The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 221 to 235.
CIS's Closing Statement at Marrakesh on the Treaty for the Blind
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-closing-statement-marrakesh-treaty-for-the-blind
<b>Pranesh Prakash read out an abridged version of this statement as his closing remarks in Marrakesh, where the WIPO Treaty for the Blind (the "Marrakesh Treaty") has been successfully concluded. The Marrakesh Treaty aims to facilitate access to published works by blind persons, persons with visual impairment, and other print disabled persons, by requiring mandatory exceptions in copyright law to enable conversions of books into accessible formats, and by enabling cross-border transfer of accessible format books.</b>
<p>Thank you, Mr. President.</p>
<p>I am truly humbled to be here today representing the Centre for Internet and Society, an Indian civil society organization. If I may assume the privilege of speaking on behalf of my blind colleagues at CIS who led much of our work on this treaty, and the many blindness organizations we have been working with over the past five years who haven't the means of being here today, I would like to thank you and all the delegates here for this important achievement. And especially, I would like to thank the World Blind Union and Knowledge Ecology International who renewed focus on this issue more than 2 decades after WIPO and UNESCO first called attention to this problem and created a "Working Group on Access by the Visually and Auditory Handicapped to Material Reproducing Works Produced by Copyright".</p>
<p>While doing so, I would like to remember my friend Rahul Cherian — a young, physically impaired lawyer from India — who co-founded Inclusive Planet, was a fellow with the Centre for Internet and Society, and was a legal adviser to the World Blind Union. He worked hard on this treaty for many years, but very unfortunately did not live long enough to see it becoming a reality. His presence here is missed, but I would like to think that by concluding this treaty, all the distinguished delegations here managed to honour his memory and work.</p>
<p>I am grateful to all the distinguished delegations here for successfully concluding a reasonably workable treaty, but especially those — such as Brazil, India, Ecuador, Nigeria, Uruguay, Egypt, South Africa, Switzerland, and numerous others — who realized they were negotiating with blind people's lives, and regarded this treaty as a means of ensuring basic human rights and dignity of the visually impaired and the print disabled, instead of regarding it merely as "copyright flexibility" to be first denied and then grudgingly conceded. The current imbalance in terms of global royalty flows and in terms of the bargaining strength of richer countries within WIPO — many of who strongly opposed the access this treaty seeks to facilitate right till the very end — is for me a stark reminder of colonialism, and I see the conclusion of this treaty as a tiny victory against it.</p>
<p>It is historic that today WIPO and its members have collectively recognized in a treaty that copyright isn't just an "engine of free expression" but can pose a significant barrier to access to knowledge. Today we recognize that blind writers are currently curtailed more by copyright law than protected by it. Today we recognize that copyright not only <em>may</em> be curtailed in some circumstances, but that it <em>must</em> be curtailed in some circumstances, even beyond the few that have been listed in the Berne Convention. One of the original framers of the Berne Convention, Swiss jurist and president, Numa Droz, recognized this in 1884 when he emphasized that "limits to absolute protection are rightly set by the public interest". And as Debabrata Saha, India's delegate to WIPO during the adoption of the WIPO Development Agenda noted, "intellectual property rights have to be viewed not as a self contained and distinct domain, but rather as an effective policy instrument for wide ranging socio-economic and technological development. The primary objective of this instrument is to maximize public welfare."</p>
<p>When copyright doesn't serve public welfare, states must intervene, and the law must change to promote human rights, the freedom of expression and to receive and impart information, and to protect authors and consumers. Importantly, markets alone cannot be relied upon to achieve a just allocation of informational resources, as we have seen clearly from the book famine that the blind are experiencing. Marrakesh was the city in which, as Debabrata Saha noted, "the damage [of] TRIPS [was] wrought on developing countries". Now it has redeemed itself through this treaty.</p>
<p>This treaty is an important step in recognizing that exceptions and limitations are as important a part of the international copyright acquis as the granting of rights to copyright holders. This is an important step towards fulfilling the WIPO Development Agenda. This is an important step towards fulfilling the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This is an important step towards fulfilling Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and Article 30 of the UN Convention on Persons with Disabilities, all of which affirm the right of everyone — including the differently-abled — to take part in cultural life of the community.</p>
<p>While this treaty is an important part of overcoming the book famine that the blind have faced, the fact remains that there is far more that needs to be done to bridge the access gap faced by persons with disabilities, including the print disabled.</p>
<p>We need to ensure that globally we tackle societal and economic discrimination against the print disabled, as does the important issue of their education. This treaty is a small but important cog in a much larger wheel through which we hope to achieve justice and equity. And finally, blind people can stop being forced to wear an eye-patch and being pirates to get access to the right to read.</p>
<p>I also thank the WIPO Secretariat, Director General Francis Gurry, Ambassador Trevor Clark, Michelle Woods, and the WIPO staff for pushing transparency and inclusiveness of civil society organizations in these deliberations, in stark contrast to the way many bilateral and plurilateral treaties such as Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, the India-EU Free Trade Agreement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement have been, and are being, conducted. I hope we see even more transparency, and especially non-governmental participation in this area in the future.</p>
<p>I call upon all countries, and especially book-exporting countries like the USA, UK, France, Portugal, and Spain to ratify this treaty immediately, and would encourage various rightholders organizations, and the MPAA who have in the past campaigned against this treaty and now welcome this treaty, to show their support for it by publicly working to get all countries to ratify this treaty and letting us all know about it.</p>
<p>I congratulate you all for the "Miracle of Marrakesh", which shows, as my late colleague Rahul Cherian said, "when people are demanding their basic rights, no power in the world is strong enough to stop them getting what they want".</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-closing-statement-marrakesh-treaty-for-the-blind'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-closing-statement-marrakesh-treaty-for-the-blind</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsFeaturedWIPO2013-07-03T12:01:25ZBlog EntryCIS Welcomes Standing Committee Report on IT Rules
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-welcomes-standing-committee-report-on-it-rules
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society welcomes the report by the Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation, in which it has lambasted the government and has recommended that the government amend the Rules it passed in April 2011 under section 79 of the Information Technology Act.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="external-link" href="http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/IT%20Rules/IT%20Rules%20Subordinate%20committee%20Report.pdf">Click to read</a> the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on the IT Rules. A modified version was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ciol.com/ciol/news/185991/cis-welcomes-panels-anti-govt-stand-it-rules">published in CiOL</a> on March 27, 2013.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These rules have been noted by many, including CIS, Software Freedom Law Centre, and Society for Knowledge Commons, and many eminent lawyers, as being unconstitutional. The Standing Committee, noting this, has asked the government to make changes to the Rules to ensure that the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and privacy are safeguarded, and that the principles of natural justice are respected when a person’s freedom of speech or privacy are curtailed.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Ambiguous and Over-reaching Language</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Standing Committee has noted the inherent ambiguity of words like "blasphemy", "disparaging", etc., which are used in the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, and has pointed out that unclear language can lead to harassment of people as has happened with Section 66A of the IT Act, and can lead to legitimate speech being removed. Importantly, the Standing Committee recognizes that many categories of speech prohibited by the Intermediary Guidelines Rules are not prohibited by any statute, and hence cannot be prohibited by the government through these Rules. Accordingly, the Standing Committee has asked the government to ensure "no new category of crimes or offences is created" by these Rules.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Government Confused Whether Rules Are Mandatory or Advisory</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Standing Committee further notes that there is a discrepancy in the government’s stand that the Intermediary Guidelines Rules are not mandatory, and are only "of advisory nature and self-regulation", and that "it is not mandatory for the Intermediary to disable the information, the rule does not lead to any kind of censorship". The Standing Committee points out the flaw in this, and notes that the language used in the rules is mandatory language (“shall act” within 36 hours). Thus, it rightly notes that there is a "need for clarity on the aforesaid contradiction". Further, it also notes that there is "there should be safeguards to protect against any abuse", since this is a form of private censorship by intermediaries."</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Evidence Needed Against Foreign Websites</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government has told the Standing Committee that "foreign websites repeatedly refused to honour our laws", however, it has not provided any proof for this assertion. The government should make public all evidence that foreign web services are refusing to honour Indian laws, and should encourage a public debate on how we should tackle this problem in light of the global nature of the Internet.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Cyber Cafes Rules Violate Citizens’ Privacy</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Standing Committee also pointed out that the Cyber Cafe Rules violated citizens’ right to privacy in requiring that "screens of the computers installed other than in partitions and cubicles should face open space of the cyber café". Unfortunately, the Standing Committee did not consider the privacy argument against retention of extensive and intrusive logs. Under the Cyber Cafe Rules, cyber cafes are required to retain (for a minimum of one year) extensive logs, including that of "history of websites accessed using computer resource at cyber café" in such a manner that each website accessed can be linked to a person. The Committee only considered the argument that this would impose financial burdens on small cybercafes, and rejected that argument. CIS wishes the Committee had examined the provision on log maintenance on grounds of privacy as well."</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Government’s Half-Truths</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In one response, the government notes that "rules under Section 79 in particular have undergone scrutiny by High Courts in the country. Based on the Rules, the courts have given reliefs to a number of individuals and organizations in the country. No provision of the Rules notified under Sections 43A and 79 of the IT Act, 2000 have been held <i>ultra vires</i>."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What the government says is a half-truth. So far, courts have not struck down any of the IT Rules. But that is because none of the High Court cases in which the vires of the Rules have been challenged has concluded. So it is disingenuous of the government to claim that the Rule have "undergone scrutiny by High Courts". And in those cases where relief has been granted under the Intermediary Guidelines, the cases have been ex-parte or have been cases where the vires of the Rules have not been challenged. The government, if it wants to defend the Rules, should point out to any case in which the vires of the Rules have been upheld. Not a single court till date has declared the Rules to be constitutional when that question was before it.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Lack of Representation of Stakeholders in Policy Formulation</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Lastly, the Standing Committee noted that it is not clear whether the Cyber Regulatory Advisory Committee (CRAC), which is responsible for policy guidance on the IT Act, has "members representing the interests of principally affected or having special knowledge of the subject matter as expressly stipulated in Section 88(2) of the IT Act". This is a problem that we at CIS also noted in November 2012, when the CRAC was reconstituted after having been defunct for more than a decade.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS hopes that the government finally takes note of the view of legal experts, the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the Parliamentary motion against the Rules, and numerous articles and editorials in the press, and withdraws the Intermediary Guidelines Rules and the Cyber Cafe Rules, and instead replaces them with rules that do not infringe our constitutional rights.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness, and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities. It was among the organizations that submitted evidence to the Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation on the IT Rules</i>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-welcomes-standing-committee-report-on-it-rules'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-welcomes-standing-committee-report-on-it-rules</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActPrivacyFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceFeaturedCensorshipHomepage2013-04-03T10:54:52ZBlog EntryCIS Submission to TRAI Consultation on Free Data
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-trai-consultation-free-data
<b>The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) held a consultation on Free Data, for which CIS sent in the following comments.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) asked for <a href="http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/CP_07_free_data_consultation.pdf">public comments on free data</a>. Below are the comments that CIS submitted to the four questions that it posed.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2 id="question-1">Question 1
<p><em>Is there a need to have TSP agnostic platform to provide free data or suitable reimbursement to users, without violating the principles of Differential Pricing for Data laid down in TRAI Regulation? Please suggest the most suitable model to achieve the objective.</em></p>
</h2>
<h3 id="is-there-a-need-for-free-data">Is There a Need for Free Data?</h3>
<p>No, there is no <em>need</em> for free data, just as there is no <em>need</em> for telephony or Internet. However, making provisions for free data would increase the amount of innovation in the Internet and telecom sector, and there is a good probability that it would lead to faster adoption of the Internet, and thus be beneficial in terms of commerce, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and many other ways.</p>
<p>Thus the question that a telecom regulator should ask is not whether there is a <em>need</em> for TSP agnostic platforms, but whether such platforms are harmful for competition, for consumers, and for innovation. The telecom regulator ought not undertake regulation unless there is evidence to show that harm has been caused or that harm is likely to be caused. In short, TRAI should not follow the precautionary principle, since the telecom and Internet sectors are greatly divergent from environmental protection: the burden of proof for showing that something ought to be prohibited ought to be on those calling for prohibition.</p>
<h3 id="goal-regulating-gatekeeping">Goal: Regulating Gatekeeping</h3>
<p>TRAI wouldn’t need to regulate price discrimination or Net neutrality if ISPs were not “gatekeepers” for last-mile access. “Gatekeeping” occurs when a single entity establishes itself as an exclusive route to reach a large number of people and businesses or, in network terms, nodes. It is not possible for Internet services to reach their end customers without passing through ISPs (generally telecom networks). The situation is very different in the middle-mile and for backhaul. Even though anti-competitive terms may exist in the middle-mile, especially given the opacity of terms in “transit agreements”, a packet is usually able to travel through multiple routes if one route is too expensive (even if that is not the shortest network path, and is thus inefficient in a way). However, this multiplicity of routes is generally not possible in the last mile.<a id="fnref1" class="footnoteRef" href="#fn1"><sup>1</sup></a> This leaves last mile telecom operators (ISPs) in a position to unfairly discriminate between different Internet services or destinations or applications, while harming consumer choice.</p>
<p>However, the aim of regulation by TRAI cannot be to prevent gatekeeping, since that is not possible as long as there are a limited number of ISPs. For instance, even by the very act of charging money for access to the Internet, ISPs are guilty of “gatekeeping” since they are controlling who can and cannot access an Internet service that way. Instead, the aim of regulation by TRAI should be to “regulate gatekeepers to ensure they do not use their gatekeeping power to unjustly discriminate between similarly situated persons, content or traffic”, as we proposed in our submission to TRAI (on OTTs) last year.</p>
<h3 id="models-for-free-data">Models for Free Data</h3>
<p>There are multiple models possible for free data, none of which TRAI should prohibit unless it would enable OTTs to abuse their gatekeeping powers.</p>
<h4 id="government-incentives-for-non-differentiated-free-data">Government Incentives For Non-Differentiated Free Data</h4>
<p>The government may opt to require all ISPs to provide free Internet to all at a minimum QoS in exchange for exemption from paying part of their USO contributions, or the government may pay ISPs for such access using their USO contributions.</p>
<p>TRAI should recommend to DoT that it set up a committee to study the feasibility of this model.</p>
<h4 id="isp-subsidies">ISP subsidies</h4>
<p>ISP subsidies of Internet access only make economic sense for the ISP under the following ‘Goldilocks’ condition is met: the experience with the subsidised service is ‘good enough’ for the consumers to want to continue to use such services, but ‘bad enough’ for a large number of them to want to move to unsubsidised, paid access.</p>
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li>Providing free Internet to all at a low speed.
