The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 21 to 35.
Internet Governance Forum: Participate Remotely
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/igf-remote-participation
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) invites you to attend the sixth annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a remote participant from Bangalore. The IGF is being held in Nairobi from 27-30 September 2011. CIS has been registered as a remote IGF hub. This will allow many of us who are unable to attend the IGF in person. You can follow the discussion, watch the web cast of the event, follow real-time closed captioning and participate live (via text or video) that will be answered by panelists in the IGF. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The IGF is a multi-stakeholder forum that
addresses public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance. The overall
theme of the meeting will be ‘<strong>Internet as a Catalyst for Change: Access, Development,
Freedoms and Innovation</strong>'. The various themes are as follows:</p>
<ul><li>Internet Governance
for Development</li><li>Emerging Issues</li><li>Managing Critical
Internet Resources</li><li>Security, Openness
and Privacy</li><li>Access and Diversity</li><li>Taking Stock and the
Way Forward</li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Abraham,
Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society, will be
participating in the following workshops:</p>
<ul><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/events/digital-technologies-for-civic-engagement" class="external-link">Use
of Digital Technologies for Civic Engagement and Political Change: Lessons Learned
and Way Forward</a></li><li><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshops2011View&wspid=211">The
Impact of Regulation: FOSS and Enterprise</a></li><li><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshops2011View&wspid=75">Putting
Users First: How Can Privacy be Protected in Today’s Complex Mobile Ecosystem?</a></li><li><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshops2011View&wspid=219">Privacy,
Security, and Access to Rights: A Technical and Policy Analyses</a></li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Shyam Ponappa,
Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, will be presenting remotely for
the following workshop:</p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshops2011View&wspid=121">Open
Spectrum for Development in the Context of the Digital Migration</a></li></ul>
<p>Nishant
Shah, Director Research at Centre for Internet and
Society, has organized the following workshop:</p>
<ul><li><a>Use
of Digital Technologies for Civic Engagement and Political Change: Lessons
Learned and Way Forward</a></li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We are not limited to following specific workshops. Please follow
the link for more information on
workshops of your interest, program details and the schedule:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/schedule-a-programme-2011">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/schedule-a-programme-2011</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Participation is free. However, we would be grateful if you could
confirm your attendance by emailing Natasha Vaz “n<a href="mailto:atasha@cis-india.org">atasha@cis-india.org</a> or Tom Dane at
“<a class="external-link" href="mailto:tjdane@gmail.com">tjdane@gmail.com</a>”. We hope you will join us to watch the web cast and
contribute your own insights on the various workshops.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Looking
forward to welcoming you at the workshops!</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/igf-remote-participation'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/igf-remote-participation</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2011-09-27T05:09:56ZEventInternet Governance Forum Report 2017
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/internet-governance-forum-report-2017
<b>The twelfth annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 17 to 21 December 2017, on the theme, Shape Your Digital Future!</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society was invited as one of the participating civil society organisations. The meeting was attended by Sunil Abraham (Executive Director), Elonnai Hickok (Director) - Internet Governance and Vidushi Marda (representing both CIS as Programme Manager and ARTICLE 19 as Policy Advisor).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS members participated as speaker / panelists in the following sessions:</p>
<div id="_mcePaste">
<ul>
<li>Human Rights based Cyber Security Strategy</li>
<li>Body as Data: Dataveillance, the Informatisation of the Body and Citizenship</li>
<li>What digital future for vulnerable people?</li>
<li>Benchmarking ICT companies on digital rights: How-to and lessons learned</li>
<li>CyberBRICS: Building the Next Generation Internet, STEP by Step</li>
<li>State-led interference in encrypted systems: a public debate on different policy approaches</li>
<li>Artificial Intelligence in Asia: What’s Similar? What’s Different? Findings from our AI workshops</li>
<li>Datafication and Social Justice: What Challenges for Internet Governance?</li>
<li>Fake news, Content Regulation and Platformization of the Web: A Global South Perspective</li>
</ul>
</div>
<p>Full report <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/internet-governance-forum-report-2017">here</a></p>
<div></div>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/internet-governance-forum-report-2017'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/internet-governance-forum-report-2017</a>
</p>
No publisherShweta MohandasInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2018-01-11T02:13:07ZBlog EntryIndia's Statement Proposing UN Committee for Internet-Related Policy
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp
<b>This is the statement made by India at the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly, in which its proposal for the UN Committee for Internet-Related Policy was presented.</b>
<h2><br /></h2>
<h2>66th Session of the UN General Assembly</h2>
<h2>New York. October 26, 2011.<br /></h2>
<h2><br /></h2>
<h2>Agenda Item 16: Information and Communications</h2>
<h2>Technologies for Development (ICT): Global Internet Governance</h2>
<h2><br /></h2>
<h2>Statement by India<br /></h2>
<p><br />Mr. Chairman,<br /><br />We thank the Secretary-General for his report on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, contained in document A/66/77, which provides a useful introduction to the discussions under this agenda item.<br /><br />As a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and democratic society with an open economy and an abiding culture of pluralism, India emphasizes the importance that we attach to the strengthening of the Internet as a vehicle for openness, democracy, freedom of expression, human rights, diversity, inclusiveness, creativity, free and unhindered access to information and knowledge, global connectivity, innovation and socio-economic growth.<br /><br />We believe that the governance of such an unprecedented global medium that embodies the values of democracy, pluralism, inclusion, openness and transparency should also be similarly inclusive, democratic, participatory, multilateral and transparent in nature.<br /><br />Indeed, this was already recognized and mandated by the Tunis Agenda in 2005, as reflected in paragraphs 34, 35, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 69 of the Agenda. Regrettably, in the six long years that have gone by, no substantial initiative has been taken by the global community to give effect to this mandate.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the internet has grown exponentially in its reach and scope, throwing up several new and rapidly emerging challenges in the area of global internet governance that continue to remain inadequately addressed. It is becoming increasingly evident that the Internet as a rapidly-evolving and inherently global medium, needs quick-footed and timely global solutions and policies, not divergent and fragmented national policies.<br /><br />The range and criticality of these pressing global digital issues that continue to remain unaddressed, are growing rapidly with each passing day. It is, therefore, urgent and imperative that a multilateral, democratic participative and transparent global policy-making mechanism be urgently instituted, as mandated by the Tunis Agenda under the process of ‘Enhanced Co-operation’, to enable coherent and integrated global policy-making on all aspects of global Internet governance.<br /><br />Operationalizing the Tunis mandate in this regard should not be viewed as an attempt by governments to “take over” or “regulate and circumscribe” the internet. Indeed, any such misguided attempt would be antithetical not only to the internet, but also to human welfare. As a democratic and open society that has historically welcomed outside influences and believes in openness to all views and ideas and is wedded to free dialogue, pluralism and diversity, India attaches great importance to the preservation of the Internet as an unrestricted, open and free global medium that flourishes through private innovation and individual creativity and serves as a vehicle for open communication, access to culture, knowledge, democratization and development.<br /><br />India recognizes the role played by various actors and stakeholders in the development and continued enrichment of the internet, and is firmly committed to multi-stakeholderism in internet governance, both at the national and global level. India believes that global internet governance can only be functional, effective and credible if all relevant stake-holders contribute to, and are consulted in, the process.<br /><br />Bearing in mind the need for a transparent, democratic, and multilateral mechanism that enables all stakeholders to participate in their respective roles, to address the many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by current mechanisms and the need for enhanced cooperation to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, India proposes the establishment of a new institutional mechanism in the United Nations for global internet-related policies, to be called the United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP). The intent behind proposing a multilateral and multi-stakeholder mechanism is not to “control the internet’’ or allow Governments to have the last word in regulating the internet, but to make sure that the Internet is governed not unilaterally, but in an open, democratic, inclusive and participatory manner, with the participation of all stakeholders, so as to evolve universally acceptable, and globally harmonized policies in important areas and pave the way for a credible, constantly evolving, stable and well-functioning Internet that plays its due role in improving the quality of peoples’ lives everywhere.<br /><br />The CIRP shall be mandated to undertake the following tasks:</p>
<ol type="i"><li>Develop and establish international public policies with a view to ensuring coordination and coherence in cross-cutting Internet-related global issues;</li><li>Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting;</li><li>Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies;</li><li>Address developmental issues related to the internet;</li><li>Promote the promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development;</li><li>Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary; and,</li><li>Crisis management in relation to the Internet.</li></ol>
<p><br />The main features of CIRP are provided in the annex to this statement. In brief, the CIRP will comprise 50 Member States chosen on the basis of equitable geographical representation, and will meet annually for two working weeks in Geneva. It will ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders by establishing four Advisory Groups, one each for civil society, the private sector, inter-governmental and international organizations, and the technical and academic community. The Advisory Groups will provide their inputs and recommendations to the CIRP. The meetings of CIRP and the advisory groups will be serviced by the UNCTAD Secretariat that also services the meetings of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The Internet Governance Forum will provide inputs to CIRP in the spirit of complementarity between the two. CIRP will report directly to the General Assembly and present recommendations for consideration, adoption and dissemination among all relevant inter-governmental bodies and international organizations. CIRP will be supported by the regular budget of the United Nations; a separate Fund would be set up by drawing from the domain registration fees collected by various bodies, in order to mainly finance the Research Wing to be established by CIRP to support its activities.<br /><br />Those familiar with the discourse on global internet governance since the beginning of the WSIS process at the turn of the millennium, will recognize that neither the mandated tasks of the CIRP, nor its proposed modalities, are new. The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) set up by the UN Secretary- General had explicitly recognized the institutional gaps in global internet governance and had proposed four institutional models in its report to the UN General Assembly in 2005. The contours of the CIRP, as proposed above, reflect the common elements in the four WGIG institutional models. While the excellent report of the WGIG was much discussed and deliberated in 2005, unfortunately, no concrete follow-up action was taken to give effect to its recommendations on the institutional front. We hope that this anomaly will be redressed at least six years later, with the timely establishment of the CIRP.<br /><br />In order to operationalize this proposal, India calls for the establishment of an open-ended working group under the Commission on Science and Technology for Development for drawing up the detailed terms of reference for CIRP, with a view to actualizing it within the next 18 months. We are open to the views and suggestions of all Member States, and stand ready to work with other delegations to carry forward this proposal, and thus seek to fill the serious gap in the implementation of the Tunis Agenda, by providing substance and content to the concept of Enhanced Co-operation enshrined in the Tunis Agenda.<br /><br />Thank you, Mr. Chairman.<br /><br /> ***<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Annex</h2>
<h3>The United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP)</h3>
<p><br />The United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) will have the following features:</p>
<p><strong>Membership</strong>: The CIRP will consist of 50 Member States of the United Nations, chosen/elected on the basis of equitable geographical representation. It will provide for equitable representation of all UN Member States, in accordance with established UN principles and practices. It will have a Bureau consisting of one Chair, three Vice-Chairs and a Rapporteur.</p>
<p><strong>Meetings</strong>: The CIRP will meet annually for two working weeks in Geneva, preferably in May/June, and convene additional meetings, as and when required. The UNCTAD Secretariat will provide substantive and logistical support to the CIRP by servicing these meetings.</p>
<p><strong>Multi-stakeholder participation</strong>: Recognizing the need to involve all stakeholders in Global Internet Governance in their respective roles, the CIRP shall ensure the participation of all stakeholders recognized in the Tunis Agenda. Four Advisory Groups – one each for Civil Society, the Private Sector, Inter-Governmental and International Organisations, and the Technical and Academic Community - will be established, to assist and advise the CIRP. These Groups would be self-organized, as per agreed principles, to ensure transparency, representativity and inclusiveness. The Advisory Groups will meet annually in Geneva and in conjunction with any additional meetings of the CIRP. Their meetings will be held back-to- back with the meetings of the CIRP, so that they are able to provide their inputs and recommendations in a timely manner, to the CIRP.</p>
<p><strong>Reporting</strong>: The CIRP will report directly to the UN General Assembly annually, on its meetings and present recommendations in the areas of policy and implementation for consideration, adoption and dissemination to all relevant inter-governmental bodies and international organizations. .</p>
<p><strong>Research Wing</strong>: The Internet is a rapidly-evolving and dynamic medium that throws up urgent and rapidly-evolving challenges that need timely solutions. In order to deal effectively and prudently with these emerging issues in a timely manner, it would be vital to have a well-resourced Research Wing attached to the CIRP to provide ready and comprehensive background material, analysis and inputs to the CIRP, as required.<strong><br /></strong></p>
<p><strong>Links with the IGF</strong>: Recognizing the value of the Internet Governance Forum as an open, unique forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on Internet issues, the deliberations in the IGF along with any inputs, background information and analysis it may provide, will be taken as inputs for consideration of the CIRP. An improved and strengthened IGF that can serve as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP, will ensure a stronger and more effective complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF.</p>
<p><strong>Budget</strong>: Like other UN bodies, the CIRP should be supported by the regular budget of the United Nations. In addition, keeping in view its unique multi-stakeholder format for inclusive participation, and the need for a well-resourced Research Wing and regular meetings, a separate Fund should also be set up drawing from the domain registration fees collected by various bodies involved in the technical functioning of the Internet, especially in terms of names and addresses.<br /><br />***</p>
<h3>Excerpts from the Tunis Agenda</h3>
<p><br />Paragraph 34 of the Tunis Agenda defines Internet Governance as “the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet”.<br /><br />Paragraph 35 reaffirms the respective roles of stakeholders as follows: “(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”. (b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical an economic fields. (c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. (d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. (e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.”<br /><br />While delineating the respective roles of stakeholders, Paragraph 56 recognizes the need for an inclusive, multi-stakeholder approach by affirming that “The Internet remains a highly dynamic medium and therefore any framework and mechanisms designed to deal with Internet governance should be inclusive and responsive to the exponential growth and fast evolution of the Internet as a common platform for the development of multiple applications”.<br /><br />Paragraph 58 recognizes “that Internet governance includes more than Internet naming and addressing. It also includes other significant public policy issues such as, <em>inter alia</em>, critical Internet resources, the security and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and issues pertaining to the use of the Internet”.<br /><br />Paragraph 59 further recognizes that “Internet governance includes social, economic and technical issues including affordability, reliability and quality of service”. Paragraph 60 further recognizes that “there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms”.<br /><br />Paragraph 61 of the Tunis Agenda therefore concludes that “We are convinced that there is a need to initiate, and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and international organisations, in their respective roles. This process could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, where justified, thus spurring the ongoing and active evolution of the current arrangements in order to synergize the efforts in this regard”.<br /><br />Paragraph 69 further recognizes “the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues”.<br /><br />***</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2011-10-31T15:28:04ZBlog EntryImplications of post-Snowden Internet localization proposals
