The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 21 to 35.
Open Standards Workshop at IGF '09
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-workshop-09
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society co-organized a workshop on 'Open Standards: A Rights-Based Framework' at the fourth Internet Governance Forum, at Sharm el-Sheikh. The panel was chaired by Aslam Raffee of Sun Microsystems and the panellists were Sir Tim Berners-Lee of W3C, Renu Budhiraja of India's DIT, Sunil Abraham of CIS, Steve Mutkoski of Microsoft, and Rishab Ghosh of UNU-MERIT.</b>
<p>Sir Tim Berners-Lee started the session with an address on various rights. Rights, he noted can range from being things like the rights to air and water to the right not to have the data carrier you use determine which movie you watch. Then, there are tensions between rights: the right to anonymity can clash with the right to know who posted information on making a bomb. Berners-Lee stated that for 2009, he has chosen to pursue one particular right: the right to government-held data. This data can include everything from where schools are to emergency services such as locations of hospitals. Today, we are talking about standards. </p>
<p>The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is a fifteen-year old body in which all kinds of people come together for purposes of setting standards around the World Wide Web. Thus, everything from HTML, which is used to write Web pages to WCAG, which are guidelines to enable people with disabilities access websites through assistive technologies. W3C conducts its discussions openly: anybody who has a good idea has a right to participate in its discussions -- it does not matter who one works for, who one represents -- what does matter are the ideas one brings to the table. The kinds of standards that W3C deals with are of interest to an immensely wide-ranging group of people. Even ten-year olds have actually expressed their opinions about standards like HTML. All this openness of participation must be guaranteed while ensuring that the processes move forward.</p>
<p>Next spoke Renu Budhiraja of the Department of Information and Technology, which is a part of the Indian government. She started off by hoping that this workshop would be not only a platform to share knowledge, but also to reach consensus on a few matters. Next, she laid out why open standards are extremely important for the Indian government. What citizens want in their interactions with the government are ease of interaction and efficiency. For them it is immaterial whether a certain service is provided by Department A or Department B. Thus we need to move towards a single-window government service for citizens, enabling them to interact easily with the government's various departments. While such an initiative must be centralized for it to be effective, it is crucial that its implementation be decentralized and suited to each district or localities' needs.</p>
<p>There is, understandably, a huge institutional mechanism behind ensuring that these systems are based on open standards. We have expert committees, consisting of academics and knowledgeable bureaucrats, and working groups, which include industry groups. Through these, we have evolved a National Policy on Open Standards, which is currently in a draft stage, but shall be notified soon. This policy outlines the principles based on which particular standards required for governmental functioning are to be chosen or evolved. This document will ensure long-term accessibility to public documents and information, and seamless interoperability of various governmental services and departments. It will also reduce the risk of vendor lock-in and reduce costs, and thus ensure long-term, sustainable, scalable and cost-effective solutions.</p>
<p>Ms. Budhiraja noted that there are a few aspects of the policy that bear discussion in a forum such as the IGF. First is the issue of whether royalty-free is the only choice for innovation. All other things equal, between royalty-free and reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) standards, of course royalty-free is to be preferred. But what if a superior technology (JPEG200 vs. JPEG) is RAND? What should the government's position be in such a case? Further, what should the government's position be when in a particular domain a RAND standard is the only option? </p>
<p>Next is the issue of single vs. multiple open standards. When interoperability is what we are aiming at, can multiple standards be recommended as some in the industry are asking us to do? And then is the issue of market maturity. The government sometimes finds itself in a situation where a standard is available, but well-developed products around that standard aren't and there aren't sufficient vendors using that standard. All these issues are of great practical importance when a government works on a policy document on standards.</p>
<p>Next up was Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society. His presentation was on open standards as citizens' and consumers' rights. He started off by citing the example of the Smart Card Operating System for Transport Application (SCOSTA) standard, and the implications that the SCOSTA story has on large-scale projects such as the National Unique ID project currently under way in India. SCOSTA, an open standard, was being written off as unimplementable by all the MNC smart card vendors who wished to push RAND standards. IIT Kanpur helped the government develop a working implementation. Within twenty days, the card manufacturers submitted modified cards for compliance testing by NIC. Because of SCOSTA being an open standard, local companies also joined the tender. The cost went down from Rs. 600 per card to Rs. 30 per card. This shows the benefits of open standards as a means of curbing oligopolistic pricing, and working for the benefit of consumers.</p>
<p>From a rights-based perspective, access to the state machinery is a primary right. Citizens should not be required to pirate or purchase software to interact with the state. If e-governance solutions are based on proprietary standards, not all citizens would be equal. The South African example or requiring a particular browser to access the election commission's website shows that in a rather drastic fashion. When intellectual property interferes with governmental needs, governments