertheless, it is always a fun exercise, to play Cassandra, and utter ominous things about the time to come. I am looking at my fasterthan-byte feeds online and trying to figure out the new trend that is going to be the absolute death of us in 2014. I did some research (Google search), consulted some experts (asked friends on Facebook),analysed critiques (trolled on Twitter), and looked at current trends (followed funny Tumblrs) and finally have the answer. The thing that we must brace for is the list — or rather the listicle (an article that is written like a list).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Have you noticed it? Almost anything that is anything on the internet lately has been presented to us as a list. There are lists for everything — of things people say, of things people do, of things people want to say about people who do things. On websites in the business of making things go viral (and slightly fermented), the listicle has emerged as the next best thing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Now, I don’t want us to run away with the idea (10 ways to run away with ideas — coming soon on Viral Nova) that lists are new. Lists have always existed and have been one of the most basic forms of archiving, sorting and storing human knowledge and information. However, the new lists that are doing the rounds on BuzzFeed, Reditt, Viral Nova and everywhere else need attention. The listicle is an incredible performance of the strange, the silly and the deranged. Like reality TV judges, they are empty, cliché-ridden and yet seductive. They are supposed to produce profound truths, give us insights into our everyday practices, harness the wisdom of crowds and help curate overloaded information feeds to distil what is most relevant and useful. In itself, that is a fantastic ambition and for somebody who is constantly moaning about there not being enough time to follow everything on the internet (way too many videos of pandas making friends with wallabies on Vimeo these days), I appreciate the ability that listicles have of reducing read-time and giving us tweet-sized nuggets of wisdom. Bam! Our lives have changed!</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">And yet, as you look at these lists, you slowly start realising that listicles are significantly empty. They try to pass on the banal, the boring, the insipid and the extraordinarily common-sense as knowledge, information and wisdom. I am randomly looking at the last five listicles on my timeline — 20 reasons why a 20-something would never survive Hunger Games (right, because that’s the message of the books — get children to kill each other!), 31 insanely clever ideas to remodel your new house (a lot of them using chopped up coke bottles and toilet paper rolls for that intimate ambience), 18 ways of discovering happiness through travel (my first rule is “be very rich”), 25 universal horrors of hair removal (let it grow! Let it grow! Let it grow!) and seven ways of making a to-do list that works (get it? Get it? A list about making an efficient list. May I please say #FacePalm?)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">So, snide remarks aside (10 ways to let go of sarcasm?) what does this mean for us? Why are listicles so popular? Why are the tech-savvy, educated people online, who could be overthrowing authority (all hail, Snowden) and feeding starving children in a poor country of their choice — why are they all spending the time with listicles? I am proposing that the listicle is the final death of politics, criticality and thought on the internet. We have already seen how online conversations quickly devolve into an exercise in creative name-calling and racist, bigoted bullying. The internet has already shown us that all debates end in accusations of fascism (Godwin’s law) and that anything that you say online is going to offend somebody who will then come back, like the ghost of Christmas past, and haunt you. In the hostile space that the internet has become, not the very least because everybody is not watching porn, searching for pictures of animals, or pirating music and movies, we are all trained to be the saints who were persecuted for their beliefs. There is no such thing as a bad person on the internet. Everybody is smug, holier- than-thou, and even when wrong, are saintly wrong, and thus martyrs. For a medium that was supposed to encourage conversation, unless you are in the company of people you know, the internet has become a hunting ground, where the only thing you can do safely is make a list. And hence, the listicle.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">True, once in a while, there are some really cool listicles (though they might lead to mild electrocution or house burning down, but hey, no pain, no gain, right?) and they do help in visualising and transmitting information very fast. At the end of the day, listicles are the space that conversations go to die. The listicle is a safe, non-offensive, non-thinking information piece that tells us what we already know, confirms what we had always suspected, and gives validation to the impressive schools of thoughts like “My grandmother says so” and “I have heard that”. It is a way by which we escape deep thought or engaged talk, basking in the enchantment of our own brilliance, no longer in need of thinking anymore, because look, look how beautiful our thoughts look in the listicle, and look, how many people are sharing it! The listicle has risen and it looks like it is just going to get more popular. Maybe it is time to write a listicle about why we shouldn’t be writing listicles.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/indian-express-january-19-2014-nishant-shah-10-ways-to-say-nothing-new'>https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/indian-express-january-19-2014-nishant-shah-10-ways-to-say-nothing-new</a>
</p>
No publishernishantResearchers at WorkInternet Studies2015-04-14T13:17:52ZBlog EntryInternet Governance Forum
https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/internet-governance-forum
<b>Anirudh Sridhar provides an analysis of the creation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), its structure, and the importance of IGF in this unit.</b>
<h3>Introduction</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">IGF can be best described as the Forum which brings "people together from various stakeholder groups as equals, in discussions on public policy issues relating to the Internet. While there is no negotiated outcome, the IGF informs and inspires those with policy-making power in both the public and private sectors. At their annual meeting delegates discuss, exchange information and share good practices with each other. The IGF facilitates a common understanding of how to maximize internet opportunities and address risks and challenges that arise.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The IGF is also a space that gives developing countries the same opportunity as wealthier nations to engage in the debate on Internet Governance and to facilitate their participation in existing institutions and arrangements. Ultimately, the involvement of all stakeholders, from developed as well as developing countries, is necessary for the future development of the Internet."<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Creation of IGF</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As it has been mentioned, IGF was first conceived in the Tunis Agenda. Article 72 of the Tunis Agenda laid the foundation of IGF. Article 72 lays down the mandate of the IGF. It asks the UN Secretary General to put in place an open and inclusive process and to convene a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue which would be known as IGF.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Past IGFs</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The first IGF was organized in 2006 in Athens. Since then it has been held each year in various locations. In has been held in Rio de Janerio in 2007, Hyderabad in 2008, Sharm El Sheikh in 2009, Vilinius in 2010, Nairobi in 2011 and Baku in 2012. The IGF in 2013 is to be held in Bali.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Overarching themes at IGFs so far:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2006 and 2007 – Internet for development"<br />2008 – Internet for All<br />2009 – Internet Governance and creating opportunities for all<br />2010 – Developing the Future together<br />2011 – Internet as a Catalyst for Change: Access, Development, Freedoms and Innovation 2012 – "Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, Economic and Social Development".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 2013 IGF has found strong support for two themes, "Building Bridges" and "Enhancing Multi-stakeholder Cooperation for Growth, Development and Human Rights".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Apart from the over-arching themes, it focuses on certain themes which have been discussed across all the IGFs:</p>
<ul>
<li>Human Rights/ Freedom of speech</li>
<li>Security, Cybercrimes</li>
<li>Spam</li>
<li>Data protection and privacy</li>
<li>Consumers Rights, Network Neutrality</li>
<li>Intellectual Property Rights</li>
<li>Development (issues related to digital divide)</li>
<li>Open Standards</li>
<li>Capacity Building</li>
<li>Issues related processes and principles</li>
<li>E-commerce and e-governance</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Structure of the IGF</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretariat of the IGF is based in the United Nations. The main function of the IGF is to coordinate with and assist the work of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). The MAG was first set up by Kofi Annan, Secretary General of UN in 2006. The main function of the MAG is to decide upon issues and themes which need to be addressed in each IGF. The MAG comprises of representation from all stakeholders and all regions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The forum organizes and accommodates plenary sessions, workshops, open forums and best practices forums.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Dynamic Coalitions: The concept of dynamic coalitions was conceived in the first IGF in Athens, which are informal and issue-specific. It comprises of members from different stake holder groups. Currently there are ten active dynamic coalitions, for example, Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, Internet Rights and Principles, and Child Online Safety, etc.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Importance of IGF</h3>
<p>One of the main critiques of the IGF is that the outcomes of the IGF do not have any binding effect on the participating governments, industry, non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations. But such a process is said to discard the involvement of multi-stakeholder through use of coercive power which is the main feature of government regulation. In this regard, Jeremy Malcolm notes:</p>