https://cis-india.org/news/igf-2014-session-post-snowden-localisation
<b>The Ninth Annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Meeting will be held in Istanbul, Turkey on 2-5 September 2014. The venue of the meeting is Lütfi Kirdar International Convention and Exhibition Center (ICEC).</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham will be speaking <a class="external-link" href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2014/index.php/proposal/view_public_duplicate/112">in this workshop</a> organized by Internet Society and Center for Democracy and Technology at the IGF.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Following the 2013-2014 disclosures of large-scale pervasive surveillance of Internet traffic, various proposals to "localize" Internet users' data and change the path that Internet traffic would take have started to emerge.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Examples include mandatory storage of citizens' data within country, mandatory location of servers within country (e.g. Google, Facebook), launching state-run services (e.g. email services), restricted transborder Internet traffic routes, investment in alternate backbone infrastructure (e.g. submarine cables, IXPs), etc.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Localization of data and traffic routing strategies can be powerful tools for improving Internet experience for end-users, especially when done in response to Internet development needs. On the other hand, done uniquely in response to external factors (e.g. foreign surveillance), less optimal choices may be made in reactive moves.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">How can we judge between Internet-useful versus Internet-harmful localisation and traffic routing approaches? What are the promises of data localization from the personal, community and business perspectives? What are the potential drawbacks? What are implications for innovation, user choice and the availability of online services in the global economy? What impact might they have on a global and interoperable Internet? What impact (if any) might these proposals have on user trust and expectations of privacy?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The objective of the session is to gather diverse perspectives and experiences to better understand the technical, social and economic implications of these proposals.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Name(s) and stakeholder and organizational affiliation(s) of institutional co-organizer(s)</h3>
<p><b>Organizer:</b><br />Nicolas Seidler, Policy advisor<br /> Technical community<br /> Internet Society<br /><b>Co-organizer:</b><br />Matthew Shears<br /> Civil society<br /> Center for Democracy and Technology</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Names and affiliations (stakeholder group, organization) of speakers the proposer is planning to invite</h3>
<ol>
<li>Mr. Chris Riley, Senior Policy Engineer, Mozilla Corporation, Private sector (CONFIRMED)</li>
<li>Mr. Jari Arkko, Chair of the Internet Engineering Task Force, Technical community (CONFIRMED)</li>
<li>Mr. Christian Kaufmann, Director Network Architecture at Akamai Technologies, Private sector (CONFIRMED)</li>
<li>Ms. Emma Llanso, Director of Free Expression Project, Center for Democracy and Technology, Civil Society (CONFIRMED)</li>
<li>Mr. Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Center for Internet and Society, India, Civil Society (CONFIRMED)</li>
<li>Mr. Thomas Schneider, Deputy head of international affairs, Swiss Federal Office of Communication (OFCOM), Government (CONFIRMED)</li>
</ol>
<h3 class="title">Name of Moderator(s)</h3>
<ul>
<li>Nicolas Seidler, Policy advisor, Internet Society</li>
</ul>
<h3>Name of Remote Moderator(s)</h3>
<ul>
<li>Konstantinos Komaitis </li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/igf-2014-session-post-snowden-localisation'>https://cis-india.org/news/igf-2014-session-post-snowden-localisation</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2014-07-03T07:09:25ZNews ItemIETF103
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ietf-103
<b>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) organized the IETF103 in Bangkok from November 3 to November 9, 2018. Gurshabad Grover attended the event.</b>
<p class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E">In the IETF hackathon, Gurshabad collaborated with Alp Toker (from NetBlocks.org) to develop a client-side website for testing DNS over HTTPS (DoH) servers. The tool can be used for decentralised testing of DoH servers for censorship and measurement. The tool can be found <a class="external-link" href="https://netblocks.org/tmp/doh/">here</a>. The slide deck we used to present can be found <a class="external-link" href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-hrpc-hackathon-update-00">here</a>.</p>
<p class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" style="text-align: justify; ">In the meeting of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations (hrpc) research group, Niels ten Oever and Gurshabad presented a report from the hackathon. The video of the session is available on <a class="external-link" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd33Be_P-FY">YouTube</a>.</p>
<p class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" style="text-align: justify; ">In the same meeting, it was decided that Gurshabad will be becoming a co-editor (with Niels ten Oever) on 'Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol Considerations' (draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines), which is an active Internet Draft detailing a methodology for conducting human rights reviews of protocols and networking standards.</p>
<p class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" style="text-align: justify; ">In the meeting of Registration Protocols Extensions (regext) working group, a human rights review I submitted of the 'Verification Code Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)'(draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode) was discussed at length. The video of the session is available on <a class="external-link" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTpCpfBbIiI">YouTube</a>.</p>
<p class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" style="text-align: justify; ">Gurshabad participated in the meetings of several other working groups, including Software Updates for IoT Devices (SUIT), Transport Layer Security (tls), and Privacy Enhancements and Assessments Research Group (pearg).</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ietf-103'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ietf-103</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminInternet FreedomInternet Governance ForumCensorship2018-12-14T02:05:18ZNews ItemGoverning Identity on the Internet
https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals-governing-identity-on-the-internet
<b>Security, openness and privacy will be discussed at this workshop to be held at the IGF 2012 on November 8, 2012 from 11.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. Malavika Jayaram, a fellow at CIS is one of the panelists confirmed for participation.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Concise Description of Workshop:</b><br />From single-sign-on identifiers for federated websites to Whois data associated with Internet resources, countless individuals, business and government organizations have a stake in Internet identity information and its governance. While territorially-based governments have historically played a central role in their citizens' identity, it is private service providers and individual users that might be considered the de facto managers of Internet identity information. Private, rule-based arrangements (e.g., “trust frameworks”) have emerged in many industry sectors to help manage Internet identity transactions. Nonetheless, many states are actively pursuing digital identity efforts (OECD 2011), including the United States government's National Strategy for Trusted Identity in Cyberspace (NSTIC) which is standing up a governance body and the European Commission's proposed regulation on electronic identification and trusted services for electronic transactions. These efforts seek to promote greater adoption and interoperability of Internet identity solutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What are the appropriate roles of governments, the private sector and individuals in Internet identity? Are there benefits or risks of various Internet identity governance solutions being proposed? How compatible are they with the transnational nature of the Internet? Which stakeholders will determine the standards and policies for how Internet identity information is created, transmitted, utilized, or protected? This workshop, drawing on expertise from business, technical community, civil society and government actors, explores this active yet under examined area of Internet governance. The format of the workshop will include short position statements from the panelists followed by a question and answer session facilitated by a moderator involving the audience.</p>
<p><b>Organiser(s) Name:</b></p>
<ul>
<li>Brenden Kuerbis, Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto and Internet Governance Project, Syracuse University</li>
<li>Christine Runnegar, Internet Society</li>
</ul>
<p><b>Previous Workshop(s):</b><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=9" title="http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=9"><br />http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=9</a> <a href="http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=23" title="http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=23">http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=23</a> <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=10" title="http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=10">http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=10</a> <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshopsreports2009View&curr=1&wr=76" title="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshopsreports2009View&curr=1&wr=76">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chrono...</a> <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2010View&wspid=147" title="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2010View&wspid=147">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...</a></p>
<p><b>Submitted Workshop Panelists:</b><br />The following panelists have been confirmed for participation:</p>
<ul>
<li>Naomi Lefkovitz, Senior Privacy Advisor, National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace National Program Office, NIST, United States Dept of Commerce (government) (bio [1])</li>
<li>Andrea Servida, Head of Task Force "Legislation Team (eIDAS)", European Commission (government) (bio [2])</li>
<li>Robin Wilton, Technical Outreach for Identity and Privacy, Internet Society (technical) (bio [3])</li>
<li>Malavika Jayaram, Fellow, Centre for Internet & Society</li>
<li>Mawaki Chango, Africa Internet Policy Coordinator, Association for Progressive Communications (academic/civil society) (bio [4])</li>
<li>Marc Crandall, Google (business)</li>
<li>Bill Smith, Technology Evangelist, Paypal (business) (bio [5])</li>
<li>Brenden Kuerbis, Postdoctoral Fellow, Citizen Lab, University of Toronto and Internet Governance Project (academic/civil society) (bio [6])</li>
</ul>
<p>[1] <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/naomi-lefkovitz/47/788/a88" title="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/naomi-lefkovitz/47/788/a88">http://www.linkedin.com/pub/naomi-lefkovitz/47/788/a88</a> [2] <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrea-servida/0/47a/a70" title="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrea-servida/0/47a/a70">http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrea-servida/0/47a/a70</a> [3] <a href="http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/staff/mr-robin-wilton" title="http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/staff/mr-robin-wilton">http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/staff/mr-robin-wilton</a> [4] <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/touchwithmawaki" title="http://www.linkedin.com/in/touchwithmawaki">http://www.linkedin.com/in/touchwithmawaki</a> [5] <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bill-smith/1/a0b/3a6" title="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bill-smith/1/a0b/3a6">http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bill-smith/1/a0b/3a6</a> [6] <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/brendenkuerbis" title="http://www.linkedin.com/in/brendenkuerbis">http://www.linkedin.com/in/brendenkuerbis</a></p>
<p><b>Name of Remote Moderator(s):</b></p>
<p>Frédéric Donck, European Regional Bureau Director, Internet Society</p>
<p><b>Assigned Panellists:</b><a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/crandall-marc"><br />Smith - Bill<br />Servida - Andrea<br />Jayaram - Malavika<br />Lefkovitz - Naomi<br />Wilton - Robin<br />Kuerbis - Brenden<br />Chango - Mawaki<br />Crandall - Marc</a></p>
<p>Read the original published on the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2012/proposals">IGF website</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals-governing-identity-on-the-internet'>https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals-governing-identity-on-the-internet</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2012-10-04T09:06:59ZNews ItemFOSS & a Free, Open Internet: Synergies for Development
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/foss-a-free-open-internet-synergies-for-development
<b>Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. Civil Society is organizing a workshop on FOSS and a Free, Open Internet. The workshop will be held on November 13, 2015 from 2.00 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash will be speaking at this event.</b>
<p>This was published on the <a class="external-link" href="https://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2015/index.php/proposal/view_public/10">IGF website. </a></p>
<hr />
<table style="text-align: justify;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p>The workshop will explore links between the Free and Open nature of the Internet and the Free and Open Source Software through a series of experience sharing among the speakers as well as audiences. The speakers have been selected on the basis of their wide exposure and geographical and occupational diversity.</p>
<hr />
<p>As ICTs permeate lives of people around the world, code is fast emerging as an instrument that can change lives. In many parts of the world, the 4Rs of primary education are Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic and pRogramming, indicative of the role that ICTs will play in the future.<br /> <br /> Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is, inter alia, a mechanism whereby code, and consequently the ability to code, is being democratized. In contrast with centralized proprietary models, FOSS allows decentralized creation, distribution and maintenance of code. Such democratization enables grassroots level application of code to solve local problems, leading to more empowered communities. Free flow of code is therefore important to ensure that communities to stay 'plugged in' and current. Code also enables communities to side-step practices such as surveillance, censorship.<br /> <br /> A Free, Open, Unfragmented Internet is of critical importance to FOSS--without a free Internet, the FOSS-based peer-production methodologies for code would be infeasible. Interestingly, the Internet also needs the innovations of FOSS to remain free & open, thus forming a positive mutual dependency.<br /> <br /> Both FOSS and the Internet are at risk from forces that are seeking increasing control over content and fragmentation, challenging its openness. This would be inimical to the rights of present & future generations to use technology to improve their lives.<br /> <br /> The Round-table seeks to highlight perspectives from the participants about the future co-developemnt of FOSS and a free, open Internet; the threats that are emerging; and ways for communities to surmount these.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p class="title">Name, stakeholder group, and organizational affiliation of workshop proposal co-organizer(s)</p>
<p>Civil Society<br /> Technical Community<br /> Private Sector</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p class="title">Has the proposer, or any of the co-organizers, organized an IGF workshop before?</p>
<p>yes</p>
<p class="title">The link to the workshop report</p>
<p>http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no80-steady-stepsfoss-and-mdgs</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p class="title">Subject matter #tags that describe the workshop</p>
<p>#openInternet #foss #codefordev</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p class="title">Description of the plan to facilitate discussion amongst speakers, audience members and remote participants</p>
<p>Besides specially identified resource persons, the Roundtable will invite IGF participants who are part of FOSS communities around the world (particularly Brazil, which has a vibrant FOSS community). Participation will include real-time remote participation from FOSS communities around the world, as well as Twitter and email-based submission of ideas and thoughts.<br /> <br /> The Round-table format has been chosen for many-to-many interactions so as to generate a wealth of ideas. No speaker shall speak for more than 5 minutes. Two moderators will guide discussions, and a rapporteur will ensure that ideas are captured. The report of the Roundtable would be posted to all participating communities so as to stimulate grassroots-level action.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p class="title">Names and affiliations (stakeholder group, organization) of the participants in the proposed workshop</p>
<p>Mr.Satish Babu, Technical Community, Director, International Centre for FOSS, Trivandrum, India, who shall provide technical inputs of FOSS and its relevance, particularly to emerging economies, Confirmed<br /> <br /> Ms. Judy Okite, Civil Society, FOSS Foundation for Africa, is an experienced activist who has been promoting the use of FOSS in Africa. Seeking funding at present.<br /> <br /> Ms. Mishi Choudhary, Private Sector, Software Freedom Law Centre, New York, is a lawyer working with FOSS and its legal implications for over two decades. Confirmed<br /> <br /> Mr. Fernando Botelho, Private Sector, heads F123 Systems, Brazil, a FOSS-centric company that provides accessibility solutions to visually impaired people. Confirmed<br /> <br /> Mr. Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, a civil society organization working on Internet and public policy. Confirmed<br /> <br /> Mr. Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, a civil society organization working on Internet and public policy. Confirmed<br /> <br /> Ms. Nnenna Nwakanma- WWW.Foundation, a Civil Society organization working in Africa on a broad range of areas including FOSS. Confirmed<br /> <br /> Mr. Yves MIEZAN EZO, Open Source strategy consultant, Private Sector. Seeking funding for participation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Harish Pillay, Private Sector, RedHat Asia-Pacific. Seeking funding for participation. <br /> <br /> Corinto Meffe, Advisor to the President and Directors, SERPRO, Brazil. Confirmed<br /> <br /> Frank Coelho de Alcantara, Professor, Universidade Positivo, Brazil, Confirmed<br /> <br /> Ms. Caroline Burle, Institutional and International Relations, W3C Brazil Office and Center of Studies on Web Technologies - CeWeb.br (a CGI.br/NIC.br initiative). Confirmed</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p class="title">Name of in-person Moderator(s)</p>