<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
<li>This naturally discriminates against services and applications such as video streaming, but does not technically bar access to them.</li></ol>
</li>
<li>Providing free access to the Internet with other restrictions on quality that aren’t discriminatory with respect to content, services, or applications.</li></ol>
<h4 id="rewards-model">Rewards model</h4>
<p>A TSP-agnostic rewards platform will only come within the scope of TRAI regulation if the platform has some form of agreement with the TSPs, even if it is collectively. If the rewards platform doesn’t have any agreement with any TSP, then TRAI does not have the power to regulate it. However, if the rewards platform has an agreement with any TSP, it is unclear whether it would be allowed under the Differential Data Tariff Regulation, since the clause 3(2) read with paragraph 30 of the Explanatory Memorandum might disallow such an agreement.</p>
<p>Assuming for the sake of argument that platforms with such agreements are not disallowed, such platforms can engage in either post-purchase credits or pre-purchase credits, or both. In other words, it could be a situation where a person has to purchase a data pack, engage in some activity relating to the platform (answer surveys, use particular apps, etc.) and thereupon get credit of some form transferred to one’s SIM, or it could be a situation where even without purchasing a data pack, a consumer can earn credits and thereupon use those credits towards data.</p>
<p>The former kind of rewards platform is not as useful when it comes to encouraging people to use the Internet, since only those who already see worth in using in the Internet (and can afford it) will purchase a data pack in the first place. The second form, on the other hand is quite useful, and could be encouraged. However, this second model is not as easily workable, economically, for fixed line connections, since there is a higher initial investment involved.</p>
<h4 id="recharge-api">Recharge API</h4>
<p>A recharge API could be fashioned in one of two ways: (1) via the operating system on the phone, allowing a TSP or third parties (whether OTTs or other intermediaries) to transfer credit to the SIM card on the phone which have been bought wholesale. Another model could be that of all TSPs providing a recharge API for the use of third parties. Only the second model is likely to result in a “toll-free” experience since in the first model, like in the case of a rewards platform that requires up-front purchase of data packs, there has to be a investment made first before that amount is recouped. This is likely to hamper the utility of such a model.</p>
<p>Further, in the first case, TRAI would probably not have the powers to regulate such transactions, as there would be no need for any involvement by the TSP. If anti-competitive agreements or abuse of dominant position seems to be taking place, it would be up to the Competition Commission of India to investigate.</p>
<p>However, the second model would have to be overseen by TRAI to ensure that the recharge APIs don’t impose additional costs on OTTs, or unduly harm competition and innovation. For instance, there ought to be an open specification for such an API, which all the TSPs should use in order to reduce the costs on OTTs. Further, there should be no exclusivity, and no preferential treatment provided for the TSPs sister concerns or partners.</p>
<h4 id="example-sites">“0.example” sites</h4>
<p>Other forms of free data, for instance by TSPs choosing not to charge for low-bandwidth traffic should be allowed, as long as it is not discriminatory, nor does it impose increased barriers to entry for OTTs. For instance, if a website self-certifies that it is low-bandwidth and optimized for Internet-enabled feature phones and uses 0.example.tld to signal this (just as wap.* were used in for WAP sites and m.* are used for mobile-optimized versions of many sites), then there is no reason why TSPs should be prohibited from not charging for the data consumed by such websites, as long as the TSP does so uniformly without discrimination. In such cases, the TSP is not harming competition, harming consumers, nor abusing its gatekeeping powers.</p>
<h4 id="ott-agnostic-free-data">OTT-agnostic free data</h4>
<p>If a TSP decides not to charge for specific forms of traffic (for example, video, or for locally-peered traffic) regardless of the Internet service from which that traffic emanates, as as long as it does so with the end customer’s consent, then there is no question of the TSP harming competition, harming consumers, nor abusing its gatekeeping powers. There is no reason such schemes should be prohibited by TRAI unless they distort markets and harm innovation.</p>
<h4 id="unified-marketplace">Unified marketplace</h4>
<p>One other way to do what is proposed as the “recharge API” model is to create a highly-regulated market where the gatekeeping powers of the ISP are diminished, and the ISP’s ability to leverage its exclusive access over its customers are curtailed. A comparison may be drawn here to the rules that are often set by standard-setting bodies where patents are involved: given that these patents are essential inputs, access to them must be allowed through fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licences. Access to the Internet and common carriers like telecom networks, being even more important (since alternatives exist to particular standards, but not to the Internet itself), must be placed at an even higher pedestal and thus even stricter regulation to ensure fair competition.</p>
<p>A marketplace of this sort would impose some regulatory burdens on TRAI and place burdens on innovations by the ISPs, but a regulated marketplace harms ISP innovation less than not allowing a market at all.</p>
<p>At a minimum, such a marketplace must ensure non-exclusivity, non-discrimination, and transparency. Thus, at a minimum, a telecom provider cannot discriminate between any OTTs who want similar access to zero-rating. Further, a telecom provider cannot prevent any OTT from zero-rating with any other telecom provider. To ensure that telecom providers are actually following this stipulation, transparency is needed, as a minimum.</p>
<p>Transparency can take one of two forms: transparency to the regulator alone and transparency to the public. Transparency to the regulator alone would enable OTTs and ISPs to keep the terms of their commercial transactions secret from their competitors, but enable the regulator, upon request, to ensure that this doesn’t lead to anti-competitive practices. This model would increase the burden on the regulator, but would be more palatable to OTTs and ISPs, and more comparable to the wholesale data market where the terms of such agreements are strictly-guarded commercial secrets. On the other hand, requiring transparency to the public would reduce the burden on the regulator, despite coming at a cost of secrecy of commercial terms, and is far more preferable.</p>
<p>Beyond transparency, a regulation could take the form of insisting on standard rates and terms for all OTT players, with differential usage tiers if need be, to ensure that access is truly non-discriminatory. This is how the market is structured on the retail side.</p>
<p>Since there are transaction costs in individually approaching each telecom provider for such zero-rating, the market would greatly benefit from a single marketplace where OTTs can come and enter into agreements with multiple telecom providers.</p>
<p>Even in this model, telecom networks will be charging based not only on the fact of the number of customers they have, but on the basis of them having exclusive routing to those customers. Further, even under the standard-rates based single-market model, a particular zero-rated site may be accessible for free from one network, but not across all networks: unlike the situation with a toll-free number in which no such distinction exists.</p>
<p>To resolve this, the regulator may propose that if an OTT wishes to engage in paid zero-rating, it will need to do so across all networks, since if it doesn’t there is risk of providing an unfair advantage to one network over another and increasing the gatekeeper effect rather than decreasing it.</p>
<h2 id="question-2">Question 2</h2>
<p><em>Whether such platforms need to be regulated by the TRAI or market be allowed to develop these platforms?</em></p>
<p>In many cases, TRAI would have no powers over such platforms, so the question of TRAI regulating does not arise. In all other cases, TRAI can allow the market to develop such platforms, and then see if any of them violates the Discriminatory Data Tariffs Regualation. For government-incentivised schemes that are proposed above, TRAI should take proactive measure in getting their feasibility evaluated.</p>
<h2 id="question-3">Question 3</h2>
<p><em>Whether free data or suitable reimbursement to users should be limited to mobile data users only or could it be extended through technical means to subscribers of fixed line broadband or leased line?</em></p>
<p>Spectrum is naturally a scarce resource, though technological advances (as dictated by Cooper’s Law) and more efficient management of spectrum make it less so. However, we have seen that fixed-line broadband has more or less stagnated for the past many years, while mobile access has increased. So the market distortionary power of fixed-line providers is far less than that of mobile providers. However, competition is far less in fixed-line Internet access services, while it is far higher in mobile Internet access. Switching costs in fixed-line Internet access services are also far higher than in mobile services. Given these differences, the regulation with regard to price discrimination might justifiably be different.</p>
<p>All in all, for this particular issue, it is unclear why different rules should apply to mobile users and fixed line users.</p>
<h2 id="question-4">Question 4</h2>
<p><em>Any other issue related to the matter of Consultation.</em></p>
<p>None.</p>
<div class="footnotes">
<hr />
<ol>
<li id="fn1">
<p>In India’s mobile telecom sector, according to a Nielsen study, an estimated 15% of mobile users are multi-SIM users, meaning the “gatekeeping” effect is significantly reduced in both directions: Internet services can reach them via multiple ISPs, and conversely they can reach Internet services via multiple ISPs. <em>See</em> Nielsen, ‘Telecom Transitions: Tracking the Multi-SIM Phenomena in India’, http://www.nielsen.com/in/en/insights/reports/2015/telecom-transitions-tracking-the-multi-sim-phenomena-in-india.html<a href="#fnref1">↩</a></p>
</li></ol>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-trai-consultation-free-data'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-trai-consultation-free-data</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshTelecomHomepageTRAINet NeutralityFeaturedInternet GovernanceSubmissions2016-07-01T16:04:27ZBlog EntryCIS Submission to TRAI Consultation Note on Model for Nation-wide Interoperable and Scalable Public Wi-Fi Networks
https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-submission-trai-note-on-interoperable-scalable-public-wifi
<b>This submission presents responses by the CIS on the Consultation Note on Model for Nation-wide Interoperable and Scalable Public Wi-Fi Networks published by the TRAI on November 15, 2016. Our analysis of the solution proposed in the Note, in brief, is that there is no need of a solution for non-existing interoperability problem for authentication and payment services for accessing public Wi-Fi networks. The proposed solution in this Note only adds to over-regulation in this sector, and does not incentivise new investment in the sector, but only establishes UIDAI and NPCI as the monopoly service providers for authentication and payment services.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>The comments were authored by Japreet Grewal, Pranesh Prakash, Sharath Chandra, Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Sunil Abraham, and Udbhav Tiwari, with expert comments from Amelia Andersdotter.</p>
<hr />
<h2>1. Preliminary</h2>
<p><strong>1.1.</strong> This submission presents responses by the Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) <strong>[1]</strong> on the <em>Consultation Note on Model for Nation-wide Interoperable and Scalable Public Wi-Fi Networks</em> (“the Note”) published by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”) on November 15, 2016 <strong>[2]</strong>.</p>
<p><strong>1.2.</strong> The CIS welcomes the effort undertaken by TRAI to map regulatory and other barriers to deployment of public Wi-Fi in India. We especially appreciate that TRAI has recognised <strong>[3]</strong> two key barriers to provision of public Wi-Fi networks identified and highlighted in our earlier response to the <em>Consultation Paper on Proliferation of Broadband through Public WiFi</em> <strong>[4]</strong>: 1) over regulation (including, licensing requirements, data retention, and Know Your Customer policy), and 2) paucity of spectrum <strong>[5]</strong>.</p>
<h2>2. General Responses</h2>
<p><strong>2.1.</strong> Before responding to the specific questions posed by the Note, we would like to make the following observations.</p>
<p><strong>2.2.</strong> There is no need of a solution for non-existing interoperability problem for authentication and payment services for accessing public Wi-Fi networks. The proposed solution in this Note only adds to over-regulation in this sector. The proposed solution does not incentivise new investment in the sector, but only establishes UIDAI and NPCI as the monopoly service providers for authentication and payment services.</p>
<p><strong>2.3.</strong> As the TRAI has consulted widely with industry and other stakeholders before it settled on the list of priority issues contained in Section C.6 of the Note, we are surprised to find that this Note aims to address only the problem of lack of “seamless interoperable payment system for Wi-Fi networks” (Section C.6.d. Of the Note), and does not discuss and propose solutions for any other key barriers identified by the Note.</p>
<p><strong>2.4.</strong> The Note fails to clarify the “interoperability” problem in the payment system for usage of public Wi-Fi networks that it is attempting to solve. The Note identifies that lack of “single standard” for “authentication and payment mechanisms” for accessing public Wi-Fi networks as a key impediment to provide scalable and interoperable public Wi-Fi networks across the country <strong>[6]</strong>. By conceptualising the problem in this manner, TRAI has bundled together two completely different concerns - authentication and payment - into one and this is at the root of the problems emanating from the proposed solution in this Note.</p>
<p><strong>2.5.</strong> Lack of standard process for authentication is created by over-regulation via Know Your Customer (“KYC”) policies, and selection of eKYC service provided by UIDAI as the only acceptable authentication mechanism for all users of public Wi-Fi networks across India, creating further economic and legal challenges for smaller would-be providers of public Wi-Fi networks as they assess their liabilities and start-up costs. Additionally, since this would amount to making UID/Aadhaar enrolment mandatory for any user of public wi-fi networks, it seems to create a contradiction with previously communicated policy from the UIDAI and the Government that no such obligation should arise. Supreme Court has also mandated over successive Orders that enrolment for UID/Aadhaar number should remain optional for the citizens and residents.</p>
<p><strong>2.6.</strong> As was observed by the respondents to the TRAI Consultation concluded earlier this year, there is no interoperability problem that needs to be solved regarding payments for accessing public Wi-Fi networks. Payment services continue to be evolved and payment aggregator services provided by existing companies may be expected to resolve many of the outstanding issues of service proliferation in the upcoming years, at least in the absence of additional mandatory technical measures imposed by the government. Bundling of payment with authentication will only undermine the already existing independent market for payment aggregators, and further enforce mandatoriness of UID/Aadhaar number.</p>
<p><strong>2.7.</strong> Further, the payment mechanism proposed would seem to worsen difficulties for tourists and foreigners in accessing public Wi-Fi in India, as well adds an additional layer of authentication in a system already identified (even in the Note itself) to be overburdened by regulations regarding KYC and data retention. Section C.6.b of the Note highlights the problems faced by foreigners and tourists when the authentication mechanism is premised upon use of One Time Password (OTP) that requires a functioning local mobile phone number. It contradicts itself later by proposing an authentication method that requires the user to not only download an application onto their mobile/desktop device, but also to enrol for UID/Aadhaar number and/or to use their existing UID/Aadhaar number. Instead of reducing the existing barriers to provision of and access to public Wi-Fi, which the Note is supposed to achieve, it creates significant new barriers.</p>
<p><strong>2.8.</strong> The technological architecture advanced by the Note upholds support of governance and surveillance projects that, in addition to being costly in their implementation and thereby slowing down the objective of getting India connected, are also of questionable value to the security of the Indian polity. UID, UPI, and related projects risk undermining cyber-security through their reliance on centralised architectures and interfere with healthy competitive market dynamics between commercial and non-commercial actors.</p>
<p><strong>2.9.</strong> The Note continues to only consider and enable commercial models for the provision of public Wi-Fi networks. We have identified this as a problematic assumption in our last submission <strong>[7]</strong>. It is most crucial that TRAI does not ignore and fail to promote and facilitate the possibility of not-for-profit models that involve grassroot communities, academia, and civil society.</p>
<p><strong>2.10.</strong> Last but not the least, the term “Wi-Fi” refers to a particular technology for establishing wireless local area networks. Further, the term is a trademark of the Wi-Fi Alliance <strong>[8]</strong>. It is this not a neutral term, and it must not be used as a general and universal synonym for wireless local area networks. We recommend that TRAI may consider using a technology-neutral term, say “public wireless services” or “public networking services”, to describe the sector. Following the terminology used in the Note, we have decided to continue using the term “Wi-Fi” in this response. This does not reflect our agreement about the appropriateness of this term. Important: The recommendation for technology-neutral regulation also comes with the qualification that safeguards like regulations on Listen Before Talk and Cycle Time are required to prevent technologies like LTE-U from squatting on spectrum and interfering with connections based on other standards.</p>
<h2>3. Specific Responses</h2>
<h4>Q1. Is the architecture suggested in the consultation note for creating unified authentication and payment infrastructure will enable nationwide standard for authentication and payment interoperability?</h4>
<p><strong>3.1.</strong> No. The proposed infrastructure is likely to be costly for a large number of actors to implement and undermine some of the ongoing innovation in the Indian digital payment services industry. Rather than being helpful, it risks introducing additional requirements on an industry that TRAI has already identified as facing a number of large challenges.</p>
<p><strong>3.2.</strong> There is no need for a unified architecture that provides nationwide standard for authentication and payment interoperability. It does not offer any incentive towards provision of public Wi-Fi networks. Neither is there an interoperability problem at the physical or data link layers that has been pointed out, nor is government mandated interoperability required at the payment or ID layer since there are private entities that provide such interoperability (like, payment aggregators). Additionally, we believe it is inappropriate that the TRAI is trying to predict the most suitable business/technological model for digital payments to be used for accessing commercial Wi-Fi networks. India has a booming online payments industry, and it must be allowed to evolve in an enabling regulatory environment that allow for competition and ensures responsible practices.</p>
<p><strong>3.3.</strong> The Note identifies several structural impediments to expansion of public Wi-Fi networks in India, namely paucity of backhaul connectivity infrastructure (Section C.6.a), Inadequate associated infrastructure to offer carrier grade Wi-Fi network (Section C.6.c), dependency of authentication mechanism on pre-existing (Indian) mobile phone connection (Section C.6.b), and limited availability of spectrum to be used for public Wi-Fi networks (Section C.6.e). All these are crucial concerns and none of them have been addressed by the architecture suggested in the Note.</p>
<h4>Q2. Would you like to suggest any alternate model?</h4>
<p><strong>3.4.</strong> Yes. The model proposed in the Note is likely to exclude several types of potential users (say, foreigners and tourists), and impose a single authentication and payment service provider for accessing public Wi-Fi networks, which may undermine both competition and security in the market for these services.</p>
<p><strong>3.5.</strong> Internationally, there are cities and regions (say, the city of Barcelona and the Catalonia region in Spain) where public Wi-Fi networks have been provided in a pervasive and efficient manner by taking a light regulatory approach that enables opportunities for potential providers to set up their own infrastructures and additionally have access to backhaul. Further, reducing legal requirements on authentication should be considered in place of government mandated technical architectures for authentication and payment. In particular, allowing for anonymous access to Public Wi-Fi or wireless connectivity would reduce both the administrative and the technical burden on potential providers at the hyper-local level, especially for providers whose main activity it is not, and cannot be, to provide internet services (say, event venues, malls, and shops).</p>
<p><strong>3.6.</strong> The CIS suggests the following steps towards conceptualising an “alternative model”:</p>
<ol><li>remove existing regulatory disincentives,<br /><br /></li>
<li>urgently explore policies to promote deployment of wired infrastructures in general, and to enable a larger range of actors, including local authorities, to invest in and deploy local infrastructures by reducing licensing requirements in particular,<br /><br /></li>
<li>examine spectrum requirements for provision of public Wi-Fi, and<br /><br /></li>
<li>provide incentives, such as allowing telecom service providers to share backhaul traffic over public Wi-Fi, and ways for telecom service providers to lower their costs if they also make Internet access available for free.</li></ol>
<h4>Q3. Can Public Wi-Fi access providers resell capacity and bandwidth to retail users? Is “light touch regulation” using methods such as “registration” instead of “licensing” preferred for them?</h4>
<p><strong>3.7.</strong> CIS holds that capacity and bandwidth are neither comparable to tangible goods nor to digital currency. They are a utility, and the provider of the utility has to accept that their customers use the utility in the way they see fit, even if that use entails sharing said capacity and bandwidth with downstream private persons or customers. Wi-Fi capabilities are currently a built-in standardised feature of all consumer routers. Any individual, community, or store with access to an internet connection and a consumer router could become a public Wi-Fi access provider at no additional cost to themselves, furthering the goals of the Indian government in its Digital India strategy to ensure public and universal access to the internet.</p>
<p><strong>3.8.</strong> In order to exploit the opportunities awarded by a large amount of entities in the Indian society potentially becoming Public Wi-Fi providers, TRAI should require neither registration nor licensing of these actors. Imposing administrative burdens on potential public Wi-Fi access providers creates legal uncertainty and will cause a lot of actors, who may otherwise contribute to the goals of Digital India, not to do so. This is particularly true for community organisers and citizens, who may not have access to legal assistance and therefore may avoid contributing to the goals of the government.</p>