<blockquote class="quoted">"The IGF’s output is explicitly “non-binding,” which means that the participation of states in the IGF process does not involve the use of coercive power as is a typical feature of government regulation. In fact since the process is to be “multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent” with “full involvement” of “all stakeholders involved in this process,” governments do not, at least in principle, enjoy any position of pre-eminence in policy formation through the IGF. Neither should they, if the IGF’s legitimacy and effectiveness are to be assured."<a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2]</a><br /></blockquote>
<hr />
<p>[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. What is Internet Governance Forun available at <a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/IIwXNu">http://bit.ly/IIwXNu</a>.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>]. Jeremy Malcolm, Multi-stakeholder Governance and the Internet Governance Forum, Terminus Press, 2008 at pp. 3.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/internet-governance-forum'>https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/internet-governance-forum</a>
</p>
No publisheranirudhInternet Studies2013-12-03T10:29:30ZPageWorld Summit on Information Society (WSIS)
https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/world-summit-on-information-society
<b>The United States had the control over internet resources and its administration was controlled by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. This was the principle agency in the US dealing with telecommunication and information policy and the ICANN managed the internet domain names and IP addresses. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN and indirectly the US government having control over the domain name system and the internet registry was an issue of concern for the rest of the world as well international organizations. The proposal for the WSIS by the United Nations was the reaction to such a concern.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Origins of the WSIS</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The World Summit on Information Society was first proposed by the International Telecommunication Union in 1998. The main focus of the WSIS was to address issues related to the global digital divide. However, the scope of the WSIS was broadened later to include internet related public policy issues. The UN General Assembly approved the Summit in 2001<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a> which was to be held in two phases. The first phase was held in Geneva from December 10-12, 2003 and the second phase was held in Tunis from November 16-18, 2005. The main aim of the Geneva Summit was to lay down a road map to building an information society accessible to everyone. The Tunis Agenda was more on the lines of developing a mechanism or framework which would be effective in dealing with management of the internet public policy issues.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Main Goals of the WSIS</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the beginning the main objective of the WSIS was to discuss issues on building better telecommunication and information infrastructure in the developing nations to bridge the digital divide. The self adopted purpose of the WSIS was, "to harness the potential of knowledge and technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration."<a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2] </a>However, during the meetings the focus of the WSIS was broadened and it covered not only issues related information infrastructure but also various issues related to communication and other public policy issues such as freedom of speech, privacy, etc.</p>
<h3>Geneva Summit</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Geneva Summit saw overwhelming participation from the government, civil society, industry, international organizations and media. Nearly 11000 participants attended the Summit. The Geneva Summit of WSIS was supposed to mainly focus on principles and the Tunis Summit was envisioned to deal with implementation of principles and follow-up mechanisms. Though the Geneva Summit failed in reaching a consensus on the issue of the future of internet governance, there were two major outcomes of the Summit; the Geneva Declaration of Principles and Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG).</p>
<h3>Geneva Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Plan of Action focused on information and communication infrastructure and recognized it as the essential foundation of the information society. It also emphasized on the importance of access to knowledge, capacity building and building of an enabling environment. It was also cognizant of cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and development of local content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One of the key features of the Geneva Summits was that it recognized the principles of multi-stakeholderism. The Geneva Declaration of Principles while recognizing the principles of multi-stakeholderism stated,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Governments, as well as private sector, civil society and the United Nations and other international organizations have an important role and responsibility in the development of the Information Society and, as appropriate, in decision-making processes. Building a people-centered Information Society is a joint effort which requires cooperation and partnership among all stakeholders."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Geneva Declaration of Principles also laid down principles related to role of ICT in development, access, human rights and international and regional cooperation.</p>
<h3>WGIG</h3>
<p>The main functions of the WGIG included:</p>
<ul>
<li>To “develop a working definition of Internet Governance</li>
<li>Identify the public policy issues that are relevant to Internet Governance</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Develop a common understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of governments, existing international organizations and other forums, as well as the private sector and civil society in both developing and developed countries.” </li>
</ul>
<p><br />The final report of the WGIG divided issues related to Internet Governance in four sections:</p>
<ul>
<li>Infrastructure </li>
<li>Privacy, security and safety on the internet</li>
<li>Intellectual property and international trade</li>
<li>Development</li>
</ul>
<h3>Tunis Summit</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Tunis Summit resulted in the agreement on the Tunis Commitment, Tunis Agenda for the Information Society and the birth of the Internet Governance Forum. The Tunis Agenda and Tunis Commitment were the consensus statements at the Tunis Phase of WSIS whereas the Internet Governance Forum was created as a multi-stakeholder platform for policy dialogue on internet related public policy matters.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Tunis Commitment confirmed the agreement on Declaration of Principles among the stakeholders as well as reaffirmed the Plan of Action.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Tunis Agenda</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Tunis Agenda recognized the need to, "move from principles to action, considering the work already being done in implementing the Geneva Plan of Action and identifying those areas where progress has been made, is being made, or has not taken place."<a href="#fn4" name="fr4">[4]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It also reaffirmed the, "commitments made in Geneva and build on them in Tunis by focusing on financial mechanisms for bridging the digital divide, on internet governance and related issues, as well as on implementation and follow-up of the Geneva and Tunis decisions."<a href="#fn5" name="fr5">[5]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The two other important parts of the Tunis Agenda were sections on:</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Financial mechanisms for meeting the challenges of ICT for development<br />This part of the Tunis Agenda generally focussed financing infrastructure and equipment for providing better access to the internet in the developing areas.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Internet Governance<br />The section on Internet Governance dealt with management of the internet in a multilateral, transparent and democratic process with full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Article 35<a href="#fn6" name="fr6">[6]</a> of the Tunis Agenda reaffirmed that the management of the internet shall take place in an inclusive and consultative process.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The third and the most important outcome of the Tunis Summit was the creation of the Internet Governance Forum. It was set up under Article 72 of the Tunis Agenda. The next section will deal with the Internet Governance Forum.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. UN General Assembly Resolution 56/183 (December 21, 2001) available at <a class="external-link" href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/background/resolutions/56_183_unga_2002.pdf">http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/background/resolutions/56_183_unga_2002.pdf</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>]. See more at <a class="external-link" href="http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/wsis-themes/UNMDG/index.html">http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/wsis-themes/UNMDG/index.html</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>]. Château de Bossey, Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance at pp. 3 available at <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf">http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr4" name="fn4">4</a>]. Introduction, Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6(Rev. 1)-E, November 18, 2005 available at <a class="external-link" href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html">http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr5" name="fn5">5</a>]. "Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields. Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/world-summit-on-information-society'>https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/world-summit-on-information-society</a>
</p>
No publisheranirudhInternet Studies2013-12-01T03:12:27ZPageInternet Engineering Task Force
https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/internet-engineering-task-force