<p>Satish Babu, Mishi Choudhary</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p class="title">Name of Remote Moderator(s)</p>
<p>Judy Okite</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p class="title">Name of Rapporteur(s)</p>
<p>Pranesh Prakash</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p class="title">Description of the proposer's plans for remote participation</p>
<p>Besides around 30 persons at the IGF, we will be providing wide publicity for the workshop through FOSS communities and networks. Besides live audio/video participation, Twitter shall be a key resource for real-time participation. There shall be a Twitter co-ordinator identified whose role will be to tweet the salient points at the Roundtable periodically for the benefit of documenting and informing interested communities.<br /> <br /> For those that have either technical difficulties or time-zone problems, ideas and comments can be submitted by email before the workshop to the moderators.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/foss-a-free-open-internet-synergies-for-development'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/foss-a-free-open-internet-synergies-for-development</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFOSSOpen SourceInternet GovernanceInternet Governance Forum2016-06-18T17:57:53ZNews ItemFirst Look: CIS Cybersecurity documentary film
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-film-trailer
<b>CIS presents the trailer of its documentary film DesiSec: Cybersecurity & Civil Society in India</b>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society is pleased to release the trailer of its first documentary film, on cybersecurity and civil society in India. </p>
<p>The documentary is part of the CIS Cybersecurity Series, a work in progress which may be found <a class="external-link" href="http://cismetamedia.tumblr.com">here</a>.</p>
<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/3134xVvMmfc" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>
<p><strong>DesiSec: Cybersecurity and Civil Society in India</strong></p>
<p>The trailer of <em>DesiSec: Cybersecurity and Civil Society in India</em> was shown at the Internet Governance Forum in Bali on October 24. It was a featured presentation at the Citizen Lab workshop, <em>Internet Governance For The Next Billion Users.</em></p>
<p>The transcript of the workshop is available here: <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-process/1476-ws-344-internet-governance-for-the-next-billion-users">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-process/1476-ws-344-internet-governance-for-the-next-billion-users</a> </p>
<p><strong><em>This work was carried out as part of the Cyber Stewards Network with aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.</em></strong></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-film-trailer'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-film-trailer</a>
</p>
No publisherpurbaCybersecurityInternet Governance ForumInternet GovernanceCyber Security FilmCyberculturesCyber Security2013-12-17T08:16:42ZBlog EntryEncryption and Anonymity: Rights and Risks
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/encryption-and-anonymity-rights-and-risks
<b>Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. ARTICLE 19 and Privacy International are organizing a workshop on Encryption and Anonymity on November 12, 2015. Pranesh Prakash is a speaker.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This was published on the <a class="external-link" href="https://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2015/index.php/proposal/view_public/155">IGF website</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Encryption and anonymity are two key aspects of the right to privacy and free expression online. From real-name registration in Iran to the UK Prime Minister's calls for Internet backdoors to encrypted communications, however, the protection of encrypted and anonymous speech is increasingly under threat. Recognising these challenges, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, David Kaye, presented a report to the Human Rights Council in June 2015 which highlighted the need for greater protection of encryption and anonymity.<br /> <br /> Five months on from the Special Rapporteur’s report, the participants in this roundtable will discuss his recommendations and the latest challenges to the protection of anonymity and encryption. For example, how can law enforcement demands be met while ensuring that individuals still enjoy strong encryption and unfettered access to anonymity tools? What steps should governments, civil society, individuals and the private sector take to avoid the legal and technological fragmentation of a tool now vital to expression and communication? How can individuals protect themselves from mass surveillance in the digital age?<br /> <br /> At the end of the session, the participants should have identified areas for future advocacy both at the international and domestic levels as well as areas for further research for the protection of anonymity and encryption on the Internet.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Agenda</h3>
<ol>
<li>Moderator welcomes speakers and audience.</li>
<li>Outline of key issues on encryption and anonymity, including summary of the UN Special Rapporteur's report.</li>
<li>Each speaker speaks for 5-7 mins, giving their perspective re the issues.</li>
<li>Questions from participants, including remote participation via Twitter.</li>
<li>Conclusion and steps for further action.</li>
</ol>
<hr />
<h2>About IGF 2015</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a multistakeholder, democratic and transparent forum which facilitates discussions on public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance. IGF provides enabling platform for discussions among all stakeholders in the Internet governance ecosystem, including all entities accredited by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), as well as other institutions and individuals with proven expertise and experience in all matters related to Internet governance.<br /><br />After consulting the wider Internet community and discussing the overarching theme of the 2015 IGF meeting, the Multistakeholder Advisory Group decided to retain the title “Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development”. This theme will be supported by eight sub-themes that will frame the discussions at the João Pessoa meeting.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/encryption-and-anonymity-rights-and-risks'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/encryption-and-anonymity-rights-and-risks</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2015-10-27T02:37:45ZNews ItemEmpowering the next billion by improving accessibility
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/empowering-the-next-billion-by-improving-accessibility
<b>Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. On Friday, November 13, 2015, Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability and Global Initiative for Inclusive ICTs (G3ICT) is organizing this workshop. Sunil Abraham is a panelist. Pranesh Prakash will be taking part in the discussions.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While considerable attention is given to the availability of the communication infrastructure to expand usage of the Internet, little attention has been given to the accessibility barriers which prevent over one billion potential users to benefit from the Internet, including for essential services. Those barriers affect persons living with a variety of sensorial or physical disabilities as well as illiterate individuals who may benefit from the same solutions designed for persons with disabilities. <br /><br />This session will examine the technological and programmatic solutions available today for an effective removal of such barriers, potentially bringing a considerable number of new users to the Internet. Examples in Education, Emergency services, Assistive Technologies for work and independent living in a variety of economic and geographic environments will be covered. The session will also provide a detailed benchmark and statistical overview of the progress made by countries around the world in implementing those solutions. A general discussion with government, industry and persons with disabilities representatives will ensue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Read more on the <a class="external-link" href="https://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2015/index.php/proposal/view_public/253">IGF website here</a>. List of attendees <a class="external-link" href="https://igf2015.sched.org/directory/attendees/2#.Vj4EjV58hQo">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/empowering-the-next-billion-by-improving-accessibility'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/empowering-the-next-billion-by-improving-accessibility</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2015-11-07T14:04:57ZNews ItemDCOS Agreement on Procurement
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-agreement-on-procurement
<b>On December 6, 2008, at the closing of the third Internet Governance Forum in Hyderabad, India, the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS), of which the Centre for Internet and Society is a member, released an agreement entitled the "Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) Agreement on Procurement in Support of Interoperability and Open Standards".</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-agreement-on-procurement'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-agreement-on-procurement</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsInternet Governance ForumWorkshop2011-08-23T02:58:35ZBlog EntryCloudy Jurisdiction: Addressing the thirst for Cloud Data in Domestic Legeal Processes
https://cis-india.org/news/cloudy-jurisdiction-addressing-the-thirst-for-cloud-data-in-domestic-legeal-processes
<b>Elonnai Hickok was a panelist at this workshop held at the IGF in Baku, Azerbaijan on November 7, 2012. The workshop was co-organised by Electronic Frontier Foundation (Peru) and University of Ottawa.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The use of cloud services is rising globally. Cloud computing and storage are uniquely tailored to take full advantage of our increasingly networked environment. However, a move to the cloud also entails tangible challenges as vast repositories of information once kept within the sacrosanct safety of the home computer are placed on a remote server in the control of a third party. While the protections of home storage and processing can be replicated in the cloud, legal norms have been slow to adopt. Jurisdiction, the classic internet governance question, is raised in particularly stark contrast in the move to the cloud, as placing user data can subject that data to the legal access laws of any (or even many) jurisdictions in the world.</p>
<p>While there are indicators that such data is being accessed at increasing and alarming rates, globally, yet even the dimensions of the problem remain obscure. What is needed is a set of shared international norms relating to transparency, data sovereignty and lawful access to private information. In recent years, however, International forums have appeared much more eager to adopt international standards for data access (be it to combat cybercrime, secure critical infrastructure, or help intellectual property holders uncover alleged infringers of their rights) than for data sovereignty. Standards need to be developed that will provide a basis for the special challenges to cross-jurisdictional privacy that the move to the cloud highlights. This panel will examine the need for such a cross-jurisdictional framework, what one might look like, and, importantly, how one might bring such a framework about where the issue appears to be a low priority for many national governments.</p>
<p><b>Agenda</b><br /> The objective of this panel is to attempt to resolve some of the trans-border threats to civil liberties that are posed by the move to the cloud. If a baseline of privacy protection can be assured at the international level, concerns over limiting data flows on the basis of jurisdiction will be alleviated. This panel will be divided into two parts. The first part will discuss some of the challenges raised by the cloud environment for traditional civil liberties paradigms. The discussion in part two will be solution-driven—what rules can be put in place at the international level to alleviate the heightened risk to privacy and other civil liberties raised by a cloud-centric model.</p>
<p><b>Part 1: Cloud-based threats to cross-border civil liberties</b> (45 mins)<br /> This part will discuss some of the challenges to civil liberties arising from a cross-border cloud-based environment. The panel will be further sub-divided into 25-30 minutes of panelist input, followed by 15-20 minutes of general discussion. Panelists will be asked to spend 3-5 minutes highlighting what they view as the most pressing of these challenges may be.</p>
<p>This might include specific recurring problems that have arisen in many comparable online contexts, as they relate to the cloud such as, for example:</p>
<ul>
<li> legal obligations to build in intercept capacity into Internet services (compare CALEA 2.0 efforts in US, Lawful Access in Canada, and domestic server obligations such as those imposed on RIM by India and others in order to facilitate access to data that is encrypted in transit). </li>
<li> Concerns that many legal regimes permit voluntary conduct without adequate safeguards for political pressure on companies, particularly smaller businesses, to comply with requests. </li>
<li> Inability to challenge surveillance laws because the programs are shrouded in secrecy, because individuals are never made aware they have been surveilled, because of standing issues, etc. </li>
<li> Ability for ‘one-stop access’: cloud centralizes mass amounts of data in one place. This concentration as well as a general erosion of traditional criteria designed to ensure surveillance is targeted in a way that impacts minimally on the general populace. </li>
<li> Nascent suggestions of informal information sharing arrangements through MLATs and less transparent more informal arrangements. </li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Part 2: Adopting protections at the International level</b> (45 mins.)<br /> The discussion in Part 2 will focus on how some of these problems can be addressed at the international level by adoption of a set of principled protections designed to meet the realities of online and specifically cloud services. The focus is on problem resolution.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Format for Part 2 will mirror that of Part 1. Panelists will be provided with 3-5 minutes each and asked to present their views on one or two solutions that can be adopted at the international level to the problems presented in part 1. The remainder (20-25 minutes) will be dedicated to general discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is hoped that the discussion will explore specific protections that might be adopted at the international level, how to advance those solutions, and what strategies can generally advance these objectives, on the advocacy front, by use of transparency tools to increase awareness of some of the issues.</p>
<p>Questions to think about:</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; "> Historically, interception of communications received the strongest protection at law, but it relied to a great extent on the act of interception coinciding with the communication itself. Should we be expanding this to other means of communications?</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "> Do we have effective mechanisms to immunize private organizations from political pressure to voluntarily share information? Particularly, a lot of small companies can now have a lot of information. Are they well equipped to resist political pressure</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "> Does the content/traffic data distinction still hold? Do we need a new framework for analysing the types of data produced as a natural byproduct of our online activities?</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "> Can the MLAT regime form the basis for ensuring fundamental rights are respected in legitimate cross-border surveillance activities? If so, what would it take to have it reflect a baseline of protections?</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "> Is it feasible to develop and formally adopt detailed limitations on state access at the international or regional level?</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "> Is cloud-based info susceptible to unauthorized state access in new ways? Is this something the law can fix (mandate encryption in storage or other safeguards)? Social engineering concerns?</li>
</ol>
<p><b>Background Reading:</b></p>
<ul>
<li> The Draft International Principles on Surveillance & Human Rights: <a href="http://necessaryandproportionate.org/">http://necessaryandproportionate.org/</a></li>
<li> Global Network Initiative, "Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy", <a href="http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf">http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf</a></li>
<li> I. Brown & D. Korff, “Digital Freedoms in International Law”, GNI 2012, <a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/sites/default/files/Digital%20Freedoms%20in%20International%20Law.pdf">http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/sites/default/files/Digital%20Freedoms%20in%20International%20Law.pdf</a></li>
<li> J. McNamee, “Internet Intermediaries: The New Cyberpolice?”, GIS Watch, <a href="http://www.giswatch.org/sites/default/files/gisw_-_internet_intermediaries_-_the_new_cyber_police_.pdf">http://www.giswatch.org/sites/default/files/gisw_-_internet_intermediaries_-_the_new_cyber_police_.pdf</a></li>
<li> A. Escudero-Pascal & G. Hosein, "The Hazards of Technology-Neutral Policy: Questioning Lawful Access to Traffic Data", (2004) 47(3) ACM 77, <a href="http://web.it.kth.se/%7Eaep/PhD/docs/paper6-acm-1905-reviewed_20021022.pdf">http://web.it.kth.se/~aep/PhD/docs/paper6-acm-1905-reviewed_20021022.pdf</a></li>
<li> HRC, “Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights”, April 2008, A/HRC/8/5, <a href="http://198.170.85.29/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf">http://198.170.85.29/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf</a></li>
<li> HRC, “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework”, March 2011, A/HRC/7/31, <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/A-HRC-17-31_AEV.pdf">http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/A-HRC-17-31_AEV.pdf</a></li>
<li> ACLU, “New Justice Department Documents Show Huge Increase in Warrantless Electronic Surveillance”, Sept 2012, <a href="http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justice-department-documents-show-huge-increase">http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justice-department-documents-show-huge-increase</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Organiser(s) Name:</p>
<ul>
<li> Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation (Peru)</li>
<li> Tamir Israel, Staff Lawyer, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), University of Ottawa (Canada)</li>
</ul>
<p>Previous Workshop(s):</p>
<ul>
<li> <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposalsReports2010View&wspid=66" title="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposalsReports2010View&wspid=66">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...</a></li>
<li> <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshops2011View&wspid=160" title="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshops2011View&wspid=160">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Submitted Workshop Panelists:</p>
<p><b>Chair:</b> Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation; (US/Peru) (Civil Society) / Confirmed</p>
<ul>
<li> Ian Brown, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute (EU) (Academic) / Confirmed</li>
<li> Bertrand de la Chapelle, Program Director at International Diplomatic Academy (EU) (Civil Society) / Confirmed</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "> Marc Crandall, Global Compliance, Google (US) (Private Sector)</li>
<li> Elonnai Hickok, Policy Associate, Centre for Internet & Society (India) (Civil Society) /Confirmed</li>
<li> Sophie Kwasny, Head of Data Protection Unit, Data Protection & Cybercrime Division, Council of Europe (IGO) / Confirmed</li>
<li> Bruce Schneier, Chief Security Technology Officer of BT (US) (Private Sector) / Confirmed</li>
<li> Wendy Seltzer, Policy Counsel, W3C (US) (Technical Community) / Confirmed</li>
</ul>
<p>Name of Remote Moderator(s): Paul Muchene, iHub Nairobi (Kenya) (Private Sector) Assigned Panellists: <a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/de-la-chapelle-bertrand">de La Chapelle - Bertrand</a> <a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/rodriguez-katitza">Rodriguez - Katitza</a> <a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/brown-ian">Brown - Ian</a> <a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/schneier-bruce">Schneier - Bruce</a> <a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/kwasny-sophie">KWASNY - Sophie</a> <a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/seltzer-wendy">Seltzer - Wendy</a> <a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/crandall-marc">Crandall - Marc</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/cloudy-jurisdiction-addressing-the-thirst-for-cloud-data-in-domestic-legeal-processes'>https://cis-india.org/news/cloudy-jurisdiction-addressing-the-thirst-for-cloud-data-in-domestic-legeal-processes</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2012-12-09T01:00:49ZNews ItemCivil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in India - Open Review
https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-india-open-review
<b>This is a book section written for the third volume (2000-2010) of the Asia Internet History series edited by Prof. Kilnam Chon. The pre-publication text of the section is being shared here to invite suggestions for addition and modification. Please share your comments via email sent to raw[at]cis-india[dot]org with 'Civil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in India - Comments' as the subject line. This text is published under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license. </b>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>You are most welcome to read the pre-publication drafts of other sections of the Asia Internet History Vol. 3, and share your comments: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/internethistoryasia/book3" target="_blank">https://sites.google.com/site/internethistoryasia/book3</a>.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Early Days</h2>
<p>The overarching context of development interventions and rights-based approaches have shaped the space of civil society organizations working on the topics of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and Internet governance in India. Early members of this space came from diverse backgrounds. Satish Babu was working with the South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies (SIFFS) in mid-1990s, when he set up a public mailing list called 'FishNet,' connected to Internet via the IndiaLink email network, (then) run by India Social Institute to inter-connect development practitioners in India. He went on to become the President of Computer Society of India during 2012-2013; and co-founded Society for Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment (SPACE) in 2003, where he served as the Executive Secretary during 2003-2010 [Wikipedia 2015]. Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director of IT for Change and one of the key actors from Indian civil society organizations to take part in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process, had previously worked extensively on topics related to public health and women's rights [ITfC b], which deeply shaped the perspectives she and IT for Change have brought into the Internet governance sphere, globally as well as nationally [Gurumurthy 2001]. Arun Mehta initiated a mailing list titled 'India-GII' in 2002 to discuss 'India's bumpy progress on the global infohighway' [India-GII 2005]. This list played a critical role in curating an early community of non-governmental actors interested in the topics of telecommunication policy, spectrum licensing, Internet governance, and consumer and communication rights. As Frederick Noronha documents, the mailing list culture grew slowly in India during the late 1990s and early 2000s. However, they had a great impact in organizing early online communities, sometimes grouped around a topical focus, sometimes functioning as a bridge among family members living abroad, and sometimes curating place-specific groups [Noronha 2002].</p>
<p>The inaugural conference of the Free Software Foundation of India [FSFI] in Thiruvananthapuram, on 20 July 2001, galvanized the Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) community in India. The conference was titled 'Freedom First,' and Richard Stallman was invited as the chief guest. It was a vital gathering of actors from civil society organizations, software businesses, academia, and media, as well as the Secretary of the Department of Information Technology, Government of Kerala (the state where the conference was held). The conference laid the basis for sustained collaborations between the free software community, civil society organizations, emerging software firms in the state, and the Government of Kerala for the years to come. Two early initiatives that brought together free software developers and state government agencies were the Kerala Trasportation Project and the IT@School project, which not only were awarded to firms promoting use of FLOSS in electronic governance project, but facilitated a wider public dialogue regarding the need think critically about the making of information society in India [Kumar 2007]. The inter-connected communities and overlapping practices of the FLOSS groups, civil society organizations involved in ICT for Development initiatives, telecommunication policy analysts and advocates, and legal-administrative concerns regarding life in the information society – from digital security and privacy, to freedom of online expressions, to transparency in electronic governance infrastructures – have, hence, continued to shape the civil society space in India studying, discussing, responding, and co-shaping policies and practices around governance of Internet in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Key Organizations</h2>
<p>IT for Change was established in 2000, in Bengaluru, as a non-governmental organization that 'works for the innovative and effective use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to promote socio-economic change in the global South, from an equity, social justice and gender equality point of view' [ITfC]. It has since made important contributions in the field of ICTs for Development, especially in integrating earlier communication rights practices organised around old media forms with newer possibilities of production and distribution of electronic content using digital media and Internet [ITfC e], and in that of Internet governance, especially through their participation in the WSIS and Internet Governance Forum (IGF) processes and by co-shaping the global Souther discourse of the subject [ITfC d]. It has also done significant works in the area of women's rights in the information society, and have been a core partner in a multi-country feminist action research project on using digital media to enhance the citizenship rights and experiences of marginalized women in India, Brazil, and South Africa [ITfC c]. IT for Change has co-led the formation of Just Net Coalition in February 2014 [JNC].</p>
<p>Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF) was founded by Osama Manzar, in New Delhi in 2002, with a 'deep understanding that marginalised communities living in socio-economic backwardness and information poverty can be empowered to improve their lives almost on their own, simply by providing them access to information and knowledge using digital tools' [DEF c]. DEF has contributed to setting up Community Information Resource Centres across 19 states and 53 districts in India, with computers, printers, scanners, and Internet connectivity [DEF]. DEF organises one of the biggest competitions in Asia to identify, foreground, and honour significant contributions in the area of ICT for Development [DEF d]. This annual competition series, titled 'Manthan Award' (Translation: 'manthan' means 'churning' in Sanskrit), started in 2004. It has alllowed DEF to create a detailed database of ICT for Development activities and actors in the South Asia and Asia Pacific region. Since 2011, DEF has started working with Association for Progressive Communications on a project titled 'Internet Rights' to take forward the agenda of 'internet access for all' in India [DEF b].</p>
<p>The Society for Knowledge Commons was formed in New Delhi 2007 by 'scientists, technologists, researchers, and activists to leverage the tremendous potential of the ‘collaborative innovation’ model for knowledge generation that has lead to the growth of the Free and Open Source Software community (FOSS) around the world' [Society for Knowledge Commons]. It has championed integration of FOSS into public sector operations in India – from electronic governance systems to use of softwares in educational institutes – and has made continuous interventions on Internet governance issues from the perspective of the critical importance of shared knowledge properties and practices for a more democratic information society. It is a part of the Free Software Movement of India [FSMI], an alliance of Indian organizations involved in advocating awareness and usage of FOSS, as well as a founding member of the Just Net Coalition [JNC].</p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) was established in Bengaluru in 2008 with a research and advocacy focus on topics of accessibility of digital content for differently-abled persons, FOSS and policies on intellectual property rights, open knowledge and Indic Wikipedia projects, digital security and privacy, freedom of expression and Internet governance, and socio-cultural and historical studies of Internet in India [CIS]. In one of the key early projects, CIS contributed to the making of web accessibility policy for government websites in India, which was being drafted by the Department of Information Technology, Government of India [CIS 2008]. In the following years it took part in the Internet Governance Forum summits; submitted responses and suggestions to various policies being introduced by the government, especially the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, National Identification Authority of India (NIA) Bill, 2010, and the Approach Paper for a Legislation on Privacy, 2010; produced a report on the state of open government data in India [Prakash 2011b], and undertook an extensive study on the experiences of the young people in Asia with Internet, digital media, and social change [Shah 2011].</p>
<p>Software Freedom Law Centre has undertaken research and advocacy interventions, since 2011, in the topics digital privacy, software patents, and cyber-surveillance [SFLC]. The Internet Democracy Project, an initiative of Point of View, has organised online and offline discussions, participated in global summits, and produced reports on the topics of freedom of expression, cyber security and human rights, and global Internet governance architecture since 2012 [IDP].</p>
<p>The first Internet Society chapter to be established in India was in Delhi. The chapter began in 2002, but went through a period of no activity before being revived in 2008 [Delhi]. The Chennai chapter started in 2007 [Chennai], the Kolkata one in 2009 [Kolkata], and the Bengaluru chapter came into existence in 2010 [Bangalore]. Asia Internet Symposium have been organised in India twice: 1) the Kolkata one, held on on 1 December 2014, focused on 'Internet and Human Rights: Empowering the Users,' and 2) the Chennai symposium, held on 2 December 2014, discussed 'India in the Open and Global Internet.' The newest Internet Society chapter in India is in the process of formation in Trivandrum [Trivandrum], led by the efforts of Satish Babu (mentioned above).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Global and National Events</h2>
<p>The first World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conference in Geneva, held on 10-12 December 2003, was not attended by many civil society organizations from India. Several Indian participants in the conference were part of the team of representatives from different global civil society organizations, like Digital Partners, Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN), and International Centre for New Media [ITU 2003]. Between the first and the second conference, the engagement with the WSIS process increased among Indian civil society organizations increased of the WSIS process, which was especially led by IT for Change. In early 2005, before the second Preparatory Committee meeting of the Tunis conference, it organized a discussion event titled 'Gender Perspectives on the Information Society: South Asia Pre-WSIS Seminar' in partnership with DAWN and the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, which was supported by UNIFEM and the UNDP Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme [Gurumurthy 2006]. In a separate note, Anita Gurumurthy and Parminder Jeet Singh of IT for Change have noted their experience as a South Asian civil society organization engaging with the WSIS process [Gurumurthy 2005]. The second WSIS conference in Tunis, held on 16-18 November 2005, however, neither saw any significant participation from Indian civil society organizations, except for Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace, Childline India Foundation / Child Helpline International, and IT for Change [ITU 2005]. This contrasted sharply with the over 60 delegates from various Indian government agencies taking part in the conference [ITU 2005].</p>
<p>Two important events took place in India in early 2005 that substantially contributed to the civil society discourses in India around information technology and its socio-legal implications and possibilities. The former is the conference titled 'Contested Commons, Trespassing Publics' organized by the Sarai programme at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Alternative Law Forum, and Public Service Broadcasting Trust, in Delhi on 6-8 January 2005. The conference attempted to look into the terms of intellectual property rights (IPR) debates from the perspectives of experiences in countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. It was based on the research carried out by the Sarai programme and Alternative Law Forum on contemporary realities of media production and distribution, and the ways in which law and legal instruments enter into the most intimate spheres of social and cultural life to operationalise the IPRs. The conference combined academic discussions with parallel demonstrations by media practitioners, and knowledge sharing by FLOSS communities [Sarai 2005]. The latter event is the first of the Asia Source workshop that took place in Bengaluru during 28 January - 4 February 2005 . It brought together more than 100 representatives from South and South-East Asian civil society organizations and technology practitioners working with them, along with several leading practitioners from Africa, Europe, North America, and Latin America, to promote adoption and usage of FLOSS across the developmental sector in the region. The workshop was organized by Mahiti (Bengaluru) and Tactical Technology Collective (Amsterdam), with intellectual and practical support from an advisory group of representatives from FLOSS communities and civil society organizations, and financial support from Hivos, the Open Society Institute, and International Open Source Network [Asia Source].</p>
<p>While the participation of representatives from Indian civil society organizations at the IGFs in Athens (2006) and Rio de Janeiro (2007) was minimal, the IGF Hyderabad, held on 3-6 December 2008, provided a great opportunity for Indian civil society actors to participate in and familiarize themselves with the global Internet governance process. Apart from various professionals, especially lawyers, who attended the Hyderabad conference as individuals, the leading civil society organizations participating in the event included: Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace, Centre for Internet and Society, Centre for Science, Development and Media Studies, Digital Empowerment Foundation, Internet Society Chennai chapter, IT for Change, and Mahiti. The non-governmental participants from India at the event, however, were predominantly from private companies and academic institutes [IGF 2008].</p>
<p>IT for Change made a critical intervention into the discourse of global Internet governance during the Hyderabad conference by bringing back the term 'enhanced cooperation,' as mentioned in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society [ITU 2005 b]. At IGF Sharm El Sheikh, held during 15-18 November 2009, Parminder Jeet Singh of IT for Change explained:</p>
<blockquote>[E]nhanced cooperation consists of two parts. One part is dedicated to creating globally applicable policy principles, and there is an injunction to the relevant organizations to create the conditions for doing that. And I have a feeling that the two parts of that process have been conflated into one. And getting reports from the relevant organizations is going on, but we are not able to go forward to create a process which addresses the primary purpose of enhanced cooperation, which was to create globally applicable public policy principles and the proof of that is that I don't see any development of globally applicable public policy principles, which remains a very important need. [IGF 2009]</blockquote>
<p>This foregrounding of the principle of 'enhanced cooperation' have since substantially contributed to rethinking not only the global Internet governance mechanisms and its reconfigurations, but also the Indian government's perspectives towards the same. It eventually led to the proposal made by a representative of Government of India at the UN General Assembly session on 26 October 2011 regarding the establishment of a UN Committee for Internet-Related Policies [Singh 2011].</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Internet Policies and Censorship</h2>
<p>One of the earliest instances of censorship of online content in India is the blocking of several websites offering Voice over IP (VoIP) softwares, which can be downloaded to make low-cost international calls, during late 1990s. The India-GII mailing list initiated by Arun Mehta, as mentioned above, started almost as a response to this blocking move by Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL), the government-owned Internet Service Provider (ISP). Additionally, Mehta filed a case against VSNL for blocking these e-commerce websites, which might be identified as the first case of legal activism for Internet-related rights in India [India-GII 2001]. During the war between India and Pakistan during 1999, the Indian government instructed VSNL to block various Pakistani media websites, including that of Dawn. Like in the case of websites offering VoIP services, this blocking did not involve direct intervention with the websites concerned but only the ability of Indian users to access them [Tanna 2004].
The first well-known case of the Government of India blocking digital content for political reasons occurred in 2003, when a mailing list titled 'Kynhun' was banned. Department of Telecommunications instructed all the But the previously deployed URL-blocking strategy did not work in the new situation of mailing lists. Blocking the URL of the group did not stop it from being used by members of the group to continue sharing email through it. Government of India then approached Yahoo directly to ensure that the mailing list is closed down, which Yahoo declined to implement. This resulted in imposing of a blanket blocking of all Yahoo Groups pages across ISPs in India during September 2003. By November, Yahoo decided to close down the mailing list, and the blanket blocking was repealed [Tanna 2004]. Further blocking of several blogs and websites continued through 2006 and 2007, where the government decided to work in collaboration with various platforms offering hosted blog and personal webpage services to remove access to specific sub-domains. In resistance to this series of blocking orders by the government, there emerged an important civil society campaign titled 'Bloggers Against Censorship' led by Bloggers Collective Group, a distributed network of bloggers from all across India [Bloggers 2006].</p>
<p>A few weeks after the IGF Hyderabad, the Government of India passed the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 on 22 December 2008 [MoLaJ 2009], although it was notified and enforced much later on 27 October 2009 [MoCaIT 2009]. This amendment attempted to clarify various topics left under-defined in the Information Technology Act of 2000. However, as Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society noted, the casual usage of the term 'offensive content' in the amendment opened up serious threats of broad curbing of freedom of online expression under the justification that it caused 'annoyance' or 'inconvenience' [Prakash 2009]. The sections 66 and 67 of the amended Information Technology Act, which respectively address limits to online freedom of expression and legally acceptable monitoring of digital communication by government agencies, have since been severely protested against by civil society organizations across India for enabling a broad-brushed censorship and surveillance of the Internet in India. The section 66A has especially allowed the government to make a series of arrests of Internet users for posting and sharing 'offensive content' [Pahwa 2015].</p>
<p>In 2011, the Government of India introduced another critical piece of policy instrument for controlling online expressions – the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 [MoCaIT 2011] – targeted at defining the functions of the intermediaries associated with Internet-related services and communication, and how they are to respond to government's directives towards taking down and temporary blocking of digital content. The draft Rules were published in early 2011 and comments were invited from the general public. One of the responses, submitted by Privacy India and the Centre for Internet and Society, explicitly highlighted the draconian implications of the (then) proposed rules:</p>
<blockquote>This rule requires an intermediary to immediately take steps to remove access to information merely upon receiving a written request from “any authority mandated under the law”. Thus, for example, any authority can easily immunize itself from criticism on the internet by simply sending a written notice to the intermediary concerned. This is directly contrary to, and completely subverts the legislative intent expressed in Section 69B which lays down an elaborate procedure to be followed before any information can be lawfully blocked. [Prakash 2011]</blockquote>
<p>The policy apparatus of controlling online expression in India took its full form by the beginning of the decade under study here. The 'chilling effect' of this apparatus was made insightfully evident by a study conducted by Rishabh Dara at the Centre for Internet and Society, where fake takedown notices (regarding existing digital content) were sent to 7 important Internet intermediaries operating in India, and their responses were studied. The results of this experiment demonstrated that:</p>
<blockquote>[T]he Rules create uncertainty in the criteria and procedure for administering the takedown thereby inducing the intermediaries to err on the side of caution and over-comply with takedown notices in order to limit their liability; and as a result suppress legitimate expressions. Additionally, the Rules do not establish sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse and abuse of the takedown process to suppress legitimate expressions. [Dara 2012]</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<h2>Reference</h2>
<p>[Bloggers 2006] Bloggers Collective Group, Bloggers Against Censorship. Last updated on April 30, 2009. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://censorship.wikia.com/wiki/Bloggers_Against_Censorship.</p>
<p>[Dara 2012] Dara, Rishabh, Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet. The Centre for Internet and Society. April 27. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet.</p>
<p>[DEF] Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF). Community Information Resource Centre. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://defindia.org/circ-2/.</p>
<p>[DEF b] Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF). Internet Rights. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://internetrights.in/.</p>
<p>[DEF c] Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF). Our Story. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://defindia.org/about-def/.</p>
<p>[DEF d] Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF). Manthan Awards. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://defindia.org/manthan-award-south-asia-masa/.</p>
<p>[FSFI] Free Software Foundation of India. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://fsf.org.in/.</p>
<p>[FSMI] Free Software Movement of India. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.fsmi.in/node.</p>
<p>[Gurumurthy 2001] Gurumurthy, Anita, A Gender Perspective to ICTs and Development: Reflections towards Tunis. January 15. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/701.htm.</p>
<p>[Gurumurthy 2005] Gurumurthy, Anita, and Parminder Jeet Singh, WSIS PrepCom 2: A South Asian Perspective. Association for Progressive Communications. April 01. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://www.apc.org/en/news/hr/world/wsis-prepcom-2-south-asian-perspective.</p>
<p>[Gurumurthy 2006] Gurumuthy, Anita et al (eds.), Gender in the Information Society: Emerging Issues. UNDP Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.genderit.org/sites/default/upload/GenderIS.pdf.</p>
<p>[India-GII 2001] India-GII, Status of VSNL Censorship of IP-Telephony Sites. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://members.tripod.com/~india_gii/statusof.htm.</p>
<p>[India-GII 2005] India-GII. 2005. Last modified on May 24. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://india-gii.org/.</p>
<p>[IDP] Internet Democracy Project. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://internetdemocracy.in/.</p>
<p>[ITU 2003] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva Phase of the WSIS: List of Participants. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/summit_participants.pdf.</p>
<p>[ITU 2005] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), List of Participants (WSIS) – Update 5 Dec 2005. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/final-list-participants.pdf.</p>
<p>[ITU 2005 b] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. November 18. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.pdf.</p>
<p>[IGF 2008] Internet Governance Forum, Hyderabad Provisional List of Participants. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/385-hyderabad-provisional-list-of-participants.</p>
<p>[IGF 2009] Internet Governance Forum, Managing Critical Resources. IGF Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt . November 16. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009/sharm_el_Sheikh/Transcripts/Sharm%20El%20Sheikh%2016%20November%202009%20Managing%20Critical%20Internet%20Resources.pdf.</p>
<p>[Bangalore] Internet Society Bangalore Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.isocbangalore.org/.</p>
<p>[Delhi] Internet Society Delhi Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.isocbangalore.org.</p>
<p>[Chennai] Internet Society Chennai Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.isocbangalore.org.</p>
<p>[Kolkata] Internet Society Kolkata Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://isockolkata.in/.</p>
<p>[Trivandrum] Internet Society Trivandrum Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/where-we-work/chapters/india-trivandrum-chapter.</p>
<p>[ITfC] IT for Change, About IT for Change. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/aboutus.</p>
<p>[ITfC b] IT for Change, Anita Gurumurthy. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/Anita.</p>
<p>[ITfC c] IT for Change, Gender and Citizenship in the Information Society: Southern Feminist Dialogues in Practice and Theory. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.gender-is-citizenship.net/.</p>
<p>[ITfC d] IT for Change, Internet Governance. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/Techgovernance.</p>
<p>[ITfC e] IT for Change, Our Field Centre. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/field_centre.</p>
<p>[JNC] Just Net Coalition (JNC). Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://justnetcoalition.org/.</p>
<p>[Kumar 2007] Kumar, Sasi V. 2007. The Story of Free Software in Kerala, India. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://swatantryam.blogspot.in/2007/08/story-of-free-software-in-kerala-india.html.</p>
<p>[MoLaJ 2009] Ministry of Law and Justice (MoLaJ), The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The Gazette of India. February 05. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/it_amendment_act2008.pdf.</p>
<p>[MoCaIT 2009] Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MoCaIT), Notification. The Gazette of India. October 27. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/act301009.pdf.</p>
<p>[MoCaIT 2011] Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MoCaIT), Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011. The Gazette of India. April 11. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511%281%29.pdf.</p>
<p>[Noronha 2002] Noronha, Frederick, Linking a Diverse Country: Mailing Lists in India. The Digital Development Network. May 22. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.comminit.com/ict-4-development/content/linking-diverse-country-mailing-lists-india.</p>
<p>[Pahwa 2015] Pahwa, Nikhil, A List of Section 66A Arrests in India through the Years. Medianama. March 24. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.medianama.com/2015/03/223-section-66a-arrests-in-india/.</p>
<p>[Prakash 2009] Prakash, Pranesh, Short Note on IT Amendment Act, 2008 . The Centre for Internet and Society. February. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/it-act/short-note-on-amendment-act-2008/.</p>
<p>[Prakash 2011] Prakash, Pranesh, CIS Para-wise Comments on Intermediary Due Diligence Rules, 2011. The Centre for Internet and Society. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-due-diligence.</p>
<p>[Prakash 2011 b] Prakash, Pranesh, et al, Open Government Data Study. The Centre for Internet and Society. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/open-government-data-study.</p>
<p>[SFLC] Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC). Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://sflc.in/.</p>
<p>[Shah 2011] Shah, Nishant. 2011. Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? The Centre for Internet and Society. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dnbook.</p>
<p>[Singh 2011] Singh, Dushyant, India's Proposal for a United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies. Sixty Sixth Session of the UN General Assembly, New York. October 26. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ItfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf.</p>
<p>[SKC] Society for Knowledge Commons. About Us. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.knowledgecommons.in/about-us/.</p>
<p>[Asia Source] Tactical Technology Collective, Asia Source. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://tacticaltech.org/asiasource.</p>
<p>[Tanna 2004] Tanna, Ketan, Internet Censorship in India: Is It Necessary and Does It Work?. Sarai-CSDS Independent Fellowship. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.ketan.net/INTERNET_CENSORSHIP_IN_INDIA.html.</p>
<p>[CIS] The Centre for Internet and Society. About Us. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/about/.</p>
<p>[CIS 2008] The Centre for Internet and Society. 2008. Annual Report. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/accessibility/annual-report-2008.pdf.</p>
<p>[Sarai 2005] The Sarai Programme, Contested Commons, Trespassing Publics. January 12. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://sarai.net/contested-commons-trespassing-publics/.</p>
<p>[Wikipedia 2015] Satish Babu. Wikipedia. Last modified on June 25. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satish_Babu.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-india-open-review'>https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-india-open-review</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroInternet Governance ForumResearchInternet HistoriesCivil SocietyResearchers at Work2015-11-13T05:51:03ZBlog EntryCivil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in Asia - Open Review
https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-asia-open-review
<b>This is a book section written for the third volume (2000-2010) of the Asia Internet History series edited by Prof. Kilnam Chon. The pre-publication text of the section is being shared here to invite suggestions for addition and modification. Please share your comments via email sent to raw[at]cis-india[dot]org with 'Civil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in Asia - Comments' as the subject line. This text is published under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.</b>
<p> </p>
<strong>You are most welcome to read the pre-publication drafts of other sections of the Asia Internet History Vol. 3, and share your comments: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/internethistoryasia/book3" target="_blank">https://sites.google.com/site/internethistoryasia/book3</a>.</strong>
<p> </p>
<h2>Preparations for the World Summit on the Information Society</h2>
<p>The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conferences organized by the United Nations in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005) initiated crucial platforms and networks, some temporary and some continued, for various non-governmental actors to intensively and periodically take part in the discussions of governance of Internet and various related activities towards the goals of inclusive development and human rights. Many of the civil society organizations taking part in the WSIS conferences, as well as the various regional and thematic preparatory meetings and seminars, had little prior experience in the topic of Internet governance. They were entering these conversations from various perspectives, such as local developmental interventions, human and cultural rights activism, freedom and diversity of media, and gender and social justice. With backgrounds in such forms of applied practice and theoretical frameworks, members of these civil society organizations often faced a difficult challenge in articulating their experiences, insights, positions, and suggestions in terms of the (then) emerging global discourse of Internet governance and that of information and communication technologies (ICTs) as instruments of development. At the WSIS: An Asian Response Meeting in 2002, Susanna George, (then) Executive Director of Isis International, Manila, succinctly expressed this challenge being faced by the members of civil society organizations:</p>
<blockquote>For some feminist activists however, including myself, it has felt like trying to squeeze my concerns into a narrow definition of what gender concerns in ICTs are. I would like it to Cinderella’s ugly sister cutting off her toe to fit into the dainty slipper of gender concerns in ICTs. The development ball, it seems, can only accommodate some elements of what NGO activists, particularly those from the South, are concerned about in relation to new information and communications technologies. (George 2002)</blockquote>
<p>The above mentioned seminar, held in Bangkok, Thailand, on November 22-24, 2002, was a crucial early meeting for the representatives from Asian civil society organizations to share and shape their understanding and positions before taking part in the global conversations during the following years. The meeting was organised by Bread for All (Switzerland), Communication Rights in the Information Society Campaign (Netherlands), Forum-Asia (Thailand), and World Association for Christian Communication (United Kingdom), as a preparatory meeting before the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference of WSIS, with 34 organizations from 16 Asian countries taking part in it. The Final Document produced at the end of this seminar was quite a remarkable one. It highlighted the simultaneity of Asia as one of the global centres of the information economy and the everyday reality of wide-spread poverty across the Asian countries, and went on to state that the first principle for the emerging global information society should be that the '[c]ommunication rights are fundamental to democracy and human development' (The World Summit on the Information Society: An Asian Response 2002). It proposed the following action items for the efforts towards a global inclusive information society: 1) strengthen community, 2) ensure access, 3) enhance the creation of appropriate content, 4) invigorate global governance, 5) uphold human rights, 6) extend the public domain, 7) protect and promote cultural and linguistic diversity, and 8) ensure public investment in infrastructure (ibid.).</p>
<p>Immediately after this Conference, several Asian civil society organizations attended the Asian Civil Society Forum, organised as part of the Conference of Non-governmental Organizations in Consultative Relations with the United Nations (CONGO), held in Bangkok, Thailand, during December 9-13, 2002. Representatives of Dhaka Ahsania Mission (Bangladesh), OneWorld South Asia (India), GLOCOM (Japan), Foundation for Media Alternative (Philippines), Korean Progressive Network – JINBONET (Republic of Korea), Friedrich Naumann Foundation (Singapore), International Federation of University Women (Switzerland), and Forum Asia (Regional) drafted a Joint Statement emphasising that a 'broad-based participation of civil society, especially from those communities which are excluded, marginalized and severely deprived, is critical in defining and building such a [true communicative, just and peaceful] society' (Aizu 2002). In the very next month, the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference was held in Tokyo during January 13-15, 2003, 'to develop a shared vision and common strategies for the “Information Society' (WSIS Executive Secretariat 2003: 2). The conference saw participation of representatives from 47 national governments, 22 international organizations, 54 private sector agencies, and 116 civil society organizations across the Asia-Pacific region. The Tokyo Declaration, the final document prepared at the conclusion of the Conference, recognized that:</p>
<blockquote>[T]he Information Society must ... facilitate full utilization of information and communication technologies (ICT) at all levels in society and hence enable the sharing of social and economic benefits by all, by means of ubiquitous access to information networks, while preserving diversity and cultural heritage. (Ibid.: 2)</blockquote>
<p>Further, it highlighted the following priority areas of action: 1) infrastructure development, 2) securing affordable, universal access to ICTs, 3) preserving linguistic and cultural diversity and promoting local content, 4) developing human resources, 5) establishing legal, regulatory and policy frameworks, 6) ensuring balance between intellectual property rights (IPR) and public interest, 7) ensuring the security of ICTs, and 8) fostering partnerships and mobilizing resources. It is not difficult to see how the focus of necessary actions shifted from an emphasis on concerns of community and human rights, and public investments and commons, towards those of legal and policy mechanisms, multi-partner delivery of services, and intellectual property rights. Civil society organizations, expectedly, felt sidelined in this Conference, and decided to issue a join statement of Asian civil society organizations to ensure that their positions are effectively presented. The first two topics mentioned in this document were: 1) '[c]ommunication rights should be fully recognized as a fundamental and universal human right to be protected and promoted in the information society,' and 2) '[t]he participation of civil society in the information society at all levels should be ensured and sustained, from policy planning to implementation, monitoring and evaluation' (UNSAJ et al 2003). The joint statement was endorsed by 30 civil society organizations: UDDIPAN (Bangladesh); COMFREL (Cambodia); ETDA (East Timor); The Hong Kong Council of Social Services (Hong Kong); Food India, IT for Change (India); Indonesian Infocom Society (Indonesia); Active Learning, CPSR, Forum for Citizens' Television and Media, JTEC, Kyoto Journal, Ritsumeikan University Media Literacy Project, UNSAJ (Japan); Computer Association Nepal, Rural Area Development Programme (Nepal); APC Women's Networking Support Programme, Foundation for Media Alternatives, ISIS International (Philippines); Citizens' Action Network, Korean Progressive Network – Jinbonet, Labor News Production, ZAK (Republic of Korea); e-Pacificka Consulting (Samoa); National University of Singapore (Singapore); Public Television Service, Taiwan Association for Human Rights (Taiwan); Asian-South Pacific Bureau for Adult Education, FORUM ASIA, and TVE Asia Pacific (Regional) (Ibid.).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Participation in the WSIS Process</h2>
<p>The first WSIS conference was held in Geneva in December 2003. Through the processes of organizing this conference, and the second one in Tunis in November 2005, United Nations expressed a clear intention of great participation of actors from the private companies, civil society, academia, and media, along with the governmental organizations. During the first meeting of the WSIS Preparatory Committee (PrepCom-1) in Geneva, during July 1-5, 2002, the civil society organizations demanded that they should be allowed to co-shape the key topics to be discussed during the first conference (2003). There was already an Inter-Governmental Subcommittee on Contents and Themes, but no equivalent platform for the civil society organizations was available. With the approval of the Civil Society Plenary (CSP), the Civil Society Subcommittee on Content and Themes (WSIS-SCT) was instituted during PrepCom-1 (WSIS-SCT 2003b). At the second WSIS Preparatory Committee meeting (PrepCom-2) in Geneva, during February 17-28, 2003, the WSIS-SCT produced a summary of the views of its members titled 'Vision and Principles of Information and Communication Societies,' and also a one page brief titled 'Seven Musts: Priority Principles Proposed by Civil Society' to be used for lobbying purposes (Ibid.). This brief mentioned seven key principles of Internet governance identified by the civil society organization taking part in the WSIS process: (1) sustainable development, (2) democratic governance, (3) literacy, education, and research, (4) human rights, (5) global knowledge commons, (6) cultural and linguistic diversity, and (7) information security (WSIS-SCT 2003a).</p>
<p>Asian civil society organizations that took part in the PrepCom-2 meeting included United Nations Association of China (China); CASP - Centre for Adivasee Studies and Peace, C2N - Community Communications Network (India); ICSORC - Iranian Civil Society Organizations Resource Center (Iran); GAWF - General Arab Women Federation (Iraq); Daisy Consortium, GLOCOM - Center for Global Communications (Japan); Association for Progressive Communication, Global Knowledge Partnership (Malaysia); Pakistan Christian Peace Foundation (Pakistan); WFEO - World Federation of Engineering Organization (Palestine); Asian South Pacific Bureau of Adult Education, Foundation for Media Alternatives, ISIS International – Manila (Philippines); Korean Progressive Network - Jinbonet (Republic of Korea); IIROSA - International Islamic Relief Organization (Saudi Arabia); and Taking IT Global (India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Turkey) (ITU 2003a).</p>
<p>All these efforts led to development of the Civil Society Declaration to the World Summit on the Information Society, which was prepared and published by the Civil Society Plenary at the Geneva conference, on December 08, 2003. The Declaration was titled 'Shaping Information Societies for Human Needs' (WSIS Civil Society Plenary 2003). The Asian civil society organization that took part in the Geneva conference were BFES - Bangladesh Friendship Education Society, Drik, ICTDPB - Information & Communication Technology Development Program, Proshika - A Center for Human Development (Bangladesh); China Society for Promotion of the Guangcai Programme, Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, United Nations Association of China (China); The Hong Kong Council of Social Service (Hong Kong); CASP - Centre for Adivasee Studies and Peace, Childline India Foundation / Child Helpline International, DAWN - Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (India); Communication Network of Women's NGOs in Iran, Green front of Iran, ICTRC - Iranian Civil Society Organizations Training and Research Center, Islamic Women's Institute of Iran, Institute for Women's Studies and Research, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (Iran); ILAM - Center for Arab Palestinians in Israel (Israel); Citizen Digital Solutions, Forum for Citizens' Television and Media, GLOCOM - Center for Global Communications, JCAFE - Japan Computer Access for Empowerment, Soka Gakkai International (Japan); LAD-Nepal - Literary Academy for Dalit of Nepal (Nepal); Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union, Global Knowledge Partnership (Malaysia); PAK Educational Society / Pakistan Development Network, SMEDA - Small & Medium Enterprise Development Authority (Pakistan); Palestine IT Association of Companies (Palestine); Isis International – Manila, Ugnayan ng Kababaihan sa Pulitika / Philippine Women's Network in Politics and Governance (Philippines); Citizen's Alliance for Consumer Protection of Korea, Korean Civil Society Network for WSIS (Republic of Korea); Youth Challenge (Singapore); Association for Progressive Communications (India and Philippines), CITYNET - Regional Network of Local Authorities for the Management of Human Settlements (India. Mongolia, and Philippines), Taking IT Global (India and Philippines) (ITU 2003b).</p>
<p>As the preparatory meetings and consultations towards the second WSIS conference advanced during the next year, the Asian civil society organizations attempted to engage more directly with the global Internet governance processes on one hand, and the national Internet and ICT policy situations on the other. Writing about their encounters at and before the second Preparatory Committee meeting of the Tunis conference, held in Geneva during February 17-25, 2005, Anita Gurumurthy and Parminder Jeet Singh made several early observations that have continued to resonate with the experiences of Asian civil society organizations throughout the decade (Gurumurthy & Singh 2005). Firstly, they indicated that the government agencies present in the dialogues tend to take diverging positions in international events and domestic contexts. Secondly, there was a marked absence of formal and informal discussions between the governmental and the civil society representatives of the same country present at the meeting. The government agencies were clearly disinterested in involving civil society organizations in the process. Thirdly, the civil society actors present in the meeting were mostly from the ICT for Development sector, and the organizations working in more 'traditional' sectors – such as education, health, governance reform, etc. – remained absent from the conversations. This is especially problematic in the case of such developing countries where there does not exist strategic linkages between civil society organizaions focusing on topics of technologized developmental interventions, and those involved in more 'traditional' development practices. Rekha Jain, in a separate report on the Indian experience of participating in the WSIS process, re-iterates some of these points (Jain 2006). She notes that '[w]hile the Secretary, [Department of Telecommunications, Government of India] was involved in (PrepCom-1) drafting the initial processes for involvement of NGOs, at the national level, this mechanism was not translated in to a process for involving the civil society or media' (Ibid.: 14).</p>
<p>The frequent lack of interest of national governments, especially in the Asian countries, to engage with civil society organizations on matters of policies and projects in Internet governance and ICTs for development (Souter 2007), further encouraged these organization to utilise the global discussion space opened up by the WSIS process to drive the agendas of democratisation of Internet governance processes, and protection and advancement of human rights and social justice. The second WSIS conference held in Tunis, during November 16-18, 2005, however, did not end in a positive note for the civil society organizations as a whole. The sentiment is aptly captured in the title of the Civil Society Statement issued after the Tunis Conference: 'Much more could have been achieved' (WSIS Civil Society Plenary 2005). Apart from producing this very important critical response to the WSIS process, within a month of its conclusions, the civil society organization contributed effectively in one of the more longer-term impacts of the process – the establishment of the Internet Governance Forums (IGFs). Immediately after the publication of the Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (Desai et al) in June 2005, the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), Japan, acting on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, came forward with public support for 'the establishment of a new forum to address the broad agenda of Internet governance issues, provided it is truly global, inclusive, and multi-stakeholder in composition allowing all stakeholders from all sectors to participate as equal peers' (WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 2005: 3).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Asian Civil Society Organizations at the IGFs</h2>
<p>In 2006, the WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus was reformed and established as a permanent 'forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes' (Civil Society Internet Government Caucus 2006). Representatives from Asian civil society organizations have consistently played critical roles in the functionings of this Caucus. Youn Jung Park of the Department of Technology and Society, SUNY Korea, co-founded and co-coordined the original Caucus in 2003. Adam Peake of the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan, was co-coordinator of the original Caucus from 2003 to 2006. Parminder Jeet Sing of IT for Change, India, was elected as one of the co-cordinators of the newly reformed Caucus in 2006, with the term ending in 2008. Izumi Aizu of the Institute for HyperNetwork Society and the Institute for InfoSocinomics, Tama University, Japan served as the co-coordinator of the Caucus during 2010-2012.</p>
<p>The first Internet Governance Forum organized in Athens, October 30 – November 2, 2006, saw participation from a very few Asian civil society organizations, mostly from Bangladesh and Japan (IGF 2006). The second Internet Governance Forum in Rio de Janeiro, November 12-15, 2007 had a wider representation from Asian civil society organizations: Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication, BFES - Bangladesh Friendship Education Society, VOICE – Voices for Interactive Choice and Empowerment (Bangladesh); China Association for Science and Technology, Internet Society of China (China); University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong); Alternative Law Forum (via Association for Progressive Communications - Women's Networking Support Programme), Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi, IT for Change (India); GLOCOM, Kumon Center, Tama University (Japan); Sustainable Development Networking Programme (Jordan); Kuwait Information Technology Society (Kuwait); Assocation of Computer Engineers – Nepal, Rural Area Development Programme, Nepal Rural Information Technology Development Society (Nepal); Bytesforall – APC / Pakistan, Pakistan Christian Peace Foundation (Pakistan); Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippine Resources for Sustainable Development Inc. (Philippines); and LIRNEasia (Sri Lanka). At the Open IGF Consultations in Geneva, on February 26 2008, the Internet Governance Caucus made two significant submissions: 1) that, although structuring the IGF sessions in Athens and Rio de Janeiro around the large themes of access, openness, diversity, and security have been useful to open up the multi-stakeholder dialogues, it is necessary to begin focused discussions of specific public policy issues to take the IGF process forward (Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 2008a), and 2) that the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), which drives the IGF process and events, should be made more proactive and transparent, and expanded in size so as to better include the different stakeholder groups who may self-identify their representatives for the MAG (Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 2008b).</p>
<p>On one hand, the IGF Hyderabad, December 3-6, 2008, experienced a decline in the percentage of participants from civil society organizations and a rather modest increase in the percentage of participants from Asian countries (see: 6.1.5. Annexe – Tables), especially since this was the first major international Internet governance summit held in an Asian country. On the other hand, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus succeeded to bring forth the term 'enhanced cooperation,' as mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, to be addressed and discussed in one of the main sessions of the Forum (IGF 2008). The next IGF held in Sharm El Sheikh, November 15-18, 2009, saw further decline of participation from both the representatives of civil society organizations, and the attendees from Asian countries (see: 6.1.5. Annexe – Tables). In this context, Youn Jung Park made the following statement in the Stock Taking session of the summit:</p>
<blockquote>As a cofounder of WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus in 2003, I would like to remind you ... [that] Internet Governance Forum was created as a compromise between those who supported the status quo Internet governance institution under one nation's status provision, and those who requested for more balanced roles for governments under international supervision of the Internet. While IGF has achieved a great success of diluting of such political tension between those who have different views of how to institutionalize Internet governance, ironically Internet governance forum became a forum without governance... [We] have to admit [that] IGF failed to deliver another mandate of the U.N. WSIS: Continuing discussion of how to design Internet governance institutions... The current IGF continues to function as knowledge transfer of ICANN's values to other stakeholders, while those who want to discuss and negotiate on how to design Internet governance institutions should have another platform for that specific U.N. WSIS mandate. (IGF 2009)</blockquote>
<p>The first Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) was held in Hong Kong on June 14-16, 2010. The organising committee included three civil society / acadmic organizations – Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), Internet Society Hong Kong, and National University of Singapore – and three indpendent experts – Kuo-Wei Wu (Taiwan), Norbert Klein (Cambodia), and Zahid Jamil (Pakistan). Though the Forum had dominant presence from government and private sector participants, several representatives from Asian civil society / academic organizations spoke at the sessions: Ang Peng Hwa (Singapore Internet Research Centre, Nanyang Technological University), Charles Mok (Internet Society Hong Kong), Christine Loh (Civic Exchange), Chong Chan Yau (Hong Kong Blind Union), Clarence Tsang (Christian Action), Ilya Eric Lee (Taiwan E-Learning and Digital Archives Program, and Research Center for Information Technology Innovation), Izumi Aizu (Institute for HyperNetwork Society, and Institute for InfoSocinomics, Kumon Center, Tama University), Oliver “Blogie” Robillo (Mindanao Bloggers Community), Parminder Jeet Singh (IT for Change), Priscilla Lui (Against Child Abuse in Hong Kong), Tan Tin Wee (Centre for Internet Research, National University of Singapore), and Yap Swee Seng (Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development). As Ang Peng Hwa noted at the beginning of the summit, its key objective was to provide a formal space for various stakeholders from the Asia-Pacific region to discuss and provide inputs to the IGF process (APrIGF 2010). The regional forum was successful in enabling newer civil society entrants from the Asia-Pacific region to familiarize themselves with the IGF process, and to contribute to it. Oliver “Blogie” Robillo, represented and submit recommendations from Southeast Asian civil society organizations at IGF Vilnius, September 14-17, 2010, which was the first time he took part in the summit series. He emphasised the following topics: 1) openness and freedom of expression are the basis of democracy, and state-driven censorship of Internet in the region is an immediate threat to such global rights, 2) coordinated international efforts need to address and resolve not only global digital divides, but also the divides at regional, national, and sub-nationals scales, 3) the right to privacy is an integral part of cybersecurity, as well as a necessary condition for exercising human rights, 4) global Internet governance efforts must ensure that national governments do not control and restrict abilities of citizens to express through digital means, and it should be aligned with the universal human rights agenda, and 5) even after 5 years of the IGF process, a wider participation of civil society organizations, especially from the Asia-Pacific regions, remains an unachieved goal, which can only be achived if specific resources are allocated and processes are implemented (IGF 2010).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Internet Censorship and Civil Society Responses</h2>
<p>Throughout the decade of 2000-2010, censorship of Internet and restriction of digital expression remained a crucial Internet rights concern across the world, and especially the Asian countries. One of the earliest global reports on the matter was brought out by the Reporters without Borders. In 2006, it published a list of countries marked as 'Internet Enemies' that featured 16 countries, out of which 11 were from Asia: China, Iran, Maldives, Myanmar (then, Burma), Nepal, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam (Reporters without Borders 2006). The list was updated in 2007, and three of these countries – Libya, Maldives, and Nepal – were taken off (Ibid.). The unique contradictions of the Asian region were sharply foregrounded in the 2006-07 report on Internet censorship by OpenNet Initiative, which noted:</p>
<blockquote>Some of the most and least connected countries in the world are located in Asia: Japan, South Korea, and Singapore all have Internet penetration rates of over 65 percent, while Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Nepal remain three of thirty countries with less than 1 percent of its citizens online. Among the countries in the world with the most restricted access, North Korea allows only a small community of elites and foreigners online. Most users must rely on Chinese service providers for connectivity, while the limited number North Korean–sponsored Web sites are hosted abroad... [T]hough India’s Internet community is the fifth largest in the world, users amounted to only about 4 percent of the country’s population in 2005. Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Nepal are among the world’s least-developed countries. Despite the constraints on resources and serious developmental and political challenges, however, citizens are showing steadily increasing demand for Internet services such as Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP), blogging, and chat. (Wang 2007)</blockquote>
<p>The report further described the strategy used by various Asian governments of 'delegation of policing and monitoring responsibilities to ISPs, content providers, private corporations, and users themselves' (Ibid.) These mechanisms enforce self-surveillance and self-censorship in the face of threats of loss of commercial license, denial of services, and even criminal liability. Defamation suits and related civil and criminal liability have also been used by several Asian governments to silence influential critics and protesters. Direct technical filtering of Internet traffic (especially inwards traffic) and blocking of URLS via government directives sent to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have also been common practice in key Asian countries (Ibid.). Expectedly, such experiences of oppression led to widespread campaigns and communications by the Asian civil society organizations, as can be sensed from the above mentioned submission by Oliver “Blogie” Robillo at IGF Vilnius.</p>
<p>Among the Asian countries, the comprehensive technologies of censorship developed and deployed by China has been studied most extensively. The Golden Shield Project was initiated by the Ministry of Public Security of China in 1998 to undertake blanket blocking of incoming Internet traffic based on specific URLs and terms. Evidences of the project getting operationalised became available in 2003 (Garden Networks for Freedom of Information 2004). Censorship of Internet in China, however, has not only been dependent on such sophisticated systems. In 2003, it was made mandatory for all residents of Lhasa, Tibet, to use a specific combination and password to access Internet, which was directly linked to their names and address. An Internet ID Card was issued by the government to implement this (International Campaign for Tibet. 2004). Tibet Action Institute has been a key civil society organization at the forefront of cyber-offensive of the Chinese government. A recent documentary by the Institute, titled 'Tibet: Frontline of the New Cyberwar,' has narrated how it has worked closely with the Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, to identify, trace, and resist the malware- and other cyber-attacks experienced by the civil society actors and websites in favor of independence of Tibet (Tibet Action Institute 2015). Not only activists supporting the Tibetan cause, digital security training emerged as an important aspect of the life of civil society organizations during the decade. Asian organizations like Bytes for All (Pakistan) and Myanmar ICT for Development Organization (Mynamar), as well as international organizations like Front Line Defenders and Citizen Lab have educated and supported civil society activities much beyond the Internet governance sphere with tools and techniques for effectively using digital channels of communications, and defending themselves for cyber-threats.</p>
<p>Combination of traditional forms of civil society mobilizations and digital techniques have often been used resist attempts by Asian governments to control the online communication space. Huma Yusuf has extensively studied the emergence of hybrid media strategies, using both old media channels like newspapers and new media channels like blogs and video sharing platforms, among citizen journalists and civil society activists in Pakistan as the government took harsh steps towards control of both traditional and online media during 2007-2008 (Yusuf 2009). She has carefully traced how possibilities of new forms of information and media sharing enabled by Internet were initially identified and implemented by citizen journalists and student activists, which was quickly learned and re-deployed by more formal organisation, such as print and electronic news companies, and civil society organizations like those involved in election monitoring (Ibid.). Malaysia also experienced fast-accelerating face-off between the government and the civil society during 2007-2010, as the former started intervening directly into censoring blogs and newspaper websites. On one hand, the government took legal actions against critical bloggers, either directly or indirectly, and on the other it instructed ISPs to block 'offensive content.' It also borrowed the 'Singapore-model' to mandate registration of bloggers with government authorities, if they are identifed as writing on socio-political topics. The civil society actors responded to these oppressive steps by setting up a new blog dedicated to coverage of the defamation cases (filed against prominent bloggers), and publicly sharing instructions for circumvention of the blocks imposed by ISPs. The National Alliance of Bloggers was soon formed, which organised the “Blogs and Digital Democracy” forum on October 3, 2007 (Thien 2011: 46-47). Similarly, Bloggers Against Censorship campaign took shape in India in 2006 as the government first directed ISPs to block specific blogs hosted on Blogspot, TypePad, and Yahoo! Geocities, and then went for complete blocking of Yahoo! Geocities as the ISPs failed to block specific sub-domains of the platform (Bloggers Collective Group 2006). Learning from this experience, the following year Indian government decided to work directly with Orkut to take down 'defamatory content' about a politician (The Economic Times 2007). This is common for other Asian governments too, as they have continued to develop more legally binding and technically sophisticated measures to monitor and control online expression.</p>
<p>In the 'Internet Enemies Report 2012,' Reporters without Borders listed 12 countries as 'enemies of the Internet,' out of which 10 were from Asia – Bahrain, China, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam – and it named 14 countries that are conducting surveillance on its citizens, out of which 7 were from Asia – India, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and United Arab Emirates (Reporters without Borders 2012). At the APrIGF held in Tokyo, July 18-20, 2012, a group of delegates from civil society organizations working in the South-East Asian region issued a joint statement with a clear call for global action against the shrinking space for freedom of (digital) expression in the region (Thai Netizen Network et al 2012). They specifically noted the following national acts as examples of the legislative mechanisms being used by different Asian governments to criminalize online speech and/or to harass public dissenters:</p>
<blockquote>Burma – The 2004 Electronic Transactions Act<br />
Cambodia – The 2012 Draft Cyber-Law, the 1995 Press Law, and the 2010 Penal Code<br />
Malaysia – The 2012 Amendment to the Evidence Act and the 2011 Computing Professionals Bill<br />
Indonesia – The 2008 Law on Information and Electronic Transaction and the 2008 Law on Pornography<br />
The Philippines – The 2012 Data Privacy Act<br />
Thailand – The 2007 Computer Crimes Act, the Article 112 of the Penal Code, and the 2004 Special Case Investigation Act<br />
Vietnam – The 1999 Penal Code, the 2004 Publishing Law, the 2000 State Secrets Protection Ordinance, and the 2012 Draft Decree on Internet Management. (Ibid.)</blockquote>
<p>The statement was co-signed by Thai Netizen Network, Thai Media Policy Centre, The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM), Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), Southeast Asian Centre for e-Media (SEACeM), Victorius (Ndaru) Eps, Community Legal Education Center (CLEC), Sovathana (Nana) Neang, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), and was endorsed by ICT Watch (Indonesian ICT Partnership Association).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Annexe – Tables</h2>
<h3>Table 1: Participation from Asian Countries and of representatives from Asian civil society organisations in IGFs, 2006-2010</h3>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Event</th>
<th>Participants from Asian Countries</th>
<th>Participants from Civil Society Organizations</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>IGF Athens 2006</td>
<td>11%</td>
<td>29%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>IGF Rio de Janeiro 2007</td>
<td>13%</td>
<td>32%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>IGF Hyderabad 2008</td>
<td>56% from India, and 15% from other Asian countries</td>
<td>25%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>IGF Sharm El Sheikh 2009</td>
<td>17%</td>
<td>19%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>IGF Vilnius 2010</td>
<td>Not Available</td>
<td>Not Available</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Source: Reports available on Internet Governance Forum website (http://igf.wgig.org/cms).</p>
<h3>Table 2: Internet Society Chapters in Asia</h3>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Chapter</th>
<th>Year of Establishment</th>
<th>URL</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Afghanistan</td>
<td>In formation</td>
<td>Not available</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Bahrain</td>
<td>2001</td>
<td>http://www.bis.org.bh/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Bangladesh</td>
<td>2011</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.org.bd/dhaka/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Hong Kong</td>
<td>2005</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.hk/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>India (Bangalore)</td>
<td>2010</td>
<td>http://www.isocbangalore.org/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>India (Chennai)</td>
<td>2007</td>
<td>http://www.isocindiachennai.org/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>India (Delhi)</td>
<td>2002. Rejuvenated in 2008.</td>
<td>http://www.isocdelhi.in/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>India (Kolkata)</td>
<td>2009</td>
<td>http://isockolkata.in/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>India (Trivandrum)</td>
<td>2015</td>
<td>Not available</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Indonesia</td>
<td>2014</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.or.id/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Israel</td>
<td>1995</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.org.il/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Japan</td>
<td>1994</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.jp/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lebanon</td>
<td>2010</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.org.lb/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Malaysia</td>
<td>2010</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.my/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Nepal</td>
<td>2007</td>
<td>http://www.internetsociety.org.np/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Pakistan (Islamabad)</td>
<td>2013</td>
<td>http://www.isocibd.org.pk/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Palestine</td>
<td>2002</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.ps/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Philippines</td>
<td>1999. Rejuvenated in 2009.</td>
<td>https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ph/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Qatar</td>
<td>2011</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.qa/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Republic of Korea</td>
<td>2014</td>
<td>Not available</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Singapore</td>
<td>2011</td>
<td>http://isoc.sg/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Sri Lanka</td>
<td>2010</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.lk/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Taipei</td>
<td>1996</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.org.tw/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Thailand</td>
<td>1996</td>
<td>http://www.isoc-th.org/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>United Arab Emirates</td>
<td>2007</td>
<td>http://www.isocuae.com/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Yemen</td>
<td>2013</td>
<td>http://isoc.ye/</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Source: Details of chapters available on Internet Society website (http://www.internetsociety.org/).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Reference</h2>
<p>Aizu, Izumi et al. 2002. Joint Statement from Asia Civil Society Forum Participants on World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). December 13. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wsisasia.org/wsis-acsf2002/wsis-acsfdec13f.doc.</p>
<p>Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF). 2010. APrIGF Roundtable – June 15th, 2010: Session 1 – Welcome Remarks and Introduction – Real Time Transcript. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://2010.rigf.asia/aprigf-roundtable-june-15th-2010-session-1/.</p>
<p>Bloggers Collective Group. 2006. Bloggers Against Censorship. Last updated on April 30, 2009. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://censorship.wikia.com/wiki/Bloggers_Against_Censorship.</p>
<p>Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 2006. Internet Governance Caucus Charter. October 14. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://igcaucus.org/old/IGC-charter_final-061014.html.</p>
<p>Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 2008a. Inputs for the Open IGF Consultation, Geneva, 26th February, 2008 – Statement II: Main Session Themes for IGF, Hyderabad. February 26. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://igcaucus.org/old/IGC%20-%20Main%20themes%20for%20IGF%20Hyd.pdf.</p>
<p>Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 2008b. Inputs for the Open IGF Consultation, Geneva, 26th February, 2008 – Statement III: Renewal / Restructuring of Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group. February 26. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://igcaucus.org/old/IGC%20-%20MAG%20Rotation.pdf.</p>
<p>Desai, Nitin, et al. 2005. Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance. United June. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf.</p>
<p>Garden Networks for Freedom of Information. 2004. Breaking through the “Golden Shield.” Open Society Institute. November 01. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/china-internet-censorship-20041101.pdf.</p>
<p>George, Susanna. 2002. Women and New Information and Communications Technologies: The Promise of Empowerment. Presented at The World Summit on the Information Society: An Asian Response Meeting, November 22-24. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wsisasia.org/materials/susanna.doc/.</p>
<p>Gurumurthy, Anita, & Parminder Jeet Singh. 2005. WSIS PrepCom 2: A South Asian Perspective. Association for Progressive Communications. April 01. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://www.apc.org/en/news/hr/world/wsis-prepcom-2-south-asian-perspective.</p>
<p>Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 2006. Athens 2006 – List of Participants. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.intgovforum.org/PLP.html.</p>
<p>Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 2008. Arrangements for Internet Governance, Global and National/Regional. IGF Hyderabad, India. December 5. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://web.archive.org/web/20130621205004/http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/hyderabad_prog/AfIGGN.html [Original URL: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/hyderabad_prog/AfIGGN.html].</p>
<p>Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 2009. Taking Stock and Looking Forward – On the Desirability of the Continuation of the Forum, Part II. IGF Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. November 18. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009/sharm_el_Sheikh/Transcripts/Sharm%20El%20Sheikh%2018%20November%202009%20Stock%20Taking%20II.txt.</p>
<p>Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 2010. Taking Stock of Internet Governance and the Way Forward. IGF Vilnius, Lithuania. September 17. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://igf.wgig.org/cms/component/content/article/102-transcripts2010/687-taking-stock.</p>
<p>International Campaign for Tibet. 2004. Chinese Authorities Institute Internet ID Card System in Tibet for Online Surveillance. April 30. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.savetibet.org/chinese-authorities-institute-internet-id-card-system-in-tibet-for-online-surveillance/.</p>
<p>International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2003a. PrepCom-2 / 17-28 February 2003 – Final List of Participants. February 28. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/participation/prepcom2/prepcom2-cl.pdf.</p>
<p>International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2003b. Geneva Phase of the WSIS: List of Participants. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/summit_participants.pdf.</p>
<p>Jain, Rekha. 2006. Participation of Developing Countries in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Process: India Case Study. Association for Progressive Communications. March. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_india.pdf.</p>
<p>Reporters without Borders. 2006. List of the 13 Internet Enemies. Last updated on August 28, 2007. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://en.rsf.org/list-of-the-13-internet-enemies-07-11-2006,19603.</p>
<p>Reporters without Borders. 2012. Internet Enemies Report 2012. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport-internet2012_ang.pdf.</p>
<p>Souter, David. 2007. WSIS and Civil Society. In: Whose Summit? Whose Information Society? Developing Countries and Civil Society at the World Summit on the Information Society. With additional research by Abiodun Jagun. Association for Progressive Communications. Pp. 72-89. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://rights.apc.org/documents/whose_summit_EN.pdf.</p>
<p>Thai Netizen Network et al. 2012. Southeast Asian Civil Society Groups Highlight Increasing Rights Violations Online, Call for Improvements to Internet Governance Processes in the Region. Statement of Civil Society Delegates from Southeast Asia to 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF). July 31. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/AprIGF-Joint%20Statement-FINAL.pdf.</p>
<p>The Economic Times. 2007. Orkut's Tell-All Pact with Cops. May 01. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2007-05-01/news/28459689_1_orkut-ip-addresses-google-spokesperson.</p>
<p>The World Summit on the Information Society: An Asian Response. 2002. Final Document. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wsisasia.org/materials/finalversion.doc.</p>
<p>Thien, Vee Vian. 2011. The Struggle for Digital Freedom of Speech: The Malaysian Sociopolitical Blogosphere’s Experience. In: Ronald Deibert et al. (eds.) Access Contested. OpenNet Initiative. Pp. 43-63. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://access.opennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/accesscontested-chapter-03.pdf.</p>
<p>Tibet Action Institute. 2015. Tibet: Frontline of the New Cyberwar. YouTube. January 27. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE3AQqbGVkk.</p>
<p>UNSAJ et al. 2003. Civil Society Observations and Response to the Tokyo Declaration. Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on the World Summit on the Information Society. January 15. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wsisasia.org/wsis-tokyo/tokyo-statement.html.</p>
<p>Wang, Stephanie. 2007. Internet Filtering in Asia in 2006-2007. OpenNet Initiative. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://opennet.net/studies/asia2007.</p>
<p>WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 2005. Initial Reactions to the WGIG Report. Contribution from GLOCOM on behalf of the WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. July 19. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from www.itu.int/wsis/%20docs2/pc3/contributions/co23.doc.</p>
<p>WSIS Civil Society Plenary. 2003. “Shaping Information Societies for Human Needs” – Civil Society Declaration to the World Summit on the Information Society. December 8. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf.</p>
<p>WSIS Civil Society Plenary. 2005. “Much more could have been achieved” – Civil Society Statement on the World Summit on the Information Society. December 18. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/contributions/co13.pdf.</p>
<p>WSIS Civil Society Subcommittee on Content and Themes. 2003a. “Seven Musts”: Priority Principles Proposed by Civil Society. February 25. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.movimientos.org/es/foro_comunicacion/show_text.php3%3Fkey%3D1484.</p>
<p>WSIS Civil Society Subcommittee on Content and Themes. 2003b. Final Report on Prepcom-2 Activities of the Civil Society on Content and Themes. March 27. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pcip/misc/cs_sct.pdf.</p>
<p>WSIS Executive Secretariat. 2003. Report of the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference for WSIS (Tokyo, 13-15 January 2003). WSIS. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsispc2/doc/S03-WSISPC2-DOC-0006!!PDF-E.pdf.</p>
<p>Yusuf, Huma. 2009. Old and New Media: Converging during the Pakistan Emergency (March 2007 - February 2008). MIT Centre for Civic Media. January 12. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://civic.mit.edu/blog/humayusuf/old-and-new-media-converging-during-the-pakistan-emergency-march-2007-february-2008.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-asia-open-review'>https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-asia-open-review</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroInternet Governance ForumResearchInternet HistoriesCivil SocietyResearchers at Work2015-11-13T05:54:33ZBlog EntryCivil rights in the digital age, about the impact the Internet has on civil rights
https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals
<b>Malavika Jayaram, fellow of CIS is a panelist at this workshop to be held at the IGF 2012 in Azerbaijan.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The freedom of internet is increasingly causing heated debate . On the one hand the internet is the embodiment of freedom literally crossing all borders, on the other hand governments more and more think of curtailing e.g. social media when these are used to organize criminal activities. Governments in some countries restrict access to the internet or censor information even before their citizens go online. As a matter of fact the internet in Iran and China has already become an ‘intranet’. But also in the UK there is a growing body of public opinion that is in favor of more supervision of social media. When will the influence of this medium have become so strong that it, in certain situations, could be considered a danger to society? Will supervision then be a solution? Unique is the research carried out by D66-member of the European Parliament Marietje Schaake into internet freedom all over the world. The research should lead to a resolution on civil rights in our digital era. The report is expected to be finished sometime around the IGF in November. Subjects treated are trade, human rights, development, safety and the like. The report will contain a number of concrete suggestions both for businesses and for governments, so as on the one hand to expand opportunities with the help of technology, but also to limit possible risks.</p>
<p>Short program:</p>
<ul>
<li>Introduction:</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Each panelist has 2 minutes to introduce him/herself and make one statement on the topic.</p>
<ul>
<li>Open discussion:</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is followed by an open discussion between panelist and the audience, fed and led by moderator Robert Guerra.</p>
<ul>
<li>Recommendations:</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">15 minutes before the end of the workshop, recommendations, emerged from the open discussion, will be put to word.</p>
<p>Organiser(s) Name:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ECP on behalf of the IGF-NL (ECP | Platform for the Information Society wants to take barriers for the implementation and acceptance of ICT away to the benefit of our economy and society, and in order to strengthen our international competitive position. In addition, ECP (also at a political-governmental level) draws attention to a number of specific themes such as growth of productivity, strengthening of competitiveness and the European Digital Agenda. One of it programs is the public-private partnership NL IGF. NL IGF prepairs for the IGF and provides good embedding of the results of the IGF in national policy) Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture & innovation Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Hivos, the Humanist Institute for Development Cooperation</p>
<p>Previous Workshop(s):</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">NL IGF organized : 2010: Public-private cooperation on Internet safety/cybercrime <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposalsReports2010View&wspid=172" title="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposalsReports2010View&wspid=172">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...</a> 2011: Parliamentarian Challenge: a Round Table between Parliamentarians and other Stakeholders <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshops2011View&wspid=125" title="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshops2011View&wspid=125">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...</a></p>
<p>Submitted Workshop Panelists:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Marietje Schaake</b> (Euro parliamentarian D66)<br /> <b>Lionel Veer </b>(Dutch Human Rights Ambassador)<br /> <b>Hanane Boujemi</b> (Diplo Foundation and upward of this autumn she will work for Hivos on it’s program 'Internet Govenance for the Mena region'.)<br /> <b>Malavika Jayaram</b> (Fellow of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore (India), assisting on projects and matters relating to IT law, data protection and privacy. She is also working on a Ph.D. on data protection and privacy laws, with a special focus on the new identity project launched in India. Malavika has over 15 years experience as a lawyer with a focus on technology and intellectual property.)<br /> <b>Emin Milli</b> (an Azerbaijani writer)<br /> <b>Moderator: Robert Guerra </b>(a Canadian independent consultant specializing in issues of Internet Freedom, Internet Governance and Human Rights)<br /> Front row: two Dutch students (both male and female)</p>
<p>All speakers mentioned above have confirmed their participation.</p>
<p>Name of Remote Moderator(s):</p>
<p>Sophie Veraart, NL IGF – ECP</p>
<p>Assigned Panellists:</p>
<p><a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/veer-lionel">Schaake - Marietje</a><a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/boujemi-hanane"><br />Veer - Lionel<br /></a><a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/jayaram-malavika">Boujemi - Hanane</a><a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/milli-emin"><br />Jayaram - Malavika</a><a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/guerra-robert"><br />Milli - Emin<br />Guerra - Robert</a></p>
<p>Read the original published on the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2012/proposals">IGF website</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals'>https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2012-10-04T08:50:16ZNews Item