<p><strong>3.9.</strong> Light touch regulation when it comes to both granting license to public Wi-Fi access providers as well as authentication of retail users, however, are needed not only as an exceptional practice for such instances but as a general practice in case of entities offering public Wi-Fi services, either commercially or otherwise. Further, additional laxity in administrative responsibilities is needed to incentivise provision of free, that is non-commercial, public Wi-Fi networks.</p>
<h4>Q4. What should be the regulatory guidelines on “unbundling” Wi-Fi at access and backhaul level?</h4>
<p><strong>3.10.</strong> The Note refers to unbundling of activities related to provision of Wi-Fi but it does not define the term. It is neither explained which specific activities at access and backhaul levels must be considered for unbundling.</p>
<p><strong>3.11.</strong> While unbundling should clearly be allowed and any regulatory hurdles to unbundling should be removed, any such decision must be taken with a focus on urgently addressing the stagnated growth in landline and backhaul, as identified in Section C.6.a of the Note. Relying only on spectrum intensive infrastructures, such as mobile base stations, for providing connectivity, creates a heavy regulatory burden for the TRAI, while simultaneously not ensuring optimal connectivity for business and private users. The CIS is concerned that the focus of the Note on standardising a government-mediated authentication and payment mechanism detracts attention from this urgent obstacle to the fulfillment of the Digital India plans of accelerated provision of broadband highways, universal access, and public, especially free, access to internet services.</p>
<p><strong>3.12.</strong> From the example of European telecommunications legislations, implementation of policy measures to ensure that vertical integration between infrastructure (say, cables, switches, and hubs) providers and service (say, providing a subscriber with a household modem or a SIM card) providers in the telecommunications sector does not become a barrier to new market entrants has yielded much success in countries that have pursued it, like Sweden and Great Britain.</p>
<p><strong>3.13.</strong> Further, there should be no default assumption of bundling by the TRAI. In particular, the TRAI should consider reviewing all regulations that may cause bundling to occur when this is not necessary, and put in place in a monitoring mechanism for ensuring that bundled practises (especially in electronic networks, base station infrastructures, backhaul and similar) do not cause competitive problems or raise market entry barriers <strong>[9]</strong>. In most EU countries, especially where the corporate structure of incumbent(s) is not highly vertically integrated, interconnection requirements for electronic network providers of wired networks in the backhaul or backbone (effectively price regulated interconnection), and a conscious effort to ensure that new market players can enter the field, have ensured a competitive telecommunications environment. TRAI may consider reviewing the European regulation on local loop unbundling (1999) and discussions on functional separation (especially by the British regulatory authority Ofcom), within an Indian context.</p>
<h4>Q5. Whether reselling of bandwidth should be allowed to venue owners such as shop keepers through Wi-Fi at premise? In such a scenario please suggest the mechanism for security compliance.</h4>
<p><strong>3.14.</strong> Yes. Venue owners should be allowed to provide public Wi-Fi service both on a commercial and non-commercial basis.</p>
<p><strong>3.15.</strong> It is not clear from the Note and the question what type of security concerns the TRAI is seeking to address. In terms of payment security, the payment industry already has a large range of verification and testing mechanisms. The CIS objects to the mandatory introduction of the proposed payment system so as to ensure greater security for Wi-Fi access providers and the users.</p>
<p><strong>3.16.</strong> As far as hardware-related security issues are concerned, it is again unclear why consumer equipment compliant with existing Wi-Fi standards would not be sufficiently secure in the Indian context. Wi-Fi has proven to be a sturdy technical standard, its adoption is high in multiple jurisdictions around the world, and it also enjoys great technical stability. Similar security assessments could easily be made for alternative wireless technologies, such as WiMaX.</p>
<p><strong>3.17.</strong> The CIS foresees problems is in the allocation of risk and liability by law. The already existing legal obligation to verify the identity of each user, for instance, is likely to introduce a large administrative burden on potential Public Wi-Fi providers, which may lead to such potential providers abstaining from entering the market. Should the identification requirement be removed, however, other concerns pertaining to legal obligations may arise. These include liability for user activities on the web or on the internet (cf. copyright infringement, libel, hate speech). We propose a “safe harbour” mechanism in these cases, limiting the liability of the potential public Wi-Fi provider.</p>
<h4>Q6. What should be the guidelines regarding sharing of costs and revenue across all entities in the public Wi-Fi value chain? Is regulatory intervention required or it should be left to forbearance and individual contracting?</h4>
<p><strong>3.18.</strong> The market segments identified by the TRAI in Section F.18 of the Note should normally all be competitive markets themselves, and so do not require regulatory assistance in sharing of costs and revenues. The more elaborate the requirements imposed on each actor of each market segment identified by the TRAI in Section F.18, the more costly the roll-out of public Wi-Fi is going to be for the market actors. Such a cost is not avoided by price regulation.</p>
<p><strong>3.19.</strong> The TRAI may instead consider introducing public funding for backhaul roll-out in remote areas, where the market is unlikely to engage in such roll-out on its own. Presently, some Indian states (such as Karnataka) are committing to public funding for wireless access in remote areas. The Union Government can assist such endeavours.</p>
<h2>Endnotes</h2>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> See: <a href="http://cis-india.org/">http://cis-india.org/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> See: <a href="http://trai.gov.in/Content/ConDis/20801_0.aspx">http://trai.gov.in/Content/ConDis/20801_0.aspx</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> See Section C.6 of the Note.</p>
<p><strong>[4]</strong> See: <a href="http://trai.gov.in/Content/ConDis/20782_0.aspx">http://trai.gov.in/Content/ConDis/20782_0.aspx</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[5]</strong> See: <a href="http://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-submission-to-trai-consultation-on-proliferation-of-broadband-through-public-wifi-networks">http://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-submission-to-trai-consultation-on-proliferation-of-broadband-through-public-wifi-networks</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[6]</strong> See Section E.11. of the Note.</p>
<p><strong>[7]</strong> See: <a href="http://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-submission-to-trai-consultation-on-proliferation-of-broadband-through-public-wifi-networks">http://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-submission-to-trai-consultation-on-proliferation-of-broadband-through-public-wifi-networks</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[8]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.wi-fi.org/">https://www.wi-fi.org/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[9]</strong> See: Monitoring bundled products in the telecommunications sector is also recommended by the OECD: <a href="http://oecdinsights.org/2015/06/22/triple-and-quadruple-play-bundles-of-communication-services-towards-all-in-one-packages/">http://oecdinsights.org/2015/06/22/triple-and-quadruple-play-bundles-of-communication-services-towards-all-in-one-packages/</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-submission-trai-note-on-interoperable-scalable-public-wifi'>https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-submission-trai-note-on-interoperable-scalable-public-wifi</a>
</p>
No publisherJapreet Grewal, Pranesh Prakash, Sharath Chandra, Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Sunil Abraham, and Udbhav Tiwari, with expert comments from Amelia AndersdotterDigital PaymentPublic Wireless NetworkTRAIInternet GovernanceTelecomFeaturedAadhaarHomepageUID2016-12-12T13:59:00ZBlog EntryCIS Statement on Right to Privacy Judgment
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-statement-on-right-to-privacy-judgment
<b>In an emphatic endorsement of the right to privacy, a nine judge constitutional bench unanimously upheld a fundamental right to privacy. The events leading to this bench began during the hearings in the ongoing Aadhaar case, when in August 2015, Mukul Rohatgi, the then Attorney General stated that there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">reliance was on two Supreme Court judgments in MP Sharma v Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (1962): both cases, decided by eight- and six-judge benches respectively, denied the existence of a constitutional right to privacy. As the subsequent judgments which upheld the right to privacy were by smaller benches, he claimed that MP Sharma and Kharak Singh still prevailed over them, until they were overruled by a larger bench. This landmark judgment was in response to a referral order to clear the confusion over the status of privacy as a right.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We, at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) welcome this judgement and applaud the depth and scope of the Supreme Court’s reasoning. CIS has been producing research on the different aspects of the right to privacy and its implications for the last seven years and had the privilege of serving on the Justice AP Shah Committee and contributing to the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[1]</a> We are honoured that some of our research has also been cited by the judgment.<a name="fr2" href="#fn2">[2] </a>Such judicial recognition is evidence of the impact sound research can have on policymaking.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="normal">In the course of a 547 page judgment, the bench affirmed the fundamental nature of the right to privacy reading it into the values of dignity and liberty. The judgment is instructive in its reference to scholarly works and jurisprudence not only in India but other legal systems such as USA, South Africa, EU and UK, while recognising a broad right to privacy with various dimensions across spatial, informational and decisional spheres. We note with special appreciation that women’s bodily integrity and citizens’ sexual orientation are among those aspects of privacy that were clearly recognised in the judgment. For researchers studying privacy and its importance, this judgment is of great value as it provides clear reasoning to reject oft-quoted arguments which are used to deny privacy’s significance. The judgement is also cognizant of the implications of the digital age and emphasise the need for a robust data protection framework.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="normal">The right to privacy has been read into into Article 21 (Right to life and liberty), and Part III (Chapter on Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution. This means that any limitation on the right in the form of reasonable restrictions must not only satisfy the tests evolved under Article 21, but where loss of privacy leads to infringement on other rights, such as chilling effects of surveillance on free speech, the tests for constitutionality under those provisions for also be satisfied by the limiting action. This provides a broad protection to citizens’ privacy which may not be easily restricted. We expect that this judgment will have far reaching impacts, not just with respect to the immediate Aadhaar case, but also to in a score of other matters such as protection of sexual choice by decriminalising Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, oversight of statutory search and seizure provisions such as Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, personal data collection and processing practices by both state and private actors and mass surveillance programmes in the interest of national security.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="normal">As this judgment comes in response to a referral order, the judges were not dealing with any questions of fact to ground the legal principles in. Subsequent judgments which deal with privacy will apply these principles and further evolve the contours of this right on a case-by-case basis. For now, we welcome this judgment and look forward to its consistent application in the future.</p>
<hr />
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">1</a>]. http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="normal">[<a name="fn2" href="#fr2">2</a>]. CIS was quoted in the judgement on footnote 46, page 33 and 34: <a href="http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP(C)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf">http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP(C)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf </a>The quote is " Illustratively, the Centre for Internet and Society has two interesting articles tracing the origin of privacy within Classical Hindu Law and Islamic Law. See Ashna Ashesh and Bhairav Acharya ,“Locating Constructs of Privacy within Classical Hindu Law”, The Centre for Internet and Society, available at <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-">https://cis-india.org/internet-</a>governance/blog/loading-constructs-of-privacy-within-classical-hindu-law. See also Vidushi Marda and Bhairav Acharya, “Identifying Aspects of Privacy in Islamic Law”, The Centre for Internet and Society, available at <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/identifying-aspects-of-privacy-in-islamic-law">https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/identifying-aspects-of-privacy-in-islamic-law</a> " Further, research commissioned by CIS cited in the judgment includes a reference in page 201 footnote 319, "Bhairav Acharya, “The Four Parts of Privacy in India”, Economic & Political Weekly (2015), Vol. 50 Issue 22, at page 32." </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-statement-on-right-to-privacy-judgment'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-statement-on-right-to-privacy-judgment</a>
</p>
No publisheramberFeaturedInternet GovernancePrivacy2017-08-31T18:13:14ZBlog EntryCIS Response to Draft E-Commerce Policy
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-response-to-draft-e-commerce-policy
<b>CIS is grateful for the opportunity to submit comments to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion on the draft national e-commerce policy. This response was authored by Amber Sinha, Arindrajit Basu, Elonnai Hickok and Vipul Kharbanda.</b>
<p> </p>
<h4>Access our response to the draft policy here: <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/e-commerce-submission">Download</a> (PDF)</h4>
<hr />
<h3>The E-Commerce Policy is a much needed and timely document that seeks to enable the growth of India's digital ecosystem. Crucially, it backs up India's stance at the WTO, which has been a robust pushback against digital trade policies that would benefit the developed world at the cost of emerging economies. However, in order to ensure that the benefits of the digital economy are truly shared, focus must not only be on the sellers but also on the consumers, which automatically brings in individual rights into the question. No right is absolute but there needs to be a fair trade-off between the mercantilist aspirations of a burgeoning digital economy and the civil and political rights of the individuals who are spurring the economy on. We also appreciate the recognition that the regulation of e-commerce must be an inter-disciplinary effort and the assertion of the roles of various other departments and ministries. However, we also caution against over-reach and encroaching into policy domains that fall within the mandate of existing laws.</h3>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-response-to-draft-e-commerce-policy'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-response-to-draft-e-commerce-policy</a>
</p>
No publisheramberE-CommerceFeaturedHomepageInternet Governance2019-04-26T06:40:34ZBlog EntryCIS Comments on TRAI Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing
https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-comments-on-promoting-local-telecom-equipment-manufacturing
<b>The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) sent comments to the TRAI Consultation Paper on promoting telecom equipment manufacturing. CIS submission drew primarily from the research done in the Pervasive Technologies project.</b>
<p><b><a class="external-link" href="http://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/CP_on_Manufacturing_18_09_17.pdf">Read TRAI's Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing </a></b></p>
<hr />
<ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>Preliminary</span></b></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span> </span></b></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><span>This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society, India ("<b>CIS</b>") on the <i>Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing </i>dated 18.09. 2017, released by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), under Department of Telecom, Ministry of Communications and Information Technologies (“<b>the TRAI Consultation Paper</b>”).</span><span> </span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><span>We commend TRAI for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders on this important and timely issue and are thankful for the opportunity to put forth our views.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><span>We have addressed questions 3 and 5 of the TRAI Consultation Paper. Question numbers referred to in our submission correspond to those in the TRAI Consultation Paper.</span><span> </span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><span>Further, the Department of Industrial Planning and Promotion (DIPP) invited comments on SEPs and their availability on FRAND terms on 01. 03. 2016.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><span>[1]</span></a> CIS submitted a detailed response to the consultation, and our present submission will draw significantly from our earlier response<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><span>[2]</span></a>, as well as new empirical research concluded in the since the time of the consultation.</span></li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span> </span></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>About CIS<br /></span></b></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span> </span></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><span>CIS<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"><span>[3]</span></a> is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. Our areas of focus include IP rights, openness, internet governance, telecommunication reform, free speech, intermediary liability, digital privacy, cyber-security, and accessibility for persons with diverse abilities.</span><span> </span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><span>We strive to maximise public benefit, useful innovation, vibrant competition and consumer welfare. This submission is consistent with our commitment to the domestic goals (as enumerated in Make in India and Digital India), and the protection of India's national interest at the international level. </span></li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span> </span></p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>Submission on the Issues for Resolution<br /></span></b></p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i><span>“Q.3 Are the existing patent laws in India sufficient to address the issues of local manufacturers? If No, then suggest the measures to be adopted and amendments that need to be incorporated for supporting the local telecom manufacturing industry.</span></i></b><span>”</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>We submit that amendments to the Patents Act, 1970 may not be preferred, presently. It may be noted that there have been no judgments concluded by Indian courts on disputes relating to licensing of SEPs, yet. Justice Bakhru’s landmark order in <i>Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) </i>v. <i>Competition Commission of India (2016) </i>provided valuable clarity on the issue of conflict between remedies under Patents Act, 1970 and Competition Act, 1970. As various other matters are yet to be conclusively decided, and given the complex legal questions involved around the interpretation of Patents Act, 1970 and Competition Act, 2002, and constitutional issues around the jurisdiction of regulators and the power of judicial review of the courts, we believe that it would be prudent to examine the ruling of the courts on these issues in some detail, before considering amendments.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>However, to support the local telecom manufacturing industry the Government of India may adopt and implement the following measures: </span></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b><span> <span>Develop Model Guidelines to improve the working of Indian Standard Setting Organisations (SSOs</span>): </span></b><span>Given the increasing complexity and time-consuming nature of SEP litigation in India, there is a tangible threat of the abuse of the FRAND process, it might be useful for the government to make suggestions on the working of Indian SSOs. The functioning of Indian SSOs has not been satisfactory and it is suggested that the government develop Model Guidelines that may be adopted by Indian SSOs, taking into account India specific requirements. The India specific requirements include a large and exponentially growing mobile device market which has made it possible for manufacturers, patent owners and implementers alike to achieve financial gains even with a low margin. We believe that this measure will also enable the fulfillment of the objectives of the Make in India and Digital India initiatives.</span><span><br /><br />We recommend that various stakeholders, including IP holders, potential licensees and users of IP, civil society organizations, academics, and, government bodies, including the Indian Patent Office, the Department of Telecommunications, the DIPP, TRAI, and, the CCI be consulted in the creation of these Model Guidelines.</span><span><br /><br />In our opinion, the Model Guidelines may cover (a) the composition of the SSO; (b) the process of admitting members; (c) the process of the determination of a standard or technical specification; (d) the process of declassification of a standard or technical specification; (e) the IPR Policy; (f) resolution of disputes; (g) applicable law.<br /><br /></span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b><span><span>Initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and cap royalty payments</span></span></b><span><span>:</span></span><span> In light of the observed inadequacies in the IPR policies of various SSOs in India, as well the spate of ongoing patent infringement lawsuits around mobile technologies, we recommend that the government intervene in the setting of royalties and FRAND terms by setting up a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and apply a compulsory license with a five per cent royalty. Further, patent pools should be required to offer FRAND licenses on the same terms to both members and nonmembers of the pool.</span><span> </span><span><br /><br />Our motivations for this proposal are manifold. In our opinion, it is nearly impossible for potential licensees to avoid inadvertent patent infringement. As a part of our research on technical standards applicable to mobile phones sold in India, we have found nearly 322 standards so far.