<b>The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is an open standards body with no requirements for membership and does not have a formal membership process either.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is responsible for developing and promoting Internet Standards. Internet Standards are technological specifications which are applicable to the internet and internet access. The IETF also closely works with the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and other standard setting bodies. It mainly deals with the standards of the Internet Protocol suite (TCP/IP) which is a communication protocol used for the internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The mission of the IETF is to, "produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the internet in such a way as to make the internet work better."<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Structure</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The IETF consists of working groups and informal discussion groups. The subject areas of the working group can be broadly divided into the following categories:</p>
<ul>
<li>Applications</li>
<li>General Internet </li>
<li>Operations and Management, </li>
<li>Real-time Applications and Infrastructure, </li>
<li>Routing, </li>
<li>Security, and </li>
<li>Transport</li>
</ul>
<p>The working groups are divided into, areas as mentioned above and they are managed by area directors.</p>
<h3>IETF Standards Process</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The process of developing Standards at the IETF looks simple but faces certain complications when put into practice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A specification for a internet standards goes through a period of development followed by reviews by the community at large. Based upon the reviews and experiences, the specifications are revised and then the standards are adopted by an appropriate body after which it is published.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"In practice, the process is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of creating specifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to consider the interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance of establishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the difficulty of evaluating the utility of a particular specification for the internet community."<a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The main goals of the Internet Standards Process are:</p>
<ul>
<li>Technical Excellence; </li>
<li>Prior Implementation and Testing; </li>
<li>Clear, Concise, and Easily Understood Documentation; </li>
<li>Openness and Fairness; and </li>
<li>Timeliness<a href="#fn3" name="fr3">[3]</a></li>
</ul>
<h3>World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">W3C is a multi-stakeholder organization that involves groups from various sectors including multi nationals. W3C is also an international community dedicated to developing an open standard, "to ensure the long term growth of the web". It is led by the inventor of the web — Tim Berners-Lee.</p>
<p>The guiding principles of W3C"<a href="#fn4" name="fr4">[4]</a> are:</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Web for All<br />The W3C recognizes the social value of the internet as it enables communication, commerce and opportunities to share knowledge. One of their main goals is to make available these benefits to all irrespective of the hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Web on Everything<br />The second guiding principle is to ensure that all devices are able to access the web. With the proliferation of the mobile device and smart phones; it has become more important to ensure access to the web irrespective the type of device.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Web for Rich Interaction<br />The W3C Standards support and recognizes that the web was created as tool to share information and it has become more significant with the increasing demand for platforms such as Wikipedia and social networking platforms.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Web of Data and Services<br />Web is often viewed as a giant repository or data and information but it is also seen as a set of services which includes exchange of messages. The two views complement each other and how web is perceived depends on the application.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Web of Trust<br />Interaction on the web has increased and people ‘meet on the web’ and carry out commercial as well as social relationships. "W3C recognizes that trust is a social phenomenon, but technology design can foster trust and confidence.""<a href="#fn5" name="fr5">[5]</a> </li>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. Mission Statement for the IETF available at <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3935.txt">http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3935.txt</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>]. <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ietf.org/about/standards-process.html">http://www.ietf.org/about/standards-process.html</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>]. <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ietf.org/about/standards-process.html">http://www.ietf.org/about/standards-process.html</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr4" name="fn4">4</a>].<a class="external-link" href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission">http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr5" name="fn5">5</a>].<a class="external-link" href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission">http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/internet-engineering-task-force'>https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/internet-engineering-task-force</a>
</p>
No publisheranirudhInternet Studies2013-12-01T02:34:23ZPageInstitute on Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org/events/institute-on-internet-and-society-2
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore is pleased to announce the second "Institute on Internet and Society" to be held in Yashada, Pune from February 11 to 17, 2014. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With financial support from the Ford Foundation, this initiative represents an important opportunity to bring together various stakeholders in a neutral forum and share ideas.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is a week-long residential institute which will cover topics surrounding and exploring the gamut of internet and society. Various topics that explore the ambit and the intersection between Internet and Society will be explored with guest speakers and experts in these fields anchoring the sessions. The lectures will be insightful and few, with interesting case studies and interactive modes of teaching. There will be breakout sessions where participants will get the chance to partake in interactive technology sessions and instructive demonstrations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There will be off-site experiences where the participants can go on field trips and view the actual spaces that will be discussed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The institute will feature:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Guest lectures by experts and CIS staff.</li>
<li>Interactive panel discussions.</li>
<li>Case studies.</li>
<li>Breakout sessions.</li>
<li>Interactive demonstrations.</li>
<li>Networking opportunities, field trips/off-site experience and much more...</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the end of the course, attendees will have:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Acquisition of knowledge on internet in the Indian society.</li>
<li>Appreciation of the role of community and other stakeholders in issues surrounding the internet.</li>
<li>Creation of a starting point for improved communication of research findings, innovations, information and new technologies in internet to evolve a community comprising academicians and policy makers.</li>
<li>Appreciation of the need to bridge the gap between policy and implementation.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Who can apply?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Any members from the civil society (students, research scholars, academicians, scientists, legal professionals, etc.) who engage in issues concerning Internet and Society.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">How to apply?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The application form available at <b><a class="external-link" href="http://internet-institute.in/form">http://internet-institute.in/form</a></b> needs to completed in all respects and uploaded along with a brief bio and a 250-300 word abstract on why the applicant feels he/she must attend the Institute on Internet and Society.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Selection criteria</h3>
<ul>
<li>Originality of application.</li>
<li> Evidence of interest and/or prior engagement in Internet and Society related research and policies.</li>
<li> Gender, regional and stakeholder representation.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Twenty participants shall be chosen to attend the Institute on a first come, first served basis. Please ensure that your applications are submitted to CIS well before the closing date.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Attendance</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Attendance for the full duration of the Institute (February 11 to February 17, 2014) is mandatory. Please provide assurance that you will be able to commit to the full duration of the institute.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">What costs will be covered?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS has a number of scholarships that will cover the course fees, travel, accommodation and food. Please note that scholarships will be given on a first come first serve basis to deserving applicants and <b>is available for persons based within India</b>.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Important Dates</h3>
<ul>
<li>Registrations Open: November 15, 2013</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li> Registrations Close: December 15, 2013</li>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
</ul>
<hr />
<h2>Draft Agenda</h2>
<table class="grid listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<h3>Day 1 (February 11, 2014)</h3>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Time</th><th class=" tt_icon_asc">Detail</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>09.30<br />09.40<br /></td>
<td>Introduction: Sunil Abraham, <i>Executive Director Centre for Internet and Society</i> / Ravina Aggarwal, <i>Program Officer, Ford Foundation</i> <br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>09.30<br />09.40<br /></td>
<td>Introduction of Participants</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>10.00<br />12.00<br /></td>
<td>Internet Governance and Privacy: Sunil Abraham</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>12.00<br />12.30<br /></td>
<td>Tea-break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>12.30<br />13.00<br /></td>
<td>Keynote: Bishakha Datta, <i>Filmmaker and Activist, and Board Member, Wikimedia Foundation</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13.00<br />14.00<br /></td>
<td>Lunch</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>14.00<br />16.00</p>
</td>
<td>Pecha Kucha sessions</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>16.00<br />17.30<br /></td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Histories, Bodies and Debates around the Internet: Nishant Shah, <i>Director-Research, Centre for Internet and Society</i> and <i>International Tandem Partner at the Centre for Digital Cultures, Leuphana University, Germany</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<h3>Day 2 (February 12, 2014)</h3>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Time</th><th>Detail</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>09.30<br />11.00</td>
<td>Wireless Technology: Ravikiran Annaswamy, <i>CEO and Co-founder at Teritree Technologies</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11.00<br />11.30</td>
<td>Tea-break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11.30<br />13.00</td>
<td>Wired Technology: Ravikiran Annaswamy</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13.00<br />14.00</td>
<td>Lunch</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>14.00<br />15.00</td>
<td>Network, Threats and Securing Yourself: Kingsley John, <i>Independent Consultant</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>15.00<br />15.15</td>
<td>Break<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>15.15<br />16.15</td>
<td>Practical Lab: Kingsley John</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>16.15<br />16.30</td>
<td>Tea-break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>16.30<br />17.00</td>
<td>Wrap-up Session: Sunil Abraham</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<h3>Day 3 (February 13, 2014)</h3>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Time</th><th>Detail</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>09.30<br />11.00</td>
<td>Free Software: Prof. G. Nagarjuna, <i>Chairperson, Free Software Foundation</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11.00<br />11.30</td>
<td>Tea-break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11.30<br />13.00</td>
<td>Open Data: Nisha Thompson, <i>Independent Consultant</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13.00<br />14.00</td>
<td>Lunch</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>14.00<br />16.00</td>
<td>Freedom of Expression: Bhairav Acharya, <i>Advocate and Adviser, Centre for Internet and Society</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>16.00<br />16.30</td>
<td>Tea-break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>16.30<br />17.30</td>
<td>Copyright: Nehaa Chaudhari, <i>Program Officer, Centre for Internet and Society</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<h3>Day 4 (February 14, 2014)</h3>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Time</th><th>Detail</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>09.30<br />11.00</td>
<td>E-Accessibility and Inclusion: Prashant Naik, <i>Union Bank</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11.00<br />11.30</td>
<td>Tea-break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11.30<br />13.00</td>
<td>Patents: Nehaa Chaudhari</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13.00<br />14.00</td>
<td>Lunch</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>14.00<br />17.00</td>
<td>Field Trip</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<h3>Day 5 (February 15, 2014)</h3>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Time</th><th>Detail</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>09.30<br />11.00</td>
<td>E-Governance: Manu Srivastav, <i>Vice President, eGovernments Foundation</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11.00<br />11.30</td>
<td>Tea-break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11.30<br />13.00</td>
<td>Market Concerns: Payal Malik, <i>Economic Adviser, Competition Commission of India</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13.00<br />14.00</td>
<td>Lunch</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>14.00<br />15.30</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Domestic and International Bodies: Chinmayi Arun, <i>Research Director, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi </i>and <i>Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>15.30<br />16.00</td>
<td>Tea-break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>16.00<br />17.30</p>
</td>
<td>Digital Natives: Nishant Shah<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<h3>Day 6 (February 16, 2014)</h3>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Time</th><th>Detail</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>09.30<br />11.00</td>
<td>Wikipedia: Dr. Abhijeet Safai<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11.00<br />11.30</td>
<td>Tea-break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11.30<br />13.00</td>
<td>Open Access: Muthu Madhan<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13.00<br />14.00</td>
<td>Lunch</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>14.00<br />15.00</td>
<td>Activity / Mock Conference</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>15.00<br />15.30</td>
<td>Tea-break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>15.30<br />17.30</td>
<td>Activity / Mock Conference</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<h3>Day 7 (February 17, 2014)</h3>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Time</th><th>Detail</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>09.30<br />11.00</td>
<td>Internet Activism: Laura Stein, <i>Associate Professor, University of Texas </i>and <i>Fulbright Fellow, Centre for Culture, Media & Governance, Jamia Millia Islamia</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11.00<br />11.30</td>
<td>Tea-break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11.30<br />13.00</td>
<td>Digital Humanities: Nishant Shah</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13.00<br />14.00</td>
<td>Lunch</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>14.00<br />15.00</td>
<td>Participant Presentations<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>15.00<br />15.30</td>
<td>Tea-break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>15.30<br />16.30</td>
<td>Final Exercise: Mapping Learning Feedback</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="4"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="4">
<h3></h3>
</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="5">
<h3></h3>
<h3></h3>
<h3></h3>
<h3></h3>
<h3></h3>
<h3></h3>
<h3></h3>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
</tr>
<tr>
</tr>
<tr>
</tr>
<tr>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr />
<h2>Speakers Profiles</h2>
<ul>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Bishakha Datta</b><br />Bishakha is an Indian film maker and activist. She is a former journalist who also serves on the board of nonprofit organizations, such as <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_View,_Mumbai" title="Point of View, Mumbai">Point of View</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creating_Resources_for_Empowerment_in_Action" title="Creating Resources for Empowerment in Action">Creating Resources for Empowerment in Action</a>, and (as of 2013) the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation" title="Wikimedia Foundation">Wikimedia Foundation</a>. In 1998, Datta edited <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Who_Will_Make_the_Chapatis%3F" title="And Who Will Make the Chapatis?">And Who Will Make the Chapatis?</a>, an overview of the all-women political panchayats formed in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharashtra" title="Maharashtra">Maharashtra</a>, India. In 2003, her documentary <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Flesh_%282003_film%29" title="In the Flesh (2003 film)">In the Flesh: three lives in prostitution</a> was released.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Nishant Shah</b><br />Nishant is the founder and Director of Research for the Bangalore-based <a href="http://www.cis-india.org/">Centre for Internet and Society</a>. His doctoral work at the<a href="http://cscs.res.in/"> Centre for the Study of Culture and Society</a>, examines the production of a Technosocial Subject at the intersections of law, Internet technologies and everyday cultural practices in India. As an <a href="http://www.asianscholarship.org/asf/index.php">Asia Scholarship Fellow (2008-2009)</a>, he also initiated a study that looks at what goes into the making of an <a href="http://www.cis-india.org/research/grants/the-promise-of-invisibility-technology-and-the-city">IT City in India and China</a>. He is the series editor for a three year collaborative project on <a href="http://www.cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet">“Histories of the Internet(s) in India”</a> that maps nine alternative histories that promote new ways of understanding the technological revolution in the country.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Prof. G. Nagarjuna</b><br />Prof. Nagarjuna is the chairperson of the Free Software Foundation. He has been an activist for free knowledge and free softwares and has more than 20 publications on related issues. He is interested in understanding the structure and dynamics of knowledge (epistemology, knowledge organization, knowledge representation, biological roots of cognition, and education), nature of life and evolution. This interest is executed in the respective domains: Information Technology, History and Philosophy of Science, and Biology Education. The social, economic and political aspects of information technology also engages his serious attention.<a href="http://www.hbcse.tifr.res.in/people/academic/nagarjuna-g">http://www.hbcse.tifr.res.in/people/academic/nagarjuna-g.</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Sunil Abraham</b><br />Sunil is the Executive Director of Bangalore based research organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society. He founded Mahiti in 1998, a company committed to creating high impact technology and communications solutions. Sunil was elected an Ashoka fellow in 1999 to 'explore the democratic potential of the Internet' and was also granted a Sarai FLOSS fellowship in 2003. Between June 2004 and June 2007, Sunil also managed the International Open Source Network, a project of United Nations Development Programme's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme serving 42 countries in the Asia-Pacific region.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Nisha Thompson</b><br />Nisha Thompson: Nisha Thompson has a background in online community organisation. She has worked for the <a href="http://sunlightfoundation.com/" target="_blank" title="Sunlight Foundation">Sunlight Foundation</a> in Washington DC, with online communities to use US government data to hold elected officials accountable. She moved to Bangalore, Karnataka in October 2010. She worked on an Open Government Data report for the <a href="https://cis-india.org/" target="_blank" title="Centre for Internet and Society (CIS)">Centre for Internet and Society</a> and now works full-time with the Portal, on the Data Project. The Data Project aims to collect and open up water and related data, so that citizens and practitioners can use it to improve and keep track of projects and progress in the water sector.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Payal Malik</b><br />Payal Malik: Payal Malik is currently advisor to the Competition Commission of India. She had also done considerable research in the ICT sector. <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2013727">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2013727</a>. In addition to teaching Microeconomics Theory at the University of Delhi she has several years of research experience in the areas of economic policy, competition and regulation in network/infrastructure industries and has been actively engaged in competition policy research. Her research and professional collaborations have been with National Council for Applied Economic Research (NCAER), New Delhi, Indicus Analytics, New Delhi, LIRNEasia, Sri Lanka, OECD, Orbicom, IDEI, University of Toulouse, University Of Québec at Montreal, CEPR, JRC, European Commission, IPTS Seville, ICEGEC, Hungary, Department of Information Technology, TRAI, Ministry of Power, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Planning Commission of India, Competition Commission of India, CSO, India, WSP-SA, World Bank and AFD, Paris.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Chinmayi Arun</b><br />Chinmayi Arun is the Research Director of the Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi. She is also an Assistant Professor of law at the university and teaches specialised courses on Internet Governance, privacy and media policy. She is the research coordinator of the Oxford India Media Law Research Project, a member of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group formed by the Government of India for the India Internet Governance Forum, and one of the academic experts for the Internet & Jurisdiction Project's Observatory. She works with media regulation and internet governance, particularly in the context of the rights to free speech and privacy. Chinmayi interacts with industry bodies and government officials and envisages the Centre for Communication Governance as a key contributor to policy in the years to come.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Laura Stein<br /></b>Laura is an assistant Professor at the University of Texas in the College of Communication. Her research focuses upon alternative and public media and she has a course on communication technology and society. She is currently working on an edited collection, titled "Making Our Media: Global Initiatives Toward a Democratic Public Sphere," about grassroots attempts to transform the policy and practice of information and communication media around the world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Prashant Naik</b><br />Prashant is working as an Assistant Manager with the Union Bank of India, one of the largest public sector banks in India. He is placed in the Alternate Channels and New Initiative Department. In his role with Union Bank of India, he has made a major contribution in developing a Truly Accessible Talking ATM, ‘First’ of its kind in India which has set a benchmark on accessible ATM for the blind. Since 2002 he is contributing on a large scale in the area of technology access for the visually impaired persons with his inputs in accessible content creation, access technologies training, accessibility and advocacy. Through his work with NGOs he undertook many accessibility testing and development projects. He received National Award as ROLE MODEL from Honorable President of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee on 6th February 2013. He holds a degree in computer applications and he is a Microsoft Certified Technical Specialist. He has low vision since birth due to albinism condition.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Ravikiran Annaswamy</b><br />Ravikiran is the Co-founder and CEO of Teritree Technologies - a Social commerce technology venture. He also dedicates his time to startup ecosystem as Advisor, Mentor and Angel investor. He has over 17 years of business experience at Nokia Siemens Networks and Siemens AG. He was Business Head for Indian market, led Global Product Management and was General Manager for Asia Pacific Solutions. He championed Intrapreneurship by working as Innovation head for Bangalore site of over 1000 employees. He has vast experience of making successful Technology solutions for global markets, mainly in the area of Social commerce, Online Billing and Charging, Innovative 3G/4G applications, Multimedia and Security Solutions. He is an engaged Professional volunteer, currently the Vice Chairman for IEEE Bangalore section. He was the previous Chairman for IEEE Communication Society of Karnataka.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Manu Srivastava</b><br />Manu is a Vice President at the eGovernments Foundation. He brings 14 years of experience in web native product development and database applications. He worked at Oracle and GlobeTrades Inc on various internet based products before joining eGov. He has architected, developed and rolled out many of the eGov products which are running successfully in cities such as Chennai, Bangalore and Delhi.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b><span>Muthu Madhan</span></b><br />Muthu Madhan is a practicing librarian in India for about 15 years and is currently the Manager for ICRISAT Library and Information Services. Before joining </span><span><span>ICRISAT</span></span><span> in 2010, he worked for M S Swaminathan Research Foundation and the National Institute of Technology Rourkela. </span><span>Since 2004, he has been an advocate for open access movement in India. Apart from open access, his other interests are open data, open education, and open source software.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>Dr. Abhijeet Safai</b><br />Dr. Abhijeet is Medical Officer–Clinical Research at Symbiosis Centre of Health Care in Pune. He has been editing Wikipedia for more than 3 years, has edited more than 3700 articles and has created 30 new articles. He is interested in editing articles related to medicine and inspiring personalities. He was a speaker at IT expo in Pune in 2012 and has conducted workshops on Wikipedia Editing in GNUnify in 2013 and 2014 at Symbiosis Institute of Computer Science and Research, Pune. He likes to edit Wikipedia because of passion, for gaining the knowledge and as a social contribution. His user profile on Wikipedia can be accessed at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abhijeet_Safai">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abhijeet_Safai</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abhijeet_Safai">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abhijeet_Safai</a></span></p>
<hr />
<h2>About CIS India and Ford Foundation</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS critically engages with concerns of <a href="https://cis-india.org/about/substantive-areas/digital-pluralism" title="Digital Pluralism">digital pluralism</a>, <a href="https://cis-india.org/about/substantive-areas/public-accountability">public accountability</a> and <a href="https://cis-india.org/publications/curricula-and-teaching">pedagogic practices</a>, in the field of Internet and Society, with particular emphasis on South-South dialogues and exchange.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Through multidisciplinary research, intervention, and collaboration, we seek to explore, understand, and affect the shape and form of the internet, and its relationship with the political, cultural, and social milieu of our times.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Ford Foundation supports visionary leaders and organizations on the frontlines of social change worldwide. Their goals for more than half a century have been to:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Strengthen democratic values</li>
<li>Reduce poverty and injustice</li>
<li>Promote international cooperation</li>
<li>Advance human achievement</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Ford Foundation believes all people should have the opportunity to reach their full potential, contribute to society, and have voice in the decisions that affect them.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Contact</h3>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Dr. Nirmita Narasimhan, Policy Director (<a href="mailto:nirmita@cis-india.org">nirmita@cis-india.org</a>) </li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Ajoy Kumar, Administrator (<a href="mailto:ajoy@cis-india.org">ajoy@cis-india.org</a>)</li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Anirudh Sridhar, Consultant (<a href="mailto:anirudh@cis-india.org">anirudh@cis-india.org</a>) </li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/events/institute-on-internet-and-society-2'>https://cis-india.org/events/institute-on-internet-and-society-2</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet StudiesEvent2014-02-16T03:00:17ZEventWorld Intellectual Property Organisation
https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/wipo
<b>The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations which deals with issues related to intellectual property rights throughout the world.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Under Article 3 of the convention establishing WIPO, the United Nation agency seeks to "promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world through cooperation among states..."<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With the proliferation of the internet, issues related to copyright have become more and more prominent. Internet has made sharing of content easy and efficient. It has also opened up avenues for e-commerce, sale and purchase of music, movies, e-books and other related content. In India, special music services and video services are made available to mobile users by the telecom service providers as value added services through internet technologies such as wireless access protocol (WAP) and general packet radio service (GPRS). Moreover, business models such as iTunes and Flyte allow consumers to download MP3 music for a fee. In this context, digital copyright has become an important topic of discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Copyright law has faced difficulties coping up with digital technologies, especially the Internet. Enforcing copyright has been a tough task, given that protected works can be easily shared and transferred through the internet. In order to adjust the legal system to be in consonance with the latest technological developments the WIPO has laid down two treaties which are known as internet treaties. They are the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). These two treaties are considered to be the updates and supplements to the Berne Convention for the protection of the literary and artistic material.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The WIPO Internet Treaties are designed to update and supplement the existing international treaties on copyright and related rights, namely, the Berne Convention and the Rome Convention. They respond to the challenges posed by the digital technologies and, in particular, the dissemination of protected material over the global networks that make up the Internet. The contents of the Internet Treaties can be divided into three parts: (1) incorporation of certain provisions of the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) not previously included explicitly in WIPO treaties (e.g., protection of computer programs and original databases as literary works under copyright law); (2) updates not specific to digital technologies (e.g., the generalized right of communication to the public); and (3) provisions that specifically address the impact of digital technologies." <a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2]</a></p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Treaties</h2>
<h3>Berne Convention</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Berne Convention <a href="#fn3" name="fr3">[3] </a>was first accepted in 1986. It was an international agreement that sought to govern copyrights. Its basic purpose was to make the signatories recognize the copyrights of the works of authors of other signatory countries at the same level as copyrights in their own countries. The Three Step Test is a test contained in different forms in a few international treaties on copyright law. It provides a limit on the exceptions and limitations that a treaty member can provide under its domestic law. However, the Three Step Test was first laid down in Article 9 of the Berne Convention and it states:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are two divergent views on the limitations to copyright. Civil law sees copyright as a natural law right, meaning that an author already has the right to his work, and the law merely recognises it. Hence, civil law limitations to rights tend to be narrow. Common law adopts a utilitarian approach and advocates use of common law principles to spur creation of socially valuable works. In pursuance of such socially beneficial measures, Common law limitations are open ended.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">When the Three Step Test was first conceived, it was to reconcile these divergent views of copyright limitations. So, at its core was the aim to allow national legislations sufficient latitude with regard to limitations. The effects of this treaty are enormous in that it affects the accessibility of almost every book or movie online for the average internet user.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) was set up in 1998-1999 in order to examine issues of substantive law or harmonization in the field of copyright and rights related to copyright. The committee is comprised of all the member states of WIPO. However, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations only have observer status.<a href="#fn4" name="fr4">[4]</a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), 1996</h3>
<p>The WPPT <a href="#fn5" name="fr5">[5]</a> benefits primarily two different kinds of people:</p>
<ol>
<li>Performers (actors, singers, musicians, etc.), and</li>
<li>Producers of phonograms (the persons or legal entities who or which take the initiative and have the responsibility for the fixation of the sounds).</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The purpose of the Treaty was to protect the rights of performers and producers of phonograms in the most effective and uniform manner possible without making void contractual obligations that pre-date the treaty. The Treaty grants performers four different kinds of economic rights in their performances fixed in phonograms:</p>
<ol>
<li>The right of reproduction,</li>
<li>The right of distribution, </li>
<li>The right of rental, and </li>
<li>The right of making available.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The term of protection has been agreed for at least 50 years. The Treaty also constituted an Assembly that has the power to decide whether intergovernmental organizations can become party to the treaty.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">WIPO Copyright Treaty</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The WCT was adopted in 1996 by 89 countries.<a href="#fn6" name="fr6">[6] </a>After many advances were made in information technology since the formation of previous copyright treaties, this treaty attempted to add protections for copyrights. Mainly it ensures that computer programs were protected as literary works (Article 4) and also that the arrangement and selection of material in databases is protected (Article 5). It bolsters the protection further by providing authors with control over the rental and distribution of their work according to Article 6 to 8 which wasn’t directly prevalent in the Berne Convention. Many theorists feel that it is far too broad and offers too much protection to the copyright holder. For example, the circumvention of technical protection measures in pursuit of legal and fair use rights can be prevented because it is prohibited in this treaty. It also applies a uniform standard to all the signatory countries even though they are all at different stages of economic development and knowledge industry.</p>
<h3>Protection of Broadcasts and Broadcasting Organizations Treaty</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2006, the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) made a basic proposal to develop protection rights for all broadcasting organizations. This treaty would allow broadcasting organizations like media broadcasters to protect the content of their transmissions. They basically will have the right to protect their transmissions from reproduction, retransmission and even from public communication and will retain the copyright protection for 50 years. The problem with this treaty is that it adds a layer protection to the copyright that already exists on the material that is being broadcasted. This would allow broadcasters to restrict access to works that are currently available in the creative commons just because they happened to transmit it. This means that the citizens were unable to access works that they could previously access. The easier and fair way of solving the problem that broadcasters face, which the piracy of broadcast signals would have been to criminalize the piracy at an international level, many NGO’s are currently arguing.</p>
<h3>Treaty Proposal on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Federation of Library Association (IFLA) is currently working closely with the member states of WIPO in order to draft a binding international instrument for copyright limitations and exceptions. These exceptions and limitations are necessary for the libraries to preserve their collection, lend materials and facilitate/ support education and research. This treaty proposal is mainly being drafted by NGO’s and civil society actors in partnership with librarians and intellectual property experts. IFLA has collaborated with the International Council on Archives (ICA), Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL) and Corporación Innovarte to produce the Treaty Proposal on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives.<a href="#fn7" name="fr7">[7]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some of the things that the treaty proposes are:</p>
<ul>
<li>Parallel importation (i.e. buying books from abroad)</li>
<li>Cross-border uses of works and materials reproduced under a limitation and exception</li>
<li>Library lending</li>
<li>Library document supply</li>
<li>Preservation of library and archival materials</li>
<li>Use of works and other material under related rights for the benefit of persons with disabilities</li>
<li>Use of works for education, research and private study</li>
<li>Use of works for personal and private purposes</li>
<li>Access to retracted and withdrawn works </li>
<li>Orphan works<a href="#fn8" name="fr8">[8]</a></li>
</ul>
<h3>Education</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is another treaty being discussed currently on copyright exceptions for education and research. The main issue is deciding the order in which these treaties will be negotiated and which matter is most pressing or urgent to address presently. Developing countries are in favour of both exceptions for libraries and archives as well as for education while developed countries are of the mind that exceptions for these things already exist in the current framework of international treaties and conventions. The US is expressly opposed to more discussions on more copyright exceptions and wants to move forward on the broadcast treaty discussions.<a href="#fn9" name="fr9">[9]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Electronic Frontier Foundation, Knowledge Ecology International, Public Knowledge along with other civil society groups formed a joint statement for the copyright exceptions for education in the digital age:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"(...) Education should be accessible for all without barriers of space, time, or cost. Digital technologies, from the portable computer to mobile phones to tablets, are being introduced as crucial educational tools in countries ranging from South Korea to Nigeria, from Brazil to the USA. Educational materials and, therefore, its market, is increasingly becoming digital and policymakers must consider this trend when drafting copyright exceptions and limitations in a way that is appropriate for future generations and the digital age.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The increasing adoption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the classroom and in libraries and archives has proven that teachers, learners, researchers, librarians and archivists need rights to access, use, remix, text-mine, exchange, and collaborate on educational materials. Similar rights must be ensured beyond the classroom and library or archive, taking into account the growing importance of e-learning, online communication, and the increasing practice of exchanging educational and other information content across geographical and institutional borders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The international copyright system has recognized the need for exceptions and limitations from its earliest days. Without these, the copyright system would not be able to achieve its fundamental purpose of encouraging creation and innovation for the benefit of all humankind. (...)"<a href="#fn10" name="fr10">[10]</a></p>
<h3>WIPO Case Study</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In June 2013, 186 member states of the WIPO adopted a landmark treaty known as the Treaty for the Visually Impaired (Formally known as: <b>“Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled.”</b>) <a href="#fn11" name="fr11">[11]</a> The purpose of the treaty was to increase the access to books for blind, visually impaired and print disabled people across the globe.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Aspects of the Treaty:</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">It required an exception in domestic copyright law for people with print disabilities and the visually impaired.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">It allowed for the import and export of accessible versions of books without the permission of the copyright holder.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">However, only “authorised entities” such as blind people’s organizations can avail this provision under the treaty’s terms.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Article 2 of the Treaty states that accessible books changing hands under its provisions should be solely for the use of “beneficiary persons”. It also states that “authorised entities” take “due care” when handling these books, and that they discourage the reproduction and distribution of copies that are unauthorized.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This treaty has the potential to change the way in which access to information is experienced by the visually impaired. This shows that civil society actors can take an active part in the drafting of important legislation as such a landmark treaty was originally proposed by the World Blind Union and Knowledge Ecology International after a meeting that was convened in 2008.<a href="#fn12" name="fr12">[12] </a>There was input sought from NGO’s throughout the process as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After the adoption of the treaty, however, the function of NGOs just increases. There are many steps required in order to ensure the effective implementation of the provisions of the treaty on the ground. Saksham Trust is one such NGO that works towards empowering marginalized sections of society by working on things like this. The following is an interview with Dipendra Manocha of Saksham Trust.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What kind of work in accessibility does your organization do?<br />Daisy Forum of India is a network of organisations that produce and distribute books in accessible formats to persons with print disabilities. These organisations produce digital e-text and digital talking books. The organisation works in the area of policy, capacity building, awareness, technology and mainstreaming accessibility in the area of books for persons with print disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What are the main impediments to ensuring accessibility on the ground?</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Our policies and laws do not make it mandatory to use standards for digital content. Standards such as Unicode, accessible digital formats, etc., are not followed in production of digital content. Due to this we are forced to re-publish everything that gets published in India.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Books that are available as accessible content in other countries cannot be brought in India. We also cannot send books in accessible formats to other countries with common languages.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Enough resources are not allocated to produce accessible books for persons with print disabilities.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">There are several technology gaps such as non-availability of text-to-speech (TTS) or OCR in Indian languages due to which production and reading options of accessible books is very expensive. The only option of reading in many languages is hard copy Braille or human voice recorded talking books. Both these are much more expensive than reading of digital e-text with the help of TTS technology.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Organisations and individuals in large parts of the country are not aware of the latest developments and methods of getting accessible content from common catalogue or online libraries, etc.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Reading technology has not reached the end users of the country in a large scale.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Main stream publishing industry is producing digital books but these are produced in a way that they are not usable by persons with print disabilities.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">How important do you think treaties are?<br />These are extremely important as it takes best practice model of accessible books all over the world. Various stakeholders came together thinking and working together to find the best possible solution that takes care of the interests of all stakeholders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Not even 2% of the blind individuals worldwide have sufficient access now. Countries like Namibia don’t even have a basic infrastructure to implement what the Treaty for the Visually Impaired offers. Therefore, in these places, what are the subsequent steps that an organization like yours has to do after the treaty enables?</p>
<ul>
<li>Allocate resources to establish infrastructure for distribution providing sufficient protection to content to enable developing countries to participate in international exchange programme.</li>
<li>Develop mechanisms for international exchange of content.</li>
<li>Address technology gaps so that local language content can be produced and read by persons with print disabilities.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The developed world will act according to its commercial interests. Most of the knowledge is produced in the developed countries and most of the disabled are in developing countries. What are ways to make this equation seem more lucrative?</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">South-south cooperation</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Even relatively smaller subscriptions and remunerations for already developed content will be additional resource of funds even for companies or organisations of developed countries if they begin distribution of their content in developing countries.</li>
</ul>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Technological Protection Measures and Rights Management Information (TPMs/RMI)</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In order to ensure that unauthorized copying of a protected material can be prevented or detected, the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) included new provisions dealing with TPMs and RMI.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TPMs are technological safeguards which are put in place which prevents the copying of a protected work in digital format to be copied multiple times. This includes limiting the number of devices on which a song can be copied, using software which does not allow the consumer to copy the protected works from an optical disc.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">RMI are generally put on the protected work to ensure that the label of the owner of the work is always embedded in the work. For example, in case of a movie, the film studio may use an RMI which would be positioned as the logo in the movie. It can be also stored as metadata along the video or the protected work.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Article 11 of the WCT and Article 18 of the Wipo Performances and Phonograms Treaty, 1996, (WPPT) states that the states must provide legal protection for TPMs and RMI apart from making provisions for legal remedy in case of circumvention of the technological protection measures. It is interesting to note that India is not a signatory to both the treaties that is WPPT and WCT. This could be because of the strict copyright provisions in the treaties which undermine many goals of accessibility currently being pursued by India.</p>
<hr />
<p>[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. Article 3 – Objectives of the Organization, Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization available at <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/convention/trtdocs_wo029.html">http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/convention/trtdocs_wo029.html</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>]. <a href="http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/ecommerce/ip_survey/chap3.html#3a">www.wipo.int/copyright/en/ecommerce/ip_survey/chap3.html#3a</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>]. See more at <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html">http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr4" name="fn4">4</a>]. See more at <a href="http://www.wipo.int/policy/en/sccr/">http://www.wipo.int/policy/en/sccr/</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr5" name="fn5">5</a>]. See more at <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/summary_wppt.html">http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/summary_wppt.html</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr6" name="fn6">6</a>]. See more at <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html">http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr7" name="fn7">7</a>]. See more at <a href="http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/topics/exceptions-limitations/documents/TLIB_v4.3_050712.pdf">http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/topics/exceptions-limitations/documents/TLIB_v4.3_050712.pdf</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr8" name="fn8">8</a>]. See more at <a href="http://www.ifla.org/node/5856">http://www.ifla.org/node/5856</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr9" name="fn9">9</a>]. See more at <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/wipo-possible-international-treaty-copyright-exceptions-limitations">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/wipo-possible-international-treaty-copyright-exceptions-limitations</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr10" name="fn10">10</a>]. See full document at <a href="https://www.eff.org/file/35218#page/1/mode/1up">https://www.eff.org/file/35218#page/1/mode/1up</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr11" name="fn11">11</a>]. See more at <a href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=245323">http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=245323</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr12" name="fn12">12</a>]. See more at <a href="http://keionline.org/content/view/210/1">http://keionline.org/content/view/210/1</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/wipo'>https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/wipo</a>
</p>
No publisherAnirudh Sridhar and Snehashish GhoshInternet Studies2013-12-03T06:56:10ZPageAn Interview on Internet Governance with Professor Milton Mueller and Jeremy Malcolm
https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/interview-with-milton-mueller-and-jeremy-malcolm
<b>Anirudh Sridhar interviewed Professor Milton Mueller from the Syracuse University School of Information and Jeremy Malcolm, an Information Technology and Intellectual Property Lawyer, regarding current issues and debates surrounding internet governance.</b>
<p>Q1: The extent to which civil society can participate at the proceedings of WCIT’12?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Professor Mueller: I did not attend WCIT-12. Civil society and industry were both influential in the process. CS created a great deal of critical publicity and leaked documents that had formerly been private. Industry and CS both lobbied governmental officials. (I was the first to leak an official ITU document, and this led to the creation of WCIT leaks by some friends of mine who took the idea much farther.)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Professor Malcolm: Actually I did not attend the WCIT’12 in Dubai. I did attend the WTPF in May, but was not permitted to speak. I did distribute a briefing paper by hand and managed to speak to a few delegates. I also contributed some talking points to an intervention by the representatives of the Informal Experts Group (IEG). Undoubtedly the work of the IEG was influential, and the civil society representatives were influential within that group, but the role of the IEG was poorly articulated and its procedures and relationship to the plenary WTPF were quite arbitrary.<br /> <br /> Since then, the organization that I represent, Consumers International, has been granted sector membership status of the ITU-T and ITU-D with a waiver of fees, so that next time we will have the opportunity to speak at any meeting that is open to sector members. This is all well and good for us, less so for civil society organisations that do not have expertise in telecommunications and hence would find it more difficult to apply for sector membership.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Q2: What were the central debates at the WCIT’12 conference?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Professor Mueller: The central debates were: 1) the relevance of International Telecom Regulations to Internet governance, 2) the ETNO proposal to have quality of service charging 3) role of the ITRs in "security" 4) to which entity do the ITRs apply (Operating entities, recognized operating entities, etc.)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Professor Malcolm: Proposals that ITU Recommendations should have mandatory status; that it should expand its mandate to include ICTs as well as telecommunications; that it should take over Internet naming and numbering functions from ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers); and that Internet content hosts should share more of their revenue with the operators of telecommunications networks.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Q3: What were some good outcomes and what were some bad outcomes?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Professor Malcolm: None of these proposals succeeded, and not all even officially made it to the table. With the sustained opposition of the United States, Google and other powerful stakeholders, there was never any likelihood that they would.<br /> <br /> What did make it through into the final treaty text are two provisions that, given that they are notionally responsible for the refusal of many countries to sign the ITRs, bear that responsibility like a dwarf wears a baggy suit. First, on security – it's worth setting this out in full:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Member States shall individually and collectively endeavor to ensure the security and robustness of international telecommunication networks in order to achieve effective use thereof and avoidance of technical harm thereto, as well as the harmonious development of international telecommunication services offered to the public.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">And on spam:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Member States should endeavor to take necessary measures to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications and minimize its impact on international telecommunication services. Member States are encouraged to cooperate in that sense.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The theory, though it taxes the imagination somewhat, is that these provisions could allow ITU members to justify constraints on Internet content, on the pretext that they are merely addressing security or spam. But the ITU already has work programs on security and spam, and ITU members in turn already heavily regulate these fields, without having an explicit mandate in the ITRs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Q4: Is the fear of the ITU’s takeover of the internet real?</p>
<p>Professor Mueller:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is no sudden UN or ITU effort to take over the Internet. There is, instead, a longstanding struggle between the Net and states at the national and international level. The WCIT is just the latest episode; and compared to WSIS, a minor one.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is no evidence of any recent enlargement of the political support for states and inter-governmental institutions such as ITU. The same players are taking the same positions. There may even be erosion of support for inter-governmentalism, e.g. Brazil’s abandonment of CIRP.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ITU is a paper tiger. Neither WSIS nor any other international development has strengthened or approved ITU efforts to gain control of pieces of the Internet since 1996.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Professor Malcolm: No: IN THE wake of the anti-climactic conclusion to the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) earlier this month, readers could be forgiven for being confused about whether all the hype about the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) staging a UN takeover of the Internet had ever represented a real threat, or had just been a beat-up by special interest groups with an agenda to push.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Q5: Does the US, through ICANN exert too much unilateral influence on Internet Governance?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Professor Mueller: Off course. There are many examples of this. For example, the adoption worldwide of policies based on the DMCA and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, the seizure of domains registered to US-based registrars even if they are foreign-owned and do not infringe foreign law, and the linking of tough IP laws to trade concessions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Professor Malcolm: Yes, the US exerts too much influence over ICANN, via the GAC and the IANA contract. WCIT (or more accurately, the ITU) is NOT the right track to solve this, because keeping the internet away from the ITU is one of the primary reasons the US exerts unilateral control. Any attempt to solve the problem via the ITU will fail.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Q6: Are there any serious alternatives to ICANN?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Professor Mueller: It is inconceivable that IGF will ever evolve into a body that negotiates binding treaties. Its entire mission and purpose is to be an alternative to that. It is also an extremely weak and poorly funded institution. <br /><br />Professor Malcolm: There are no longer any alternatives to ICANN that anyone seriously thinks are better. The only argument that people are making nowadays is that oversight of ICANN should become multilateral. Nobody (no longer even the ITU) is seriously suggesting that any other body than ICANN should be making these decisions. At most, the GAC wants more say, but even the GAC is still part of ICANN.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Q7: Can we have a multi-stakeholder process that is truly democratic with legal force?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Professor Mueller: To reconcile legally binding authority with MS, you would need some dramatic institutional changes at the global level that would create new forms of representation. These new institutional forms would have to find some way to represent all the world's people and organizations, not states. Because states are unlikely to give up this power on their own, some kind of revolutionary action would be required to bring that about, roughly analogous to the democratic revolutions of the late 18th and early 19th century. <br /><br />Professor Malcolm: In the far future, yes. In the near future no, but we still need to start talking about it, because the future starts from now. Mechanisms of multi-stakeholderism are still not well enough developed that they can substitute for the legitimacy of the nation state. But nation states do not properly overlap with those who are governed by transnational rules about the Internet, so eventually change must come.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/interview-with-milton-mueller-and-jeremy-malcolm'>https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/interview-with-milton-mueller-and-jeremy-malcolm</a>
</p>
No publisheranirudhWCITITUInternet Studies2013-11-12T10:14:58ZPage