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"><span>[4]</span></a> It is submitted that carrying out patent searches for all the standards would be extremely expensive for potential licensees. Further, even if such searches were to be carried out, different patent owners, SSOs and potential licensees disagree on valuation, essentiality, enforceability, validity, and coverage of patents. In addition, some patent owners are non-practising entities and may not be members of SSOs. The patents held by them are not likely to be disclosed. More importantly, homegrown manufacturers that have no patents to leverage and may be new entrants in the market would be especially disadvantaged by such a scenario. Budget phone manufacturers, standing to incur losses either as a result of heavy licensing fees, or, potential litigation, may close down. Alternatively, they may pass on their losses to consumers, driving the now affordable phones out of their financial reach. With the objectives of Make in India and Digital India in sight, it is essential that Indian consumers continue to have access to devices within their purchasing power.</span><span> </span><span><br /><br />Further, how did we arrive at a cap of 5 percent? The rationale for this figure is the royalty cap imposed by India in the early 1990s. As part of regulating foreign technology agreements, the (former) Department of Industrial Development (later merged with DIPP) capped royalty rates in the early 1990s. Payment of royalties was capped at either a lump sum payment of $2 million, or, 5 percent on the royalty rates charged for domestic sale, and, 8 percent for export of goods pertaining to “high priority industries”.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5"><span>[5]</span></a> Royalties higher than 5 percent or 8 percent, as the case may be, required securing approval from the government. While the early 1990s (specifically, 1991) was too early for the mobile device manufacturing industry to be listed among high priority industries, the public announcement by the government covered computer software, consumer electronics, and electrical and electronic appliances for home use. The cap on royalty rates was lifted by the DIPP in 2009.<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6"><span>[6]</span></a> It is submitted in the case of mobile device technology, we are witnessing a situation similar to that of the 1990s. In this sphere, most of the patent holders are multinational corporations which results in large royalty amounts leaving India. At the same time, litigation over patent infringement in India has limited the manufacture and sale of mobile devices of homegrown brands. While SEP litigation in India is indeed comparable to international SEP litigation on broader issues raised, specifically competition law concerns, but differs crucially where the parties are concerned. International SEP litigation is largely between multinational corporations with substantial patent portfolios, capable of engaging in long drawn out litigations, or engaging in other strategies including setting off against each other’s patent portfolios. Dynamics in the Indian market differ – with a larger SEP holder litigating against smaller manufacturers, many of whom are indigenous, homegrown.</span><span><br /><br />In June, 2013, we had recommended to the erstwhile Hon’ble Minister for Human Resource Development<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7"><span>[7]</span></a> that a patent pool of essential technologies be established, with the compulsory licensing mechanism. Subsequently, in February, 2015, we reiterated this request to the Hon’ble Prime Minister.<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8"><span>[8]</span></a> We propose that the Government of India initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and mandate a five percent compulsory license.<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9"><span>[9]</span></a> As we have stated in our request to the Hon’ble Prime Minister, we believe that such a pool would “<i>possibly avert patent disputes by ensuring that the owners' rights are not infringed on, that budget manufacturers are not put out of business owing to patent feuds, and that consumers continue to get access to inexpensive mobile devices. Several countries including the United States issue compulsory licenses on patents in the pharmaceutical, medical, defence, software, and engineering domains for reasons of public policy, or to thwart or correct anticompetitive practices.</i>”<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10"><span>[10]</span></a> We believe that such a measure will not be in breach of our international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.<br /><br /></span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b><span><span>Increase transparency in the patent system by making patentees comply with the law</span></span></b><span>: </span><span>The Patents Act, 1970 requires patentees and licensees to submit a statement on commercial working of the invention to the Controller every year.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11"><span>[11]</span></a> Form 27 under section 146(2) of the Act lists the details necessary to be disclosed for compliance of the requirement of “working”. A jurisprudential analysis reveals the rationale and objective behind this mandatory requirement. Undeniably, the scheme of the Indian patent regime makes it amply clear that “working” is a very important requirement, and the public as well as competitors have a right to access this information in a timely manner, without undue hurdles. Indeed, as the decision<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12"><span>[12]</span></a> in <i>Natco Pharma </i>v. <i>Bayer Corporation<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13"><b><span>[13]</span></b></a></i> reveals, the disclosures in Form 27 were crucial to determining the imposition of a compulsory license on the patentee. <b>Thus, broadly, Form 27 disclosures can critically enable willing licensees to access patent “working” information in a timely manner</b>.</span><span> </span><span><br /><br />However, there has been little compliance of this requirement by the patentees, despite the Indian Patent Office (<b>IPO</b>) reiterating the importance of compliance through the issuance of multiple public notices<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14"><span>[14]</span></a> (suo motu and in response to a public interest litigation filed in 2011<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15"><span>[15]</span></a>), and, reminding the patentees that noncompliance is punishable with a heavy fine.<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16"><span>[16]</span></a> Findings of research submitted by one of the parties<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17"><span>[17]</span></a> in the writ of the 2011 public interest <i>litigation Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India</i> <i>and others</i><a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18"><span>[18]</span></a> reveal as follows. First, a large number of Form 27s are unavailable for download from the website of the IPO. This possibly indicates that the forms have either not been filed by the patentees with the IPO, or have not been uploaded (yet) by the IPO. Second, a large number of filings in the telecom sector remain incomplete.</span><span><br /><br />In 2015, CIS queried the IPO website for Form 27s of mobile device patents to arrive at a similar conclusion. We obtained 4,916 valid Form 27s, corresponding to 3,126 mobile device patents from public online records. These represented only 20.1% of all Forms 27 that should have been filed and corresponded to only 72.5% of all mobile device patents for which Forms 27 should have been filed. Forms 27 were missing for almost all patentees, and even among Forms 27 that were obtained, almost none contained useful information regarding the working of the subject patents or fully complying with the informational requirements of the Indian Patent Rules.<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19"><span>[19]</span></a></span><span><br /><br />Further, in our study, we observed that patentees adopted drastically different positions regarding the definition of patent working, some arguing that importation of products into India or licensing of Indian suppliers constituted working, while others even went so far as to argue that the granting of a worldwide license to a non-Indian firm constituted working in India. Several significant patentees claimed that they or their patent portfolios were simply too large to enable the provision of information relating to individual patents, and instead provided gross revenue and product sale figures, together with historical anecdotes about their long histories in India.</span><span><br /><br />The Indian government has made little or no effort to monitor or police compliance with Form 27 filings, undoubtedly leading to significant non-compliance. We also propose the alteration of the Form 27 template<a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20"><span>[20]</span></a> to include more disclosures.<a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21"><span>[21]</span></a> Presently, patentees are required to declare number of licensees and sub-licensees. We specifically propose that the format of Form 27 filings be modified to include patent pool licenses, with an explicit declaration of the names of the licensees and not just the number.<br /><br /></span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>Require royalty rates to be decided on the basis of the Smallest Saleable Patent Practicing Component: </b>Most modern telecommunication and IT devices are complex with numerous technologies working in tandem. Different studies indicate that the number of patents in the US applicable to smartphones is between 200,000 and 250,000.<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22"><span>[22]</span></a> A comprehensive patent landscape of mobile device technologies conducted by CIS reveals that nearly 4,000 patents are applicable to mobile phones sold in India.<a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23"><span>[23]</span></a> It is thus extremely difficult to quantify the exact extent of interaction and interdependence between technologies in any device, in such a way that the exact contribution of the patented technology to the entire device can be determined. Thus, we submit that royalty rates for SEPs should be based on the <i>smallest saleable patent practising component</i>, and not on the net price of the downstream product.</span><span><br /><br />The net cost of the device is almost always several times that of the chipset that implements the patented technology. Armstrong et al<a href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24"><span>[24]</span></a> have found that the cost of a 4G baseband chip costs up to $20 including royalties in a hypothetical $400 phone sold in the US. One of the litigating parties in the ongoing patent infringement lawsuits in India has stated that one of the reasons for preferring to leverage its patents as downstream as possible in the value chain is that it will earn the company more royalties.<a href="#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25"><span>[25]</span></a> In instances where patent exhaustion occurs much earlier in the value chain, such as in the case of the company’s cross-licenses with Qualcomm (another company that owns patents to chip technologies), the company does not try to obtain royalties from the selling prices of devices for the cross-licensed technologies. It is submitted that such market practices could be detrimental to the government’s objectives such as providing a mobile handset to every Indian by 2020 as a part of the Digital India programme.<a href="#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26"><span>[26]</span></a> It is also worth noting in this context that the mobile device is the first and only medium of access to the Internet and telecom services for a large number of Indians, and, consequently, the only gateway to access to knowledge, information and critical services, including banking.<a href="#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27"><span>[27]</span></a></span><b><i><span><br /><br /> “Q.5 Please suggest a dispute resolution mechanism for determination of royalty distribution on FRAND (Fair Reasonable and Non Discriminatory) basis.”</span></i></b><span><br /><br />The licensing of SEPs on FRAND terms requires the parties to negotiate “reasonable” royalty rates in good faith, and apply the terms uniformly to all willing licensees. It is our submission that if the parties cannot agree to FRAND terms, they may enter into <b>binding arbitration</b>. Further, if all efforts fail, there exist remedies under the Patents Act and the Competition Act, 2002 to address the issues.</span><span><br /><br />Section 115 of the Patents Act empowers the court to appoint an independent scientific adviser “<i>to assist the court or to inquire and report upon any such question of fact or of opinion (not involving a question of interpretation of law) as it may formulate for the purpose.</i>”<a href="#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28"><span>[28]</span></a> Such an independent adviser may inform the court on the technical nuances of the matter.</span><span><br /><br />Further<b>, </b>under the Patents Act, pending the decision of infringement proceedings the Court may provide interim relief, if the plaintiff proves <i>first, </i>a prima facie case of infringement; <i>second, </i>that the balance of convenience tilts in plaintiff’s favour; and, <i>third, </i>that if an injunction is not granted the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable damage. However, it is our suggestion that courts adopt a more cautious stance towards granting injunctions in the field of SEP litigation. <i>First, </i>in our opinion, injunctions may prove to be a deterrent to arrive at a FRAND commitment, in particular, egregiously harming the willing licensee. <i>Second, </i>especially in the Indian scenario, where litigating parties operate in vastly different price segments (thereby targeting consumers with different purchasing power), it is difficult to establish that “irreparable damage” has been caused to the patent owner on account of infringement. <i>Third, </i>we note the approach of the European Court of Justice, which prohibited the patent holder from enforcing an injunction provided a willing licensee makes an offer for the price it wishes to pay to use a patent under the condition that it deposited an amount in the bank as a security for the patent holder.<a href="#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29"><span>[29]</span></a> <i>Fourth, </i>we also note the approach of the Federal Trade Commission in the USA, which only authorizes patent holders to seek injunctive relief against potential licensees who have either stated that they will not license a patent on any terms, or refuse to enter into a license agreement on terms that have been set in the final ruling of a court or arbitrator.<a href="#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30"><span>[30]</span></a> Further, as Contreras (2015)<a href="#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31"><span>[31]</span></a> observes, that the precise boundaries of what constitutes as an unwilling licensee remains to be seen. We observe a similar ambiguity in Indian jurisprudence, and accordingly submit that courts should carefully examine the conduct of the licensee to injunct them from the alleged infringement.</span></li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Concluding Remarks</b></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>We are thankful to TRAI for the opportunity to make these submissions. It would be our pleasure and privilege to discuss these comments with the TRAI; and, supplement these with further submissions if necessary. We also offer our assistance on other matters aimed at developing a suitable policy framework for SEPs and FRAND in India, and, working towards the sustained innovation, manufacture and availability of mobile technologies in India.</span></p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><span>[1]</span></a> Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents and their Availability on Frand Terms, available at <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms">https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms</a> (last accessed November 13, 2017)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2"><span>[2]</span></a> Anubha Sinha, Nehaa Chaudhari and Rohini Lakshane, “CIS’ Comments on Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents and their Availability on Frand Terms” (April 23, 2016); available at <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-department-of-industrial-policy-and-promotion-discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms">https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-department-of-industrial-policy-and-promotion-discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3"><span>[3]</span></a> <a href="http://www.cis-india.org">www.cis-india.org</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4"><span>[4]</span></a> Rohini Lakshané, CIS, List of Technical Standards and IP Types (Working document), available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8SgjShAjhbtaml5eW50bS01d2s/view?usp=sharing (last accessed 13 November, 2017).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5"><span>[5]</span></a> Kumkum Sen, News on Royalty Payments Brings Cheer in New Year, available at http://www.businessstandard.com/article/economypolicy/newsonroyaltypaymentbringscheerinnewyear11001 0400044_1.html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6"><span>[6]</span></a> See Sanjana Govil, Putting a Lid on Royalty Outflows How the RBI Can Help Reduce India’s IP Costs <i>, </i>available at <a href="http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/lidonroyaltyoutflows">http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/lidonroyaltyoutflows</a> (last accessed 13 November, 2017) for a discussion on the introduction of royalty caps in the early 1990s, and its success in reducing the flow of money out of India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7"><span>[7]</span></a> Nehaa Chaudhari, Letter for Establishment of Patent Pool for Low cost Access Devices through Compulsory</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Licenses, available at <a href="http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/letterforestablishmentofpatentpoolforlowcostaccessdevices">http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/letterforestablishmentofpatentpoolforlowcostaccessdevices </a>(last accessed 13 November, 2017).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8"><span>[8]</span></a> See Rohini Lakshané, Open Letter to PM Modi, available at <a href="http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/openlettertoprimeministermodi">http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/openlettertoprimeministermodi</a> (last accessed 13 November, 2017) for further details of CIS’ proposal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9"><span>[9]</span></a> Rohini Lakshané, FAQ: CIS’ proposal to form a patent pool of critical mobile technology, September 2015, available at <a href="http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/faqcisproposalforcompulsorylicensingofcriticalmobiletechnologies">http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/faqcisproposalforcompulsorylicensingofcriticalmobiletechnologies </a>(last accessed 13 November, 2017).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10"><span>[10]</span></a> Id.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11"><span>[11]</span></a> Section 146(2) of the Patents Act, 1970.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12"><span>[12]</span></a> Sai Vinod, Patent Office Finally Takes Form 27s Seriously, available at <a href="http://spicyip.com/2013/02/patentofficefinallytakesform27s.html">http://spicyip.com/2013/02/patentofficefinallytakesform27s.html</a> (last accessed 13 November, 2017).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13"><span>[13]</span></a> Order No. 45/2013 (Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai), available at <a href="http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/0452013.htm">http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/0452013.htm</a> (last accessed 13 November, 2017).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14"><span>[14]</span></a> Intellectual Property India, Public Notice, available at</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.ipindia.nic.in/iponew/publicNotice_Form27_12Feb2013.pdf">http://www.ipindia.nic.in/iponew/publicNotice_Form27_12Feb2013.pdf</a> ((last accessed 13 November, 2017) <i>and </i>Intellectual Property India, Public Notice, available at <a href="http://ipindia.nic.in/iponew/publicNotice_24December2009.pdf">http://ipindia.nic.in/iponew/publicNotice_24December2009.pdf</a> (last accessed 13 November, 2017).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15"><span>[15]</span></a> Supra note 11.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16"><span>[16]</span></a> Id.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17"><span>[17]</span></a> See research findings available at <a href="http://spicyip.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/FORM27WP1Rcopy.pdf">http://spicyip.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/FORM27WP1Rcopy.pdf</a> (last accessed 13 November, 2017).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18"><span>[18]</span></a> In the High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) 5590/2015. This litigation is currently ongoing. See, illustratively, Mathews P. George, <i>Patent Working in India: Delhi HC issues notice in Shamnad Basheer </i>v<i>. Union of India & Ors. – I </i>, available at <a href="http://spicyip.com/2015/09/patentworkinginindiadelhihcissuesnoticeinshamnadbasheervunionofindiaorsi.html">http://spicyip.com/2015/09/patentworkinginindiadelhihcissuesnoticeinshamnadbasheervunionofindiaorsi.html</a> (last accessed 13 November, 2017).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19"><span>[19]</span></a> Contreras, Jorge L. and Lakshané, Rohini and Lewis, Paxton, Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products (October 1, 2017). NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283">https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20"><span>[20]</span></a> Form 27, The Patents Act, available at <a href="http://ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/manual/HTML%20AND%20PDF/Manual%20of%20Patent%20Office%20Practice%20and%20Procedure%20%20html/Forms/Form27.pdf">http://ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/manual/HTML%20AND%20PDF/Manual%20of%20Patent%20Office%20Practice%20and%20Procedure%20%20html/Forms/Form27.pdf</a> (last accessed November 13, 10`7).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21"><span>[21]</span></a> However, we came across some complaints raised by patentees and industry observers regarding the structure of the Form 27 requirement - namely, patents covering complex, multi-component products that embody dozens of technical standards and thousands of patents are not necessarily amenable to the individual-level data requested by Form 27. See Contreras, Jorge L. and Lakshané, Rohini and Lewis, Paxton, Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products (October 1, 2017). NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283">https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22"><span>[22]</span></a> Mark Lemley and Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, <i>85 Tex. L. Rev. at 2015 </i>; See also, for e.g.,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">RPX Corporation, Amendment No. 3 to Form Sl,11 Apr. 2011, at 59, available at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1509432/000119312511101007/ds1a.htm (last accessed 22 April, 2016), quoting <i>“Based on our research, we believe there are more than 250,000 active patents relevant to today’s</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>smartphones…” </i>.; See further Steve Lohr, Apple Samsung Case Shows Smartphone as Legal Magnet, New York Times, 25 Aug. 2012, available at <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/technology/applesamsungcaseshowssmartphoneaslawsuitmagnet">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/technology/applesamsungcaseshowssmartphoneaslawsuitmagnet</a>.html (last accessed November13, 2017).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23"><span>[23]</span></a> Jorge L. Contreras and Rohini Lakshané, Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey, available at <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2756486">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2756486</a> (last accessed 13 November, 2017).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24"><span>[24]</span></a> Ann Armstrong, Joseph J. Mueller and Timothy D. Syrett, The SmartphoneRoyalty Stack:Surveying Royalty Demands for the Components Within Modern Smartphones, available at <a href="https://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Editorial/Publications/Documents/TheSmartphoneRoyaltyStackArmstrongMuellerSyrett.pdf">https://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Editorial/Publications/Documents/TheSmartphoneRoyaltyStackArmstrongMuellerSyrett.pdf</a> (last accessed 13 November, 2017)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25"><span>[25]</span></a> Florian Mueller, Ericsson Explained Publicly why it Collects Patent Royalties from Device (Not Chipset) Makers, available at <a href="http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/ericssonexplainedpubliclywhyits.Html">http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/ericssonexplainedpubliclywhyits.Html</a> (last accessed 13 November, 2017).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26"><span>[26]</span></a> Romit Guha and Anandita Singh Masinkotia, PM Modi’s Digital India Project:Government to Ensure that Every Indian has a Smartphone by 2019, available at <a href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/20140825/news/53205445_1_digitalindiaindiatodayfinancialservices">http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/20140825/news/53205445_1_digitalindiaindiatodayfinancialservices</a> (last accessed 13 November, 2017).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27"><span>[27]</span></a> Nehaa Chaudhari, Standard Essential Patents on Low Cost Mobile Phones in India: A Case to Strengthen Competition Regulation? available at <a href="http://www.manupatra.co.in/newsline/articles/Upload/08483340C1B94BA4B6A9D6B6494391B8.pdf">http://www.manupatra.co.in/newsline/articles/Upload/08483340C1B94BA4B6A9D6B6494391B8.pdf</a> (last accessed 13 November, 2017).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28"><span>[28]</span></a> Section 115 of the Patents Act, 1970.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29"><span>[29]</span></a> <i>Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd </i>v. <i>ZTE Corp. and ZTE Deutschland </i>, Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 in GmbH C170/13.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30"><span>[30]</span></a> Third Party United States Fed. Trade Commission’s Statement on the Public Interest, <i>In re Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof</i>, U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Inv. No. 337TA745 (Jun. 6, 2012).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31"><span>[31]</span></a> Jorge L. Contreras, A Brief History of FRAND: Analyzing Current Debates in Standard Setting and Antitrust Through a Historical Lens <i>, </i>80 Antitrust Law Journal 39 (2015), available at h ttp://ssrn.com/abstract=2374983 or <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2374983">http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2374983</a> (last accessed 13 November, 2017).</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-comments-on-promoting-local-telecom-equipment-manufacturing'>https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-comments-on-promoting-local-telecom-equipment-manufacturing</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaTelecomFeaturedHomepage2017-11-26T02:56:15ZBlog EntryCIS - A2K Work Plan: July 2016 - June 2017
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-a2k-work-plan-july-2016-june-2017
<b>One of the key mandates of the Access to Knowledge (A2K) program at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is to work towards catalyzing the growth of the free and open knowledge movement in Indic languages. CIS has been a steward of the Wikimedia movement in India since December 2008. Since September 2012, we at CIS-A2K, have been actively involved in growing the movement in India through (i) a grant received from the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for the period September 2012 - June 2014, (ii) the FDC Grant received for the period July 2014 - June 2015 and (iii) the FDC Grant received for the period July 2015 - June 2016. Based on the productive experience of working with various Indic Wikimedia communities, CIS-A2K has developed this work plan for July 2016 to June 2017.</b>
<p>This was originally published on <a class="external-link" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017">Meta-wiki</a> on April 2, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify;">We have revised the work plan template taking into account the changed proposal plan sent out by WMF and in light of the feedback that we have received from FDC assessment during last proposal application. The FDC feedback is taken into account at the level of design, RoI and ensuring quality for all our activities.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">CIS-A2K responses towards Indic communities concerns</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">During the last plan period CIS-A2K received the following complaints, suggestions, and feedback. We have attempted to address the concerns under redesigned CIS-A2K 2.0. This table was first prepared during our progress report for the current grant and A2K would like to acknowledge the learnings derived out of the suggestions and feedback it received during the last plan. Please see the table <strong><a title="Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015 round2/The Centre for Internet and Society/Progress report form" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round2/The_Centre_for_Internet_and_Society/Progress_report_form#CIS-A2K_responses_towards_Indic_communities_concerns">here.</a></strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Background to CIS-A2K Program</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>CIS-A2K is working with the Indic Wikimedia communities since December 2008, when Jimbo Wales came to India and visited Bangalore. In mid-2012 CIS-A2K received a financial grant from the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and since then it has been actively involved in growing the Wikimedia and free knowledge movement in India. Following a grant received from WMF for the period September 2012 to June 2014, CIS-A2K received FDC Grant for the periods July 2014 to June 2015 and July 2015 to June 2016. Based on the 41-month experience of working with various Indic Wikimedia communities, CIS-A2K has prepared this year's work plan for July 2016 to June 2017.</strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Objective</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>CIS-A2K is committed to improve Wikimedia movement in India by supporting Indic Wikimedia communities and working on Wikimedia projects and collaborating with FOSS and other like minded movement partners. It also strives to catalyse the growth of open and free knowledge movement in South Asia and especially in India. Our main objectives are:</strong></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Bringing content under Creative Commons and similar free licenses;</strong></div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Supporting and empowering Indic Wikimedia communities;</strong></div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Building and maintaining institutional partnerships in order to support the open knowledge movement and creation of open knowledge resources;</strong></div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Planning and executing Wikimedia projects with wider community participations and effective consultation;</strong></div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Fostering and enabling an appropriate legal and technological ecosystem;</strong></div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Building sustainable communities and grooming potential leaders to represent the communities and projects globally.</strong></div>
</li></ol>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Context</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">CIS-A2K has focussed on creating sustainable programmes and capacity development for communities in the last few years. CIS-A2K intends to continue its work during the proposed grant period and would continue to focus on the following Indian language Wikimedia projects: Kannada, Konkani, Marathi, Odia, Telugu (Focus Language Areas, FLA). In order to achieve higher RoI, A2K will be including Tulu in its language plan from this plan period.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">CIS-A2K will continue to provide general support and service to all other Indian language Wikimedia communities for all Wikimedia projects as necessary and as requested by the communities or individuals from the community through its request page and needs assessment workshops.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Community strengthening initiatives will be prioritised in order to address the poor participation of Wikimedians from Indian sub continent in particular and global south in general. CIS-A2K has rolled out initiatives such as Train the Trainer and MediaWiki training, focused edit-a-thons and GLAM activities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">CIS-A2K and Indian language Wikimedia communities would greatly benefit from collaborating with these initiatives and CIS-A2K during this grant period would attempt to bring these communities closer with a series of interactions, hack-a-thons and training sessions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Our institutional partnerships have played a very important role in content donation, generation of content, attracting new readers and editors and collaborating opportunities with existing community members. They have provided much needed press coverage towards Indian language Wikimedia projects. The institution partnerships and WEP have been redesigned as per community suggestions.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Methodology</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This work plan has been prepared based on an extensive engagement with various Wikimedia movement participants and enthusiasts in India. These include:</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;">Wikimedia community members across all Indic communities: We have talked to a large number of Indic Wikimedia community members and specially community members of our focused language areas;</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;">Institutional Partners of CIS-A2K: We have taken feedback and suggestions from our institutional partners regarding the challenges of conducting WEP;</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;">Like-minded advocates of free and open knowledge;</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;">Surveys and Interviews.</div>
</li></ol>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Performance against plans and projected targets</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Overall</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/w1.jpg" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="w1" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Kannada</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_w1.jpg" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="w2" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Konkani</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy2_of_w1.jpg" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="w3" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Marathi</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy3_of_w1.jpg" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="w4" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Odia</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy4_of_w1.jpg" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Odia" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Telugu</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy6_of_w1.jpg" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="w6" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Progress against goals set</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy7_of_w1.jpg" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Progress" /></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Language Area Work Plans</h3>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: justify;">
<p>CIS-A2K has put in significant efforts across four focus language areas Kannada, Konkani, Odia and Telugu during the previous work plans. CIS-A2K proposed and initiated Marathi as a focus language project during the last proposal plan. As A2K's strategy of working with FLA has resulted in community building and sustainable outreach efforts, we intend to work with the nascent Tulu community towards making Tulu Wikipedia live.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The <a title="CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2016 - June 2017/Tulu" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017/Tulu">Tulu Wikipedia</a> plan is a 'minimal cost program' and is not budgeted same as the other FLA. A2K has been able to build a strong community in Mangalore for the Kannada and Konkani Wikimedia projects. Tulu community draws its editor base and institutional support from Mangalore, hence A2K's plans towards Kannada and Konkani Wikimedia projects can also have the added dimension of Tulu Wikipedia incubation activities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Detailed work-plan for each of these language areas may be seen here (in alphabetical order):</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li><a title="CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2016 - June 2017/Kannada" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017/Kannada">Kannada</a></li>
<li><a title="CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2016 - June 2017/Konkani" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017/Konkani">Konkani</a></li>
<li><a title="CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2016 - June 2017/Marathi" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017/Marathi">Marathi</a></li>
<li><a title="CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2016 - June 2017/Odia" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017/Odia">Odia</a></li>
<li><a title="CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2016 - June 2017/Telugu" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017/Telugu">Telugu</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy8_of_w1.jpg/@@images/ab0f737d-8061-40d7-bcad-f3850817771a.jpeg" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Women's Wikipedia Editathon" /></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Woman's day editathon at Christ University</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Some of the key factors that determined the July 2016-June 2017 work plan:</strong></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li><strong>Development of Focus Language Area Plan:</strong> A2K's strategy of building a plan along with the consultation of the community and further customised as per the feedback received by communities and FDC Staff have resulted well across five languages. CIS-A2K is pleased to inform that during July 2015-June 2016 it engaged with all the five focus language area plans as it has been able to recruit program officers and program associates for the vacant positions. It is important to note that while we are engaging with Tulu Wikipedia community with intentions of making Tulu Wikipedia live, it is also a 'minimal cost' program. It helps A2K in acheiving higher RoI for monetary resources and optimisation of staff and volunteer expertise.</li>
<li><strong>A2K 2.0 as a response to FDC and Indic Wikimedians' Feedback:</strong> As a learning derived out of FDC, WMF Board and Indic Wikimedians suggestions, CIS-A2K has revised its program structure and composition of work. Please find details of revised divisional of responsibilities of A2K team.</li>
<li><strong>Partnership and networking with institutions and groups:</strong> CIS-A2K has had the privilege of partnering with educational institutions and developmental organisations. These partnerships and collaborations not only resulted in significant quality-content contributions, but also lead to the diversification and expansion of that particular language Wikimedia community. In order to strengthen the communities, increase participation and conduct GLAM activities and attract content donation A2K would look out for possible institutional partnerships.</li>
<li><strong>Providing sustainability and developing leadership skills:</strong> A2K has always worked towards enabling Indian Language Wikimedia communities to achieve sustainability and visibility amongst the global communities. We have been greatly privilege to work with the Focus Language Communities and would like to pass on our learning through collaborations with other language communities, while exiting few of our current FLA programs. Through our skill building initiatives such as Train-the-Trainer, Media Wiki Training and Train-a-Wikipedian A2K has also been able to support growth of a new community of volunteers to support the existing community.</li></ol>
<h3><span id="Community_Strengthening_Initiatives" class="mw-headline">Community Strengthening Initiatives</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span id="Community_Strengthening_Initiatives" class="mw-headline"><strong> </strong></span><span class="mw-headline">CIS-A2K started two community strengthening initiatives— <a title="TTT" class="mw-redirect" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/TTT">Train-the-Trainer</a> and <a title="MWTTT" class="mw-redirect" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MWTTT">MediaWiki Training</a> to grow and strengthen the Indic Wikimedia projects and the associated communities, both qualitatively and quantitatively. The earlier iteration of these two programs played an important role in connecting the Indian language Wikimedia communities and fostering multi-lingual projects. This year also CIS-A2K proposes to undertake these two successful community strengthening initiatives. In mid-March 2016, CIS-A2K conducted a 2-day-long nationwide Wikipedia Education Program review workshop that brought students and faculty members from institutions that are running WEP in partnership with CIS-A2K and several important topics such as structural challenges such as academic schedule, institutional interest, faculty buy-in and more importantly response by the students were discussed. This year also CIS-A2K proposes to conduct such a workshop.</span></p>
<h3><span id="Creating_Movement_Resources" class="mw-headline">Creating Movement Resources</span></h3>
<p><span id="Creating_Movement_Resources" class="mw-headline"> </span>CIS-A2K has been creating resources to help Indic Wikimedia communities. All the resources are created after assessing the communities' need assessment and close interactions with many of the active community members.</p>
<p>CIS-A2K proposed to create the following resources (this also include printed resources):</p>
<ul>
<li>Wikipedia editing tutorials</li>
<li>PEG and IEG application handbooks;</li>
<li>Handbook on how apply for various WMF scholarships;</li>
<li>Handbook on best practices for Wiki-events, workshops, meetup, outreach and other programs;</li>
<li>FAQ for content donors –give this job to a law school intern. No need of this handbook to be translated to Indian languages.</li>
<li>Bookmarks creation to increase awareness about Indian Wikimedia Projects;</li></ul>
<h3>General Support and Service to the Movement</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">CIS-A2K regularly supports Indic-language Wikimedia communities to conduct workshops, edit-a-thons and events to improve their projects. All these requests are placed at <a title="Talk:CIS-A2K/Requests" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIS-A2K/Requests">CIS-A2K request page</a> and fulfilled after extensive community discussion and needs assessment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Currently CIS-A2K is working on a program named <a title="CIS-A2K/Train-a-Wikipedian" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Train-a-Wikipedian">Train-a-Wikipedian</a> (TAW) to identify enthusiastic Indic Wikipedians and train and groom them to develop their editing skills. We'll continue empowering Indic Wikimedia community members through this program.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Learning and Evaluation</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Following the <a title="Grants:Learning & Evaluation/Global metrics" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Learning_%26_Evaluation/Global_metrics">Global metrics</a> and discussions some members of the Wikimedia community, the A2K program had put together some evaluation tools to assess the impact of its work during the last year. We have included some more metrics for evaluation this year.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Evaluation tools</strong></p>
<dt>Participation</dt>
<ol>
<li>Number of active editors involved</li>
<li>Number of newly registered users</li>
<li>Number of individuals involved</li></ol>
<dl><dt>Content</dt></dl>
<ol>
<li>Number of new images/media added to Wikimedia article pages</li>
<li>Number of new images/media uploaded to Wikimedia Commons</li>
<li>Number of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects</li>
<li>Number of bytes added to and/or deleted from Wikimedia projects</li></ol>
<h3>Reports</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">CIS-A2K will undertake monthly and annually review of our work using the above evaluation tools. CIS-A2K report activities and progress to Wikimedia foundation in monthly meetings.<sup><a href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017#cite_note-1">[1]</a></sup> CIS-A2K team will also report the successes and learnings to the Wikimedia India & the Global Community. CIS-A2K team will actively review progress of each language area plan in collaboration with the respective Wikimedia community. Based on this feedback we will undertake mid-course corrections, should there be a need. To summarize following reports will be published in the year of 2016 - 2017:</p>
<ul>
<li>Progress report (for the current grant)</li>
<li>Impact Report (July 2016 - June 2017)</li>
<li>Monthly report to Wikimedia foundation;</li>
<li>Monthly Newsletters</li>
<li>Annual report to CIS</li></ul>
<h3>Monthly Review and Learning Sessions</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Last year we <a title="CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2015 - June 2016" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2015_-_June_2016#Monthly_review_and_learning_sessions">wrote about</a> conducting monthly review and learning sessions. Currently CIS-A2K is conducting monthly learning sessions to critically reflect on the successes and failures of our work internally. The learnings are shared with Wikimedia Foundation for their feedback and suggestion. We'll continue conducting monthly reviews and learnings and progress will be shared with Wikimedia Foundation. We will try to share the same the Wikimedia India members.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Budget</h3>
<p>Please find link to CIS-A2K program budget for proposed grant period July 2016-June 2017 <a title="CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2016 - June 2017/Budget" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017/Budget">here</a></p>
<h3>Feedback</h3>
<p>We appreciate your valuable feedback. However, for the sake of structured engagement by everyone, we request you to consider the following before you share your feedback.</p>
<ul>
<li>For feedback on the overall A2K Work Plan you can write <a title="Talk:CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2016 - June 2017" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017"><strong>here</strong></a>.</li>
<li>For feedback on respective Language area plans, please write on the discussion page of the respective language plan.</li></ul>
<dl><dd>
<ul>
<li><a title="CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2016 - June 2017/Kannada" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017/Kannada"><strong>Kannada</strong></a> plan (<a title="Talk:CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2016 - June 2017/Kannada" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017/Kannada"><strong>discussions</strong></a>)</li>
<li><a title="CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2016 - June 2017/Konkani" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017/Konkani"><strong>Konkani</strong></a> plan (<a title="Talk:CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2016 - June 2017/Konkani" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017/Konkani"><strong>discussions</strong></a></li>
<li><a title="CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2016 - June 2017/Marathi" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017/Marathi"><strong>Marathi</strong></a> plan (<a title="Talk:CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2016 - June 2017/Marathi" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017/Marathi"><strong>discussions</strong></a>)</li>
<li><a title="CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2016 - June 2017/Odia" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017/Odia"><strong>Odia</strong></a> plan (<a title="Talk:CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2014 - June 2015/Odia" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2014_-_June_2015/Odia"><strong>discussions</strong></a>)</li>
<li><a title="CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2016 - June 2017/Telugu" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2016_-_June_2017/Telugu"><strong>Telugu</strong></a> plan (<a title="Talk:CIS-A2K/Work plan July 2014 - June 2015/Telugu" href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIS-A2K/Work_plan_July_2014_-_June_2015/Telugu"><strong>discussions</strong></a>)</li></ul>
</dd></dl>
<ul>
<li>Alternatively you could also share your feedback over e-mail at tanveer@cis-india.org. Please use the subject line Feedback on Work Plan.</li>
<li>Should you feel the need to discuss any aspect of the plan before sharing your feedback, please write to us and we can set up a telephone/Skype call.</li></ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-a2k-work-plan-july-2016-june-2017'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-a2k-work-plan-july-2016-june-2017</a>
</p>
No publishersunilCIS-A2KAccess to KnowledgeWikimediaWikipediaFeatured2016-04-29T09:36:45ZBlog EntryCelebrating Odia Wikipedia's Ninth Anniversary
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/celebrating-odia-wikipedias-ninth-anniversary
<b>Odia Wikipedia saw its first edit on January 29, 2004. After a dormancy of many years it got revived in 2011. To commemorate the effort of many volunteer wikipedians, a celebratory event was organized on January 29, 2013 in Bhubaneswar. Subhashish Panigrahi participated in this event.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://or.wikipedia.org/">Odia Wikipedia</a> recently has celebrated its <a href="http://or.wikipedia.org/wiki/ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ:ମେଳଣ/ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱର/ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱର୪">9</a><a href="http://or.wikipedia.org/wiki/ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ:ମେଳଣ/ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱର/ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱର୪"><sup>th</sup></a><a href="http://or.wikipedia.org/wiki/ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ:ମେଳଣ/ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱର/ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱର୪"> anniversary</a>. January 29 is considered to be that day when someone made a first edit on it. Communities from Bhubaneswar, Cuttack and Nalconagar joined hands to celebrate this event with a panel discussion on "Application of Odia language in e-media". The discussion was coordinated by Nilambar Rath, Director of Academy for Media Learning. The event was organized by the Odia Wiki Community with support from <a href="https://cis-india.org/">The Centre for Internet and Society</a> in collaboration with <a href="http://www.aml.edu.in/">Academy for Media Learning</a>. Panelists who took part in the discussion were Prasanna Kumar Mohanty, Director of "Odia Bhasa Pratisthan", Dr. Prafulla Tripathy, Odia linguist and writer, Dr. Dhanada Mishra, Academician and Director-Academics, <a href="http://www.kmbb.in/">KMBB College of Engineering</a>, Subhashish Panigrahi, Programme Officer, Centre for Internet and Society, Jatindra Das, Senior journalist and founder, <a href="http://Odisha.com/">Odisha.com</a> and Subhransu Panda, Senior journalist, <a href="http://www.orissasambad.com/">Sambad</a>. Wikipedians, students and journalists took active part in the discussion.</p>
<p>To celebrate the success of Odia Wikipedia, wikipedians joined the guest to cut a “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chhena_Poda">Chhenapoda</a>” and light Deepam as an integral part of the Odia culture.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The discussion began with Nilambar Rath speaking briefly about the agenda of the meeting and about the current scenario of the use of Odia language in media especially in the web. Prasanna Kumar Mohanty spoke about how the true form of the language should be taken to public via media. He also emphasized about the need to sacrifice our conventional way of approach and adopt new technologies like Wikipedia. Many such efforts are not rewarded because of the lack of support from the government even though funding is available for such development. Odia linguist Prafulla Tripathy explained about the lack of public interest to pledge for declaring Odia as a classical language even though Odia holds the 31<sup>st</sup> position among 6500 world languages. "The language of our personal lives, social interaction and verbal communication never gets documented. The confusion among various linguists is another obstacle to take Odia to a global level. If the script grammar is kept in focus and script and eventually the fonts are simplified then they would be easier to be used online", he expressed. Dr. Tripathy also shared his experience of his interaction with other Indian language experts at places where he worked such as on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition">OCR (Optical character reading)</a> software which could be a great tool to digitize many precious resources. He offered his support for helping with OCR in Odia. Few other aspects of simpler approaches of scripts discussed were glossary, Odia-English and English-Odia lexicon, spell check feature for typing and interactive e-learning which could boost the effort of the wikipedians.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prof. Dhanada Mishra took the audience through the free and open source culture and Linux and future role of Odia Wikipedia to tackle the problems of primary education. He thanked the wikipedians for their noble effort and showed his interest in promoting it more in academics. Subhashish Panigrahi discussed about the role of Odia Wikipedia in documenting various resources in Odia Wikipedia. He brought various technical problems that common men face while typing, contributing to Wikipedia and how they could be handled. He also proposed a plan for bringing more language experts and museum curators to the community which would increase the spectrum of resource and capacity for the Odia Wikimedia community.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Jatindra Das, founder of the first online Odia newspaper Odisha.com discussed about the hurdles of using Odia Unicode and acceptance level in the society for it. Senior journalist Subhransu Panda discussed about the usage of various fonts and how adopting Unicode could bring a lot of information to the public.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nilambar Rath, Director, Academy for Media Learning talked about the future efforts of Odia Wikipedia community. He elaborated how media could be used as an essential tool for taking Wikipedia to more people. Mrutyunjaya Kar, one of the very active Wikipedians closed the ceremony with a brief talk about the achievements, education program and impact of Odia Wikipedia in the recent past and community building plans.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There was a press meet in the afternoon. Wikipedians interacted with the media about future prospects of Odia Wikipedia and its current state.</p>
<table class="listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/OdiaWikipediansbeingfelicitated.JPG/@@images/dda743db-d287-4a02-9525-7376d44934f1.jpeg" title="Odia Wikipedians being felicitated" height="204" width="622" alt="Odia Wikipedians being felicitated" class="image-inline" /></p>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; "><i>Odia wikipedians being felicitated by the guests</i></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center; ">Few glimpses of the event<br /><iframe frameborder="0" height="253" src="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bhubaneswar_Odia_Meetup_2013Jan29-32.webm?embedplayer=yes" width="450"></iframe><br />Audio Podcast<br /><iframe frameborder="0" height="23" src="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prafulla_Tripathy_on_Odia_script_and_Odia_Wikipedia.ogg?embedplayer=yes" width="300"></iframe></th>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr />
<p><b><br />Press coverage:</b></p>
<ul>
<li><span></span><span><b>ଓଡ଼ିଶାନ୍:</b></span><a href="http://odishan.com/?p=2534"><span><span><span><b> </b>ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ନବମ ଜନ୍ମତିଥି ଅବସରରେ କର୍ମଶାଳା</span></span></span></a><a href="http://odishan.com/?p=2534"><span><span><span>: </span></span></span></a><a href="http://odishan.com/?p=2534"><span><span><span>ଇମିଡ଼ିଆରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାର ପ୍ରୟୋଗ</span></span></span></a><span><span>.</span></span><span><b> </b></span><span><b></b></span></li>
<li> <span><b>ସମ୍ବାଦ:</b></span><a href="http://sambadepaper.com/Details.aspx?id=36615&boxid=23625437"><span><i><span><b> </b>ଲିପି ବ୍ୟାକରଣ ଓ ମାନକ ଭାଷାର ପ୍ରୟୋଗ ଜରୁରୀ</span></i></span></a><span><span>.</span></span><span><b> </b></span></li>
<li> <span>eindiadiary.com:</span><a href="http://www.eindiadiary.com/content/odisha-workshop-organized-9th-anniversary-odia-language-application-odia-language-e-media"><span><span>Odisha: Workshop organized on 9th Anniversary of Odia language: Application of Odia language in e-media</span></span></a><span><span>.</span></span></li>
<li> <span>Fullorissa.com:</span><a href="http://news.fullorissa.com/odia-wikipedias-9th-anniversary/"><span> Odia Wikipedia’s 9th anniversary</span></a><span><b>. </b></span><span>Fullorissa.com</span></li>
<li> <span>orissadiary.com:</span><a href="http://www.orissadiary.com/ShowEvents.asp?id=3924"><span><span>Odisha: Workshop organized on 9th Anniversary of Odia language: Application of Odia language in e-media</span></span></a><span><span>.</span></span></li>
<li> <span><span>In</span></span><span>diaeducationdiary.in:</span><a href="http://indiaeducationdiary.in/Orissa/Shownews.asp?newsid=19485"><span><span>Odisha: Workshop organized on 9th Anniversary of Odia language: Application of Odia language in e-media</span></span></a><span><span>. </span></span><span></span></li>
<li> <span>Odishaviews.com:</span><a href="http://www.odishaviews.com/odia-language-workshop-organized-on-9th-anniversary-of-odia-wikipedia-application-of-odia-language-in-e-media/">Odia language workshop organized on 9th Anniversary of Odia Wikipedia: Application of Odia language in e-media</a><i>. </i>Subhashish Panigrahi is quoted.<i><br /></i></li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/celebrating-odia-wikipedias-ninth-anniversary'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/celebrating-odia-wikipedias-ninth-anniversary</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaOpennessFeaturedWikipediaWikimedia2013-02-28T04:32:29ZBlog EntryCan Judges Order ISPs to Block Websites for Copyright Infringement? (Part 3)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-3
<b>In a three-part study, Ananth Padmanabhan examines the "John Doe" orders that courts have passed against ISPs, which entertainment companies have used to block dozens, if not hundreds, of websites. In this, the third and concluding part, he looks at the Indian law in the Copyright Act and the Information Technology Act, and concludes that both those laws restrain courts and private companies from ordering an ISP to block a website for copyright infringement.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the third part of his study, Ananth Padmanabhan looks into the fair use provisions recently introduced in respect of mere conduit intermediaries by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, and concludes that there is no scope for any general, or specific, access blocking orders at the behest of the plaintiff in a civil suit, in India. He also argues that the <a class="external-link" href="http://eprocure.gov.in/cppp/sites/default/files/eproc/itact2000.pdf">Information Technology Act, 2000</a> read with the<a class="external-link" href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511%281%29.pdf"> Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011</a> do not in any manner permit the Government to override the provisions of the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ircc.iitb.ac.in/webnew/Indian%20Copyright%20Act%201957.html">Copyright Act, 1957</a> (as amended) while facilitating the denial of access to websites on grounds of copyright infringement, because the Copyright Act, 1957, is a complete code by itself.</p>
<hr />
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Fair Use Provisions Introduced by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2010, the <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-analysis" class="external-link">controversial Copyright (Amendment) Bill</a> came up for deliberation before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development headed by Mr. <a class="external-link" href="http://archive.india.gov.in/govt/rajyasabhampbiodata.php?mpcode=173">Oscar Fernandes</a>. While a major part of the discussion on this amendment revolved around the altered royalty structure and rights allocation between music composers and lyricists on the one hand and film producers on the other, it can be safely stated that this is the most significant amendment to the Copyright Act, 1957 for more than this one reason. The amendment seeks to reform the Copyright Board, bring in a scheme of statutory licenses, expand the scope of performers’ rights and introduce anti-circumvention measures to check copyright piracy. As part of its ambitious objective, the amendment also attempts a new fair use model to protect intermediaries and file-sharing websites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, which gives expression to this fair use model through Sections 52(1)(b) and (c), reads thus:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify; "><b><i>52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright</i></b><i>. - (1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify; "><i>(a) to (ad) - *****</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify; "><i>(b) the transient or incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical process of electronic transmission or communication to the public;</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify; "><i> </i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify; "><i>(c) transient or incidental storage of a work or performance for the purpose of providing electronic links, access or integration, where such links, access or integration has not been expressly prohibited by the right holder, unless the person responsible is aware or has reasonable grounds for believing that such storage is of an infringing copy:</i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify; "><i> </i></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify; "><i>Provided that if the person responsible for the storage of the copy has received a written complaint from the owner of copyright in the work, complaining that such transient or incidental storage is an infringement, such person responsible for the storage shall refrain from facilitating such access for a period of twenty-one days or till he receives an order from the competent court refraining from facilitating access and in case no such order is received before the expiry of such period of twenty-one days, he may continue to provide the facility of such access;</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">From a plain reading, it is clear that two important exceptions are carved out: one, in respect of the technical process of electronic transmission and the other, in respect of providing electronic links, access or integration. The material distinction between these exceptions is the presence of a take-down <i>proviso </i>in respect of the latter kind of activity, ie. when providing electronic links, access or integration. This window of opportunity is not provided to the copyright owner when the third party is an ISP involved in the pure technical process of electronic transmission of data.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In <i>R.K. Productions</i>, the court was not informed of the introduction of these provisions <i>vide</i> the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, despite the hearing happening on a date subsequent to the amendment coming into force. This probably influenced the outcome as well, since the court held that ISPs were liable to block access to infringing content, once the specific webpage was brought to the notice of the concerned ISP. Newly introduced Section 52(1)(b) however makes it abundantly clear that ISPs cannot, in any manner, be held liable when they are acting as mere conduit pipes for the transmission of information. This legal position is also materially different from jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom where, the ISPs though not liable for copyright infringement, are statutorily mandated to lend all possible assistance such as take-down or blocking of access upon notice of infringement being furnished to them. This dichotomy between liability for infringement on the one hand and a general duty to assist in the prevention of infringement on the other is explained clearly by the Chancery Division in <i>Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. British Telecommunications Plc.</i><a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1] </a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In <i>Newzbin2</i>, the Chancery Division took note of the safe harbour provisions created by the E-Commerce Directive,<a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2] </a>particularly Articles 12 to 14 that dealt with acting as a “mere conduit”, caching and hosting respectively. The interesting feature with the “mere conduit” exception, which in all other respects is akin to the exception contained in Section 52(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957, is the additional presence of Article 12(3). This provision clarifies that the “mere conduit” exception shall not stand in the way of a court or administrative authority requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement. Article 18 of this Directive also casts an obligation upon Member States to ensure that court actions available under national law permit the rapid adoption of measures, including interim measures, designed to terminate any alleged infringement and to prevent any further impairment of the interests involved. Similarly, the court looked into the Information Society Directive,<a href="#fn3" name="fr3">[3] </a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Article 8(3) of which provides that “Member States shall ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right.” This Directive was transposed into the domestic law in UK by the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, SI 2003/2498, resulting in the insertion of Section 97A in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This provision empowers the court to grant an injunction against a service provider who has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright, such as where the service provider is given sufficient notice of the infringement. Finally, the Chancery Division also took note of the Enforcement Directive,<a href="#fn4" name="fr4">[4] </a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Article 11 of which provided that Member States shall ensure that copyright owners are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right. This entire legislative scheme compelled the court in <i>Newzbin2</i> to conclude that an order of injunction could be granted against ISPs who are “mere conduits”, restraining them from providing access to websites that indulged in mass copyright infringement. The court reasoned that the language used in Section 97A did not require knowledge of any particular infringement but only a more general kind of knowledge about certain persons using the ISPs’ services to infringe copyright. Thus, it is seen that in the United Kingdom, though a “mere conduit” activity is not infringement at all, the concerned ISP can be directed by the court to block access to a website that hosts infringing content on the basis of the above legislative scheme. The enquiry should therefore be directed towards whether India has a similar scheme for copyright enforcement.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The Information Technology Act – An Inapplicable Scheme for Website Blocking</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Information Technology Act, 2000<a href="#fn5" name="fr5">[5]</a>read with certain recently framed guidelines provides for a duty that could be thrust upon even “mere conduit” ISPs to disable access to copyrighted works. This is due to the presence of Section 79(2)(c) of this Act, which makes it clear that an intermediary shall be exempt from liability only where the intermediary observes due diligence as well as complies with the other guidelines framed by the Central Government in this behalf. Moreover, Section 79(3) provides that the intermediary shall not be entitled to the benefit of the exemption in Section 79(1) in a situation where the intermediary, upon receiving actual knowledge that any information, data, or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit an unlawful act, fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner. In pursuance of Section 79(2)(c), the Central Government has also framed the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, which came into effect on 11.04.2011. Rule 4 of these Rules, when read along with Rule 2(d), casts obligation on an intermediary on whose computer system, copyright infringing content has been <i>stored, hosted or published</i>, to <i>disable</i> such information within thirty six hours from when it is brought to actual knowledge of the existence of such content by any affected person.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One way of understanding and interpreting in harmonious fashion, the provisions of the IT Act and the Rules therein and the recent amendments to the Copyright Act, is to contend that the issue of infringement of copyright by “mere conduit” ISPs is governed by Section 52(1)(b), which completely absolves them of any liability, while that of enforcement of copyright through the medium of such ISPs is governed by the IT Act. This bifurcation suffers from the difficulty that Section 79 of the IT Act is not an enforcement provision. It is a provision meant to exempt intermediaries from certain kinds of liability, in the same way as Section 52 of the Copyright Act. This provision, read with Section 81, makes it clear that the IT Act does not speak to liability for copyright infringement. From this, it has to necessarily follow that all issues pertaining to liability for such infringement have to be decided by the provisions of the Copyright Act. Therefore, the scheme in the IT Act read with the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules cannot confer additional liability for copyright infringement on ISPs where the Copyright Act exempts them from liability. More to the point, the intermediary cannot be liable for copyright infringement in the event of non-compliance with Section 79(3) or Rule 4 of the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules read with Section 79(1)(c) of the IT Act. Rule 4 of the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules, 2011, to the extent that it renders intermediaries outside the protective ambit of Section 79(1) upon failure to disable access to copyrighted content, is of no relevance as “mere conduits” have already been exempted from liability under Section 52(1)(b). Moreover, since these provisions in the IT Act do not deal with enforcement measures such as injunction orders from the court to disable access to infringing content in particular or infringing websites in general, it would be wrong to contend that the scheme in India is similar to the one in the United Kingdom where the issue of infringement has been divorced from that of enforcement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To conclude, Section 52(1)(b) is a blanket “mere conduit” exemption from liability for copyright infringement that stands uninfluenced by the presence of Section 79 of the IT Act or the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules. In the absence of a legislative scheme for enforcement in India akin to Section 97A of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Indian Courts cannot grant an injunction directing such “mere conduit” ISPs to block access to websites in general or infringing content in particular and any such action is not even maintainable in law post the insertion of Section 52(1)(b). The decision to the contrary in the <i>R.K.Productions </i>case is incorrect.</p>
<hr />
<p>[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch.). Hereinafter referred to as <i>Newzbin2.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>]. European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/31/EC on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (8 June 2000). This Directive was transposed into the domestic law in UK by the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002, SI 2002/2013.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>]. European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (22 May 2001).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr4" name="fn4">4</a>]. European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (29 April 2004). This Directive was transposed into the UK domestic law primarily by the Intellectual Property (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1028.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr5" name="fn5">5</a>]. Hereinafter referred to as the IT Act.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-3'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-3</a>
</p>
No publisherananthFeaturedHomepageCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2014-02-14T05:13:36ZBlog EntryCan Judges Order ISPs to Block Websites for Copyright Infringement? (Part 2)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-2
<b>In a three-part study, Ananth Padmanabhan examines the "John Doe" orders that courts have passed against ISPs, which entertainment companies have used to block dozens, if not hundreds, of websites. In this, the second part, he looks at the law laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court on secondary and contributory copyright infringement, and finds that those wouldn't allow Indian courts to grant "John Doe" orders against ISPs.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the second part of his study, Ananth Padmanabhan proceeds to examine applying a general theory of secondary or contributory copyright infringement against ISPs. He traces the basis for holding a third party liable as a contributory by closely examining the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in Sony Corp. v Universal City Studios<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1] </a>and MGM Studios, Inc. v Grokster, Ltd.<a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2] </a>and concludes that this basis does not hold good in the case of a mere conduit intermediary such as an ISP.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Hereinafter referred to as <i>Betamax</i>.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>]. 545 U.S. 913 (2005). Hereinafter referred to as <i>Grokster.</i></p>
<hr />
<h2>Primary and Secondary Infringement</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Liability for copyright infringement can either be primary or secondary in character. In the case of ISPs, liability as primary infringers does not arise at all, and it is in their capacity as conduit pipes facilitating the transmission of information that they could be held secondarily liable. Even in such cases, the contention of copyright owners is that once the ISP is notified of infringing content, it has the primary responsibility of preventing access to such content. This contention is essentially rooted in a theory of secondary infringement based on knowledge and awareness, and the means to prevent further infringement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The controversy around a suitable model of secondary infringement is reflected in two judicial pronouncements – separated by a gap of more than two decades – delivered by the U.S. Supreme Court. In <i>Sony Corp. v Universal City Studios</i>,[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>] the US Supreme Court held that the manufacturers of home video recording devices known in the market as Betamax would not be liable to copyright owners for secondary infringement since the technology was capable of substantially non-infringing and legitimate purposes. The U.S. Supreme Court even observed that these time-shifting devices would actually enhance television viewership and hence find favour with majority of the copyright holders too. The majority did concede that in an appropriate situation, liability for secondary infringement of copyright could well arise. In the words of the Court, “<i>vicarious liability is imposed in virtually all areas of the law, and the concept of contributory infringement is merely a species of the broader problem of identifying the circumstances in which it is just to hold one individual accountable for the actions of another</i>”. However, if vicarious liability had to be imposed on the manufactures of the time-shifting devices, it had to rest on the fact that they sold equipment with constructive knowledge of the fact that their customers <i>may</i> use that equipment to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted material. In the view of the Court, there was no precedent in the law of copyright for the imposition of vicarious liability merely on the showing of such fact.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Notes of dissent were struck by Justice Blackmun, who wrote an opinion on behalf of himself and three other judges. The learned Judge noted that there was no private use exemption in favour of making of copies of a copyrighted work and hence, unauthorised time-shifting would amount to copyright infringement. He also concluded that there was no fair use in such activity that would exempt it from the purview of infringement. The dissent held the manufacturer liable as a contributory infringer and reasoned that the test for contributory infringement would only be whether the contributory infringer had <i>reason to know or believe </i>that infringement would take place and <i>not whether he actually knew of the same</i>. Off-the-air recording was not only a foreseeable use for the Betamax, but also its intended use, for which Sony would be liable for copyright infringement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This dissent has considerably influenced the seemingly contrarian position taken by the majority in the subsequent decision, <i>MGM Studios, Inc. v Grokster, Ltd.</i><a href="#fn4" name="fr4">[4]</a> This case called into question the liability of websites that facilitated peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing. Re-formulating the test for copyright infringement, the US Supreme Court held that ‘<i>one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties</i>’. In re-drawing the boundaries of contributory infringement, the Court observed that contributory infringement is committed by any person who intentionally induces or encourages direct infringement, and vicarious infringement is committed by those who profit from direct infringement while declining to exercise their right to limit or stop it. When an article of commerce was good for nothing else but infringement, there was no legitimate public interest in its unlicensed availability and there would be no injustice in presuming or imputing intent to infringe in such cases. This doctrine would at the same time absolve the equivocal conduct of selling an item with substantial lawful as well as unlawful uses and would limit the liability to instances of more acute fault than the mere understanding that some of the products shall be misused, thus ensuring that innovation and commerce are not unreasonably hindered.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Court distinguished the case at hand from <i>Betamax</i>, and noted that there was evidence here of active steps taken by the respondents to encourage direct copyright infringement, such as advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use. This evidence revealed an affirmative intent that the product be used to infringe, and an <i>active </i>encouragement of infringement. Without reversing the decision in <i>Betamax</i>, but holding that it was misinterpreted by the lower court, the Court observed that <i>Betamax</i> was not an authority for the proposition that whenever a product was capable of substantial lawful use, the producer could never be held liable as a contributory for the use of such product for infringing activity by third parties.<i> </i>In the view of the Court, <i>Betamax </i>did not displace other theories of secondary liability.<i> </i>This other theory of secondary liability applicable to the case at hand was held to be the inducement rule, as per which any person who distributed a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as evidenced by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, would be liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties. However, the Court clarified that <i>mere knowledge of infringing potential or of actual infringing uses would not be enough</i> under this rule to subject a distributor to liability. Similarly, ordinary acts incident to product distribution, such as offering customers technical support or product updates, support liability etc. would not by themselves attract the operation of this rule. The inducement rule, instead, premised liability on <i>purposeful, culpable expression and conduct</i>, and thus did nothing to compromise <i>legitimate</i> commerce or discourage innovation having a <i>lawful</i> promise.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These seemingly divergent views on secondary infringement expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court are of significant relevance for India, due to the peculiar language used in the Indian Copyright Act, 1957.<a href="#fn4" name="fr4">[4]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 51 of the Act, which defines infringement, bifurcates the two types of infringement – ie. primary and secondary infringement – without indicating so in as many words. While Section 51(a)(i) speaks to primary infringers, 51(a)(ii) and 51(b) renders certain conduct to be secondary infringement. Even here, there is an important distinction between 51(a)(ii) and 51(b). The former exempts the alleged infringer from liability if he could establish that <i>he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that </i>the communication to the public, facilitated through the use of his “place”, would amount to copyright infringement. The latter on the other hand permits no such exception. Thus, any person, who makes for sale or hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or distributes for the purpose of trade, or publicly exhibits by way of trade, or imports into India, any infringing copies of a work, shall be liable for infringement, without any specific <i>mens rea</i> required to attract such liability. It is in the context of the former provision, ie. 51(a)(ii) that the liability of certain file-sharing websites for copyright infringement has arisen.<a href="#fn5" name="fr5">[5]</a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Mere Conduit ISPs – Secondary Infringement Absent</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In <i>MySpace</i>, the Delhi High Court examined the liability for secondary infringement on the part of a website that provides a platform for file-sharing. While holding the website liable, the Single Judge considered material certain facts such as the revenue model of the defendant, which depended largely on advertisements displayed on the webpages, and automatically generated advertisements that would come up for a few seconds before the infringing video clips started playing. Shockingly, the Court even considered relevant the fact that the defendant did provide for safeguards such as hash block filters, take down stay down functionality, and rights management tools operational through fingerprinting technology, to prevent or curb infringing activities being carried on in their website. This, in the view of the Court, made it evident that the defendant had a <i>reasonable apprehension or belief </i>that the acts which were being carried on in the website <i>could</i> infringe someone else’s copyright including that of the plaintiff. The logic employed by the Court to attribute liability for secondary infringement on file-sharing websites is befuddling and reveals complete disregard for the degree of regulatory authority available on the internet even where the space, i.e., the website, is supposedly “under the control” of a person. However, a critical examination of this decision is not relevant in understanding the liability of mere conduit ISPs. This is for the reason that none of the factual considerations relied on by the Single Judge to justify imposition of liability on a file-sharing website under Section 51(a)(ii) arise when the defendant is an ISP that only provides the path for content-neutral transmission of data.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This was completely ignored by the Madras High Court in <i>R.K.Productions v. B.S.N.L.</i>,<a href="#fn6" name="fr6">[6] </a>where the producers of the Tamil film “3”, which enjoyed considerable pre-release buzz due to its song “Kolaveri Di”, sought an omnibus order of injunction against all websites that host torrents or links facilitating access to, or download of, this film. Though this was worded as a John Doe plaint by branding the infringers as unknown administrators of different torrent sites and so on, the real idea was to look to the resources and wherewithal of the known defendants, ie. the ISPs, to block access to the content hosted by the unknown defendants.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This prompted the ISPs to file applications under Or. VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit against them was barred by law. The Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissed these applications for rejection of the plaint, after accepting the contention that the ISPs are necessary parties to the suit as the act of piracy occurs through the channel or network provided by them. The High Court heavily, and incorrectly, relied on MySpace without appreciating the distinction between a mere conduit ISP and a file-sharing website such as MySpace or YouTube, as regards their respective roles and responsibilities, the differing degrees of regulatory control over content enjoyed by them, and most importantly, the recognition and formalisation of these distinctions in the Copyright Act, 1957, vide the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.</p>
<hr />
<p>[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>]. 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Hereinafter referred to as Betamax.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr4" name="fn4">4</a>]. 545 U.S. 913 (2005). Hereinafter referred to as Grokster.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr5" name="fn5">5</a>]. Hereinafter the Act.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr6" name="fn6">6</a>]. <i>Super Cassette Industries Ltd. v MySpace Inc.</i>, MIPR 2011 (2) 303 (hereinafter referred to as <i>MySpace</i>). This decision of the Delhi High Court has been rightly criticised. <i>See </i><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-my-space">http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/super-cassettes-v-my-space</a> (last accessed on 24.03.2013).</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-2'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-2</a>
</p>
No publisherananthAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightPiracyFeaturedHomepage2014-03-06T16:48:18ZBlog Entry Call for Essays: Studying Internet in India
https://cis-india.org/raw/call-for-essays-studying-internet-in-india-2016
<b>As Internet makes itself comfortable amidst everyday lives in India, it becomes everywhere and everyware, it comes in 40 MBPS Unlimited and in chhota recharges – though no longer in zero flavour – the Researchers at Work (RAW) programme at the Centre for Internet and Society invites abstracts for essays that explore how do we study internet in India today. </b>
<p> </p>
<h3>Submission deadline extended to <strong>Sunday, July 03</strong>.</h3>
<hr />
<img src="https://github.com/cis-india/website/raw/master/img/RAW_Morpheus-Meme-Digital-Genre.png" alt="What if I told you memes are a new digital genre?" />
<p> </p>
<h6>Source: <a href="http://leonardoflores.net/blog/new-digital-genres-writing-for-social-media/">Leonardo Flores</a>.</h6>
<p> </p>
<p>How do we move beyond a fascination with new digital things and interfaces that we engage with on the internet, which are increasingly becoming the objects and sites of our research and creative practices? How do we engage with these on their own terms, and perhaps also against the grain? What "new" is being brought in, performed, and afforded by these digital artefacts in our daily lives? How can our concerns and practices benefit from developing an awareness of their aesthetics, functions, and politics?</p>
<p>This call is for researchers, workers, and others interested in closely – or from a distance – commenting on these topics and questions.</p>
<p>Please send abstracts (200 words) to <a href="mailto:raw@cis-india.org">raw@cis-india.org</a> by <strong>Sunday, July 03, 2016</strong>. The subject of the email should be 'Studying Internet in India.'</p>
<p>We will select up to 10 abstracts and announce them on <strong>Tuesday, July 05, 2016</strong>.</p>
<p>The selected authors will be asked to submit the final longform essay (3,000-4,000 words) by <strong>Sunday, July 31, 2016</strong>. The final essays will be published on the RAW Blog. The authors will be offered an honourarium of Rs. 6,000.</p>
<p>We understand that not all essays can be measured in words. The authors are very much welcome to work with text, images, sounds, videos, code, and other mediatic forms that the internet offers. We will not be running a Word Count on the final 'essay.' The basic requirement is that the 'essay' must offer an <em>argument</em> – through text, or otherwise.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/call-for-essays-studying-internet-in-india-2016'>https://cis-india.org/raw/call-for-essays-studying-internet-in-india-2016</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroInternet StudiesRAW BlogFeaturedNoticesResearchers at Work2016-07-04T12:48:15ZBlog EntryCall for Essays: Studying Internet in India
https://cis-india.org/raw/call-for-essays-studying-internet-in-india
<b>As Internet makes itself comfortable amidst everyday lives in India, it becomes everywhere and everyware, it comes in 40 MBPS Unlimited and in chhota recharges – and even in zero flavour – the Researchers at Work (RAW) programme at the Centre for Internet and Society invites abstracts for essays that explore what it means to study Internet(s) in India today.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>We are interested in the many experiences of Internet(s) in India; its histories and archaeologies; how we use it to read, write, create, relate, learn, and share; the data that is produced, and the data that is consumed; the spaces that are created, and the spaces that are inhabited; the forms that political expressions take on the Web; and of course, where and how should one be studying Internet(s) in India?</p>
<p>This call is for researchers, workers, and others interested in closely – or from a distance – commenting on these topics and questions.</p>
<p>Please send abstracts (200 words) to <a href="mailto:raw@cis-india.org">raw@cis-india.org</a> by <strong>Sunday, April 26, 2015</strong>. The subject of the email should be 'Studying Internet in India.'</p>
<p>We will select up to 10 abstracts and announce them on <strong>Friday, May 01, 2015</strong>.</p>
<p>The selected authors will be asked to submit the final longform essay (2,500-3,000 words) by <strong>Sunday, May 31, 2015</strong>. The final essays will be published on the RAW Blog. The authors will be offered an honourarium of Rs. 5,000.</p>
<p>We understand that not all essays can be measured in words. The authors are very much welcome to work with text, images, sounds, videos, code, and other mediatic forms that the Internet offers. We will not be running a Word Count on the final 'essay.' The basic requirement is that the 'essay' must offer an <em>argument</em> – through text, or otherwise.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/call-for-essays-studying-internet-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/raw/call-for-essays-studying-internet-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroInternet StudiesRAW BlogFeaturedNoticesResearchers at Work2015-08-28T07:09:39ZBlog EntryCall for Essays — #List
https://cis-india.org/raw/call-for-essays-list
<b>The researchers@work programme at CIS invites abstracts for essays that explore social, economic, cultural, political, infrastructural, or aesthetic dimensions of the ‘list’. We have selected 4 abstracts among those received before August 31, 2019, and are now accepting and evaluating further submissions on a rolling basis.</b>
<p> </p>
<img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cis-india/website/master/img/CIS_r%40w_CallForEssays_List_Open.png" alt="Call for essays on #List, abstracts are considered on a rolling basis" />
<p> </p>
<p>For the last several years, #MeToo and #LoSHA have set the course for rousing debates within feminist praxis and contemporary global politics. It also foregrounded the ubiquitous presence of the list in its various forms, not only on the internet but across diverse aspects of media culture. Much debate has emerged about specificities and implications of the list as an information artefact, especially in the case of #LoSHA and NRC - its role in creation and curation of information, in building solidarities and communities of practice, its dependencies on networked media infrastructures, its deployment by hegemonic entities and in turn for countering dominant discourses.</p>
<p>From Mailing Lists to WhatsApp Broadcast Lists, lists have been the very basis of multi-casting capabilities of the early and the recent internets. The list - in terms of list of people receiving a message, list of machines connecting to a router or a tower, list of ‘friends’ and ‘followers’ ‘added’ to your social media persona - structures the open-ended multi-directional information flow possibilities of the internet. It simultaneously engenders networks of connected machines and bodies, topographies of media circulation, and social graphs of affective connections and consumptions.</p>
<p>As a media format that is easy to create, circulate, and access (as seen in the number of rescue and relief lists that flood the web during national disasters) or one that is essential in classification and cross-referencing (such as public records and memory institutions), the list becomes an essential trope to understand new media forms today, as the skeletal frame on which much digital content and design is structured and also consumed through.</p>
<ul>
<li>What new subjectivities - indicative of different asymmetries of power/knowledge - do list-making, and being listed, engender? How are they hegemonic or intersectional?</li>
<li>What new modes of questioning and meaning-making have manifested today in various practices of list-making?
What modalities of creation and circulation of lists affords their authority; what makes them legitimate information artefacts, or contentious forms of knowledge?</li>
<li>How and when do lists became digital, where are lists on paper? How do we understand their ephemerality or robustness; are they medium or message?</li>
<li>Are there cultural economies of lists, list-making, and getting listed? Who decides, and who gets invisibilized on lists?</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h2>Call for Essays</h2>
<p>We invite abstracts for essays that explore social, economic, cultural, political, infrastructural, or aesthetic dimensions of the ‘list’.</p>
<p>Please submit the abstracts by <strong>Friday, August 23, 2019</strong>.</p>
<p>We will select 10 abstracts and announce them on Friday, August 30. The selected authors are expected to submit a full draft of the essay (of 2000-3000 words) by Monday, September 30. We will share editorial suggestions with the authors, and the final versions of the essays will be published on the <a href="https://medium.com/rawblog" target="_blank">researchers@work blog</a> from November onwards. We will offer Rs. 5,000 as honorarium to all selected authors.</p>
<p>Please submit the abstract (300-500 words), and a short biographic note, in a single text file with the title of the essay and your name via email sent to <a href="mailto:raw@cis-india.org">raw@cis-india.org</a>, with the subject line of ‘List’.</p>
<p>Authors are very much welcome to work with text, images, sounds, videos, code, and other mediatic forms that the internet offers.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/call-for-essays-list'>https://cis-india.org/raw/call-for-essays-list</a>
</p>
No publishersneha-ppResearchers at WorkListRAW BlogResearchFeaturedCall for EssaysInternet Studies2019-10-11T17:07:26ZBlog EntryCall for Contributions and Reflections: Your experiences in Decolonizing the Internet’s Languages!
https://cis-india.org/raw/stil-2020-call
<b>Whose Knowledge?, the Oxford Internet Institute, and the Centre for Internet and Society are creating a State of the Internet’s Languages report, as baseline research with both numbers and stories, to demonstrate how far we are from making the internet multilingual. We also hope to offer some possibilities for doing more to create the multilingual internet we want. This research needs the experiences and expertise of people who think about these issues of language online from different perspectives. Read the Call here and share your submission by September 2, 2019.</b>
<p> </p>
<h4>Cross-posted from the Whose Knowledge? website: <a href="https://whoseknowledge.org/initiatives/callforcontributions/" target="_blank">Call for Contributions and Reflections</a></h4>
<p>The call is available in <a href="https://whoseknowledge.org/initiatives/callforcontributions/#CIS-AR" target="_blank">Arabic</a>, <a href="https://whoseknowledge.org/initiatives/callforcontributions/#CIS-PT" target="_blank">Brazilian Portuguese</a>, <a href="#en">English</a>, <a href="https://whoseknowledge.org/initiatives/callforcontributions/#CIS-IZ" target="_blank">IsiZulu</a>, <a href="https://whoseknowledge.org/initiatives/callforcontributions/#CIS-ES" target="_blank">Spanish</a>, and <a href="#ta">Tamil</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> This call for contributions is in a few languages right now, but we invite our friends and communities to translate into many more! Please reach out to info (at) whoseknowledge (dot) org with your translations… thank you!</p>
<hr />
<img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cis-india/website/master/img/CISraw_WK-OII_DTIL-banner2.png" alt="Call for Contributions and Reflections: Your experiences in Decolonizing the Internet’s Languages!" />
<p> </p>
<blockquote>
<h4 id="en">“It’s not just the words that will be lost. The language is the heart of our culture; it holds our thoughts, our way of seeing the world. It’s too beautiful for English to explain.”</h4>
– Potawatomi elder, cited in Robin Wall Kimmerer’s “Braiding Sweetgrass.”</blockquote>
<p><strong>The problem:</strong> The internet we have today is not multilingual enough to reflect the full depth and breadth of humanity. Language is a good proxy for, or way to understand, knowledge – different languages can represent different ways of knowing and learning about our worlds. Yet most online knowledge today is created and accessible only through colonial languages, and mostly English. The UNESCO Report on ‘<a href="https://unesdoc.unesco.org/in/documentViewer.xhtml?v=2.1.196&id=p::usmarcdef_0000232743&file=/in/rest/annotationSVC/DownloadWatermarkedAttachment/attach_import_8df09604-0040-4b44-b53c-110207ac407d%3F_%3D232743eng.pdf&locale=en&multi=true&ark=/ark:/48223/pf0000232743/PDF/232743eng.pdf#685_15_CI_EN_int.indd%3A.7579%3A23" target="_blank">A Decade of Promoting Multilingualism in Cyberspace</a>’ (2015) estimated that “out of the world’s approximately 6,000 languages, just 10 of them make up 84.3 percent of people using the Internet, with English and Chinese the dominant languages, accounting for 52 per cent of Internet users worldwide.” More languages become endangered and disappear every year; <a href="http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/atlas-of-languages-in-danger/" target="_blank">230 languages have become extinct between 1950 and 2010</a>.</p>
<p>At best, then, 7% of the world’s <a href="https://www.ethnologue.com/statistics" target="_blank">languages</a> are captured in published material, and an even smaller fraction of these languages are available online. This is particularly critical for communities who have been historically or currently marginalized by power and privilege – women, people of colour, LGBT*QIA folks, indigenous communities, and others marginalized from the global South (Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and Pacific Islands). We often cannot add or access knowledge in our own languages on the internet. This reinforces and deepens inequalities and invisibilities that already exist offline, and denies all of us the richness of the multiple knowledges of the world.</p>
<p>Some of the issues that shape our abilities to create and share content online in our languages include:</p>
<ul>
<li>The internet’s infrastructure (hardware, software, platforms, protocols…);</li>
<li>Content management tools and technologies for translation, digitization, and archiving (voice, machine-learning systems and AI, semantic web…);</li>
<li>The experience of those who consume and produce information online in different languages (devices like cell phones and laptops, messaging tools, micro-blogging, audio-video…);</li>
<li>The experience of looking for content in different languages online, through search engines and other tools.</li></ul>
<p>Understanding the range of these issues will help us map the possibilities and concerns around linguistic biases and disparities on the internet.</p>
<p><strong>Who we are:</strong> We are a group of three research partners who believe that the internet we co-create should support, share, and amplify knowledge in all of the world’s languages. For this to happen, we need to better understand the challenges and opportunities that support or prevent our languages and knowledges from being online. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The <a href="https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/" target="_blank">Oxford Internet Institute</a> is a multidisciplinary research and teaching department of the University of Oxford, dedicated to the social science of the Internet. <a href="https://whoseknowledge.org/" target="_blank">Whose Knowledge?</a> is a global campaign to centre the knowledges of marginalized communities – the majority of the world – online.</p>
<p>Together we are creating a State of the Internet’s Languages report, as baseline research with both numbers and stories, to demonstrate how far we are from making the internet multilingual. We also hope to offer some possibilities for doing more to create the multilingual internet we want.</p>
<p><strong>Why we need YOU:</strong> This research needs the experiences and expertise of people who think about these issues of language online from different perspectives.</p>
<p>You may be a person who:</p>
<ul>
<li>Self-identifies as being from a marginalized community, and you find it difficult to bring your community’s knowledge online because the technology to display your language’s script is hard to access or read</li>
<li>Works on creating content in languages that are from parts of the world, and from people, who are mostly invisible and unheard online</li>
<li>Is a techie who works on making keyboards for non-colonial languages</li>
<li>Is a linguist who tries to bring together communities and technologies in a way that is easy and accessible</li>
<li>... you may be any of these, all of these, or more!</li></ul>
<p>We are looking for your experience online to help us tell the story of how limited the language capacities of the internet are, currently, and how much opportunity there is for making the internet share our knowledges in our many different languages. Most importantly: you don’t have to be an academic or researcher to apply, we particularly encourage people experiencing these issues in their everyday lives and work to contribute!</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Some of the key questions we’d like you to explore:</h3>
<ul>
<li>How are you or your community using your language online?</li>
<li>What do you wish you could create or share in your language online that you can’t today?</li>
<li>What does content in your language look like online? What exists, what’s missing? (<em>you might think about, for example, news, social media, education or government websites, e-commerce, entertainment, online libraries and archives, self-published content, etc</em>)</li>
<li>How and where and using what technologies do you share or create content in your language? (<em>you might think about, for example, video, audio, writing, social media, digitization…whatever formats, tools, processes or websites you use for creating oral, visual, textual, or other forms of content</em>.)</li>
<li>What is challenging to create or share on your language online? (<em>you might think about, for example, access, device usability, platforms, websites, apps and other tools, software, fonts, digital literacy, etc when developing digital archives, online language resources, or just making any presence on the web in general for your language</em>.)</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Submissions:</h3>
<p>We would love to hear about your and your community’s experiences in response to any or some of the above questions!</p>
<p>Your contribution could be in the form of a written essay, a visualization or work of art, a video or recorded conversation – we’d be happy to interview you if that’s your preference. We would be happy to accept in any language, and will review the submissions with the support of our multilingual communities and friends.</p>
<p>Are you interested in participating? Please email <strong>raw [at] cis-india [dot] org</strong> a short note (of about 300 words) by <strong>2 September at 23:59 IST (Indian Standard Time)</strong>, briefly outlining your idea along with the following information:</p>
<ul>
<li>Your name</li>
<li>Your location – both country of origin and your current location is useful!</li>
<li>Your language(s)</li>
<li>Your community or any other background you’d care to share with us</li>
<li>Which questions you’re interested in addressing, and why</li>
<li>Your prefered contribution format</li>
<li>Any requests for how we can best support your participation</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Timeline:</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>By 2nd September 2019:</strong> Send us your submission note</li>
<li><strong>By 1st November 2019:</strong> Contributors will be notified of selection</li>
<li><strong>By 1st December 2019:</strong> First round of contributions are due. We’ll work with you to finalise contributions by mid January.</li></ul>
<p>Selected contributors will be offered an honorarium of USD 500, and their final works will be published as part of the Decolonising the Internet – Languages Report, in early 2020.</p>
<hr />
<h2 id="ta">பங்களிப்பதற்காக அழைப்பு இணைய மொழி ஆதிக்கச் சூழலை மாற்றியதில் உங்கள்அனுபவம்!</h2>
<p> </p>
<blockquote>
<h4>“மொழி அழிவால் சொற்கள் மட்டும் அழிவதில்லை. நம் பண்பாட்டின் சாரமே மொழி தான். மொழியே நம் எண்ணங்களை வெளிப்படுத்துகிறது. இவ்வுலகத்தை நாம் காண்பதும் மொழிவழியே தான். ஆங்கிலத்தால் அதை ஒருக்காலும் வெளிப்படுத்த முடியாது.”</h4>
– போட்டோவாடோமி எல்டர் (ராபின் வால் கிம்மெரார் எழுதிய ‘பிரெயிடிங் சுவீட்கிராஸ்’ என்ற நூலில் இருந்து)</blockquote>
<p><strong>சிக்கல்:</strong> மனித குலத்தின் பரந்துவிரிந்த பண்பாட்டுச் சூழலை வெளிப்படுத்தும் அளவுக்கு இன்றைய இணையம் பன்மொழிச் சூழல் கொண்டதாய் இல்லை. தகவல்களை அறிந்துகொள்வதற்கு மொழி ஒரு கருவியாய் இருக்கிறது. ஒவ்வொரு மொழியும் உலகத்தை வெவ்வேறுவிதத்தில் காட்டத்தக்கன. இருந்தபோதும், பெரும்பாலான அறிவுசார் தளங்கள் ஆதிக்க மொழிகளில், குறிப்பாக ஆங்கிலத்தில் அதிகளவில் இருக்கின்றன. ‘இணையவெளியில் பன்மொழிச் சூழலைக் ஊக்குவிக்க பத்தாண்டுகளில் எடுத்த முயற்சி’ (2015) என்ற யுனெசுகோ அறிக்கையில் குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளதாவது: “உலகில் பேசப்படும் சுமார் 6,000 மொழிகளில், வெறும் 10 மொழியை பேசுவோர் மட்டுமே இணையத்தின் 84.3 சதவீதம் பேராக உள்ளனர். இவற்றில், ஆங்கிலமும் மாண்டரின் சீனமும் பேசுவோர் மட்டும் 52 சதவீதத்தினர் என்பது குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது.” ஒவ்வொரு ஆண்டும் அதிகளவிலான மொழிகள் அருகி, அழிந்து வருகின்றன. 1950 – 2010 ஆகிய ஆண்டுகளுக்குள் 230 மொழிகள் அழிந்திருக்கின்றன</p>
<p>எல்லா உள்ளடக்கத்தையும் கணக்கில் எடுத்தால் கூட, உலகின் 7% மொழிகளில் தான் ஆக்கங்கள் இருக்கின்றன. இவற்றில் சிலவே இணையத்தில் கிடைக்கின்றன. முற்காலத்தில் ஒடுக்கப்பட்டிருந்த பழங்குடியின சமூகத்தினர், அடக்குமுறைக்கு உட்பட்டிருந்த பெண்கள், நிறவெறிக்கு உட்பட்டிருந்தோர், மாற்று பாலின கருத்தியல் கொன்டோர் ஆகியோருக்கான ஆக்கங்கள் வெகு சில. பெரும்பாலானோர் இணையத்தில் தம் தாய்மொழியில் தகவல்களை தேடிப் பெற முடிவதில்லை. தம் மொழியில் கிடைக்கப்பெறாத பெரும்பாலானோருக்கு இவ்வுலகைப் பற்றிய அறிவுசார் ஆக்கங்கள் மறுக்கப்பட்டு, சமமின்மை வெளிப்படுகிறது.</p>
<p>நம் மொழியிலேயே இணையத்தில் ஆக்கங்களை உருவாக்குவதிலும் பகிர்வதிலும் சில சிக்கல்களை எதிர்நோக்குகிறோம். அவை:</p>
<ul>
<li>கட்டமைப்பு வசதிக் குறைபாடு : வன்பொருள், மென்பொருள், இயங்குதளம், மரபுத்தகவு</li>
<li>உள்ளடக்க மேம்பாட்டுக் கருவிகளும் தொழில்நுட்பங்களும் போதிய அளவில் இல்லாமை: மொழிபெயர்ப்புக் கருவி, மின்மயமாக்கக் கருவி, சேமிப்பகம், செயற்கை நுண்ணறிவு, குரல்வழி உள்ளடக்கம்</li>
<li>இணையத்தில் பொருட்களை வாங்கிப் பயன்படுத்துவோரின் கருத்துக்களோ, பொருட்களைப் பற்றிய தகவலோ, இணையச் செயலிகளான செய்தியனுப்பல், வலைப்பூ போன்றவையோ தம் மொழியில் இல்லாமை</li>
<li>தேடுபொறிகளையும் பிற கருவிகளையும் கொன்டு வெவ்வேறு மொழிகளில் ஆக்கங்களைத் தேடிப் பழக்கம் இல்லாமை</li></ul>
<p>இச்சிக்கல்களைப் புரிந்துகொள்வதன் மூலம், இணையத்தின் பன்மொழிச் சூழலுக்கான தேவைகளையும் அவற்றிற்கான குறைநிறைகளையும் சரிப்படுத்திக்கொள்ள முடியும்.</p>
<p><strong>நாங்கள் யார்?:</strong> உலக மொழிகளிலான ஆக்கங்கள் இணையவெளியில் இடம்பெற உதவவும், ஊக்குவிக்கவும் மூன்று ஆய்வு நிறுவனங்கள் கைகோர்த்துள்ளோம். இதை நடைமுறைப்படுத்துவதற்கு முன், நாம் எதிர்கொள்ளும் சிக்கல்களையும் பெறக்கூடிய வாய்ப்புகளையும் நன்கு அறிந்துகொள்வது அவசியம் என உணர்ந்தோம்.</p>
<p>1. சென்டர் ஃபார் இன்டர்நெட் அன்ட் சொசைட்டி (the Centre for Internet and Society or CIS) என்ற தன்னார்வல நிறுவனம், இணையத்தையும், மின்மயமாக்கத் தொழில்நுட்பங்களையும் பற்றிய ஆய்வுகளை கொள்கை நோக்கிலும், கல்விசார் நோக்கிலும் செய்கிறது. உடற்குறைபாடு உடையோருக்கு மின்மயமாக்கிய உள்ளடக்கம், அறிவைப் பெறும் சூழல், அறிவுசார் சொத்துரிமை, திறந்தவெளி ஆக்கங்கள், இணையவழி ஆளுகை, தொழில்நுட்பச் சீர்திருத்தம், இணையவெளியில் தனியுரிமை, இணையவெளிப் பாதுகாப்பு போன்ற தலைப்புகளில் இந்நிறுவனம் கவனம் செலுத்துகிறது.</p>
<p>2. ஆக்சுபோர்டு இன்டர்நெட் இன்ஸ்டிடியூட் என்ற ஆய்வு நிறுவனம் ஆக்சுபோர்டு பல்கலைக்கழகத்தைச் சேர்ந்தது. இது இணையச் சமூகத்துக்காகவே தனித்துவமாக உருவாக்கப்பட்ட துறை.</p>
<p>3. ஹூஸ் நாலெட்ஜ் என்ற இயக்கம், உலகளவில் ஒடுக்கப்பட்ட சமூகங்களின் அறிவுசார் ஆக்கங்களை இணையவெளியில் கொண்டு வர முயற்சி எடுக்கிறது.</p>
<p>நாங்கள் மூவரும் இணைந்து, இணையத்தில் பயன்பாட்டிலுள்ள மொழிகளைப் பற்றிய ஆய்வறிக்கையை தயாரிக்கிறோம். புள்ளிவிவரங்களையும், தகவல்களையும் வெளியிட்டு, பன்மொழிச் சூழலில் எந்தளவு பின்தங்கி இருக்கிறோம் என்பதை உணர்த்த உள்ளோம். இணையவெளியில் ஆக்கங்களை வெளியிட எங்களால் முடிந்த சில வாய்ப்புகளையும் வழங்க உள்ளோம்.</p>
<p><strong>உங்கள் உதவி எங்களுக்கு தேவைப்படுவதன் காரணம்:</strong> இத்தகைய சிக்கல்களை எதிர்நோக்கி வருவோரின் அனுபவங்களையும், அவர்கள் முயன்ற தீர்வுகளையும் பற்றி அறிந்துகொள்வதே இவ்வாய்வின் நோக்கம்.</p>
<p>நீங்கள்,</p>
<ul>
<li>ஒடுக்கப்பட்ட சமூகத்தைச் சேர்ந்தவராக உணர்ந்தாலோ, உங்கள் சமூகத்தின் அறிவுசார் உள்ளடக்கங்கள் இணையவெளியில் கிடைப்பதில்லை என்று கருதினாலோ, உங்கள் மொழி எழுத்துவடிவங்கள் அணுகவும், படிக்கவும் ஏற்றவகையில் கணினிமயமாக்கப்படவில்லை என்று உணர்ந்தாலோ,</li>
<li>தொழில்நுட்பராக இருந்து, ஆதிக்கத்துக்கு உட்பட்டோரின் மொழிகளுக்காக விசைப்பலகைகள் செய்பவராக இருந்தாலோ,</li>
<li>மொழியியலாளராக இருந்து, பல்வேறு சமூகங்களை ஒருங்கிணைத்து, தொழில்நுட்பத்தை அவர்களுக்கு புரியும் வகையிலும், அணுகும் வகையிலும் கிடைக்கச் செய்தாலோ,</li>
<li>… உங்களைத் தான் தேடிக் கொன்டிருக்கிறோம்!</li></ul>
<p>உங்கள் இணையவெளி அனுபவங்களை எங்களுக்கு தெரிவிப்பதன் மூலம், ஒவ்வொரு மொழிச் சமூகத்தின் நிலையையும் நாங்கள் அறிந்துகொள்ள உதவியாக இருக்கும். அத்துடன், எத்தகைய வாய்ப்புகளை ஏற்படுத்தித் தரலாம் என்றும் நாங்கள் சிந்திக்க உதவியாய் இருக்கும்.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>உங்களிடம் நாங்கள் கேட்க விரும்பும் சில கேள்விகள்:</h3>
<ul>
<li>நீங்களும், உங்கள் மொழிச் சமூகத்தினரும் இணையவெளியில் உங்கள் மொழியை எப்படி பயன்படுத்துகிறீர்கள்?</li>
<li>இன்றைய நிலையில், இணையவெளியில் உங்கள் மொழியைக் கொண்டு செய்ய முடியாதது இருப்பின், அதற்கு என்ன செய்ய விரும்புவீர்கள்?</li>
<li>இணையவெளியில் உங்கள் மொழியில் என்னென்ன ஆக்கங்கள் இருக்கின்றன, எவை இல்லை? (எடுத்துக்காட்டாக, செய்திகள், சமுக வலைத்தளம், கல்விசார் உள்ளடக்கம், அரசுசார் உள்ளடக்கம், மனமகிழ் வீடியோக்கள், இணையவழி கற்றல், போன்றவை)</li>
<li>உங்கள் மொழியில் ஆக்கங்களை படைப்பதற்கு எந்த தளத்தை நாடுவீர்கள், எந்த தொழில்நுட்பத்தை பயன்படுத்துவீர்கள்? (எ.கா : ஒளி, ஒலி, உரை, உரைநடை ஒழுங்கமைவு, பிழைத்திருத்திக் கருவி போன்றவை)</li>
<li>உங்கள் மொழியில் எழுதுவதற்கோ, பகிர்வதற்கோ முயலும் போது என்னென்ன மாதிரியான சிக்கல்களை இணையவெளியில் சந்திக்கிறீர்கள்? (எ.கா: அணுக்கம் இன்மை, கருவியில் எழுத்துரு ஆதரவின்மை, பிழை திருத்த கருவி இன்மை)</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>ஆய்வேடு சமர்ப்பித்தல்:</h3>
<p>மேற்கண்ட கேள்விகளுக்கு உங்கள் சமூகத்தினரிடமும், உங்களிடமும் அனுபவம் மூலம் விடை கிடைத்திருக்கும் என நம்புகிறோம். அவற்றைப் பற்றி தெரிந்து கொள்ள விரும்புகிறோம்!</p>
<p>கட்டுரையாகவோ, கலைப்படைப்பாகவோ, பதிவு செய்யப்பட்ட ஆவணமாகவோ, வேறு வடிவிலோ உங்கள் படைப்புகள் இருக்கலாம். நீங்கள் விரும்பினால் உங்களை பேட்டி காணவும் தயாராக இருக்கிறோம். உங்கள் படைப்புகள் எந்த மொழியில் இருந்தாலும் ஏற்போம். எங்களிடமுள்ள பன்மொழிச் சமூகத்திடம் உங்கள் படைப்புகளை கொடுத்து அவற்றை சீராய்வு செய்யச் சொல்வோம்.</p>
<p>உங்களுக்கு பங்கேற்க விருப்பமா? raw@cis-india.org என்ற மின்னஞ்சல் முகவரிக்கு, செப்டம்பர் இரன்டாம் தேதிக்கு முன்னர் அனுப்புக. 300 சொற்களுக்கு மிகாமல், கீழ்க்காணும் விவரங்களைக்</p>
<ul>
<li>உங்கள் பெயர்</li>
<li>இருப்பிடம் – பிறந்த நாடும், தற்போது வாழும் நாடும்</li>
<li>உங்கள் மொழி(கள்)</li>
<li>உங்கள் சமூகத்தினரைப் பற்றிய தகவல் (அ) நீங்கள் விரும்பும் சமூகத்தினரைப் பற்றிய தகவல்</li>
<li>எந்தெந்த கேள்விகளுக்கு பதிலளிக்க விரும்புகிறீர்கள், ஏன்</li>
<li>உங்கள் படைப்பு எந்த வடிவில் உள்ளது</li>
<li>உங்கள் பங்களிப்பை மேம்படுத்தல் நாங்கள் ஏதும் செய்ய வேண்டுமா</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>காலகட்டம்:</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>2 செப்டம்பர், 2019:</strong> உங்கள் படைப்புகள் எங்களை வந்தடைய வேண்டிய கடைசி நாள்</li>
<li><strong>1 நவம்பர், 2019:</strong> தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்ட படைப்பாளர்களிடம் விவரம் தெரிவிக்கப்படும் நாள்</li>
<li><strong>1 திசம்பர், 2019:</strong> முதற்கட்ட பங்களிப்பு நடைபெறும். பங்களிப்பை ஜனவரி மாத மத்தியில் முடிக்க முயற்சி செய்வோம்.</li></ul>
<p>தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்ட படைப்பாளிகளுக்கு 500 அமெரிக்க டாலர்கள் ஊக்கத்தொகையாக வழங்கப்படும். நாங்கள் தயாரிக்கும் அறிக்கையில் அவர்களின் படைப்பு வெளியிடப்படும்.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/stil-2020-call'>https://cis-india.org/raw/stil-2020-call</a>
</p>
No publishersneha-ppLanguageResearchResearchers at WorkDigital KnowledgeDecolonizing the Internet's LanguagesFeaturedState of the Internet's LanguagesDigital HumanitiesHomepage2019-08-07T12:29:25ZBlog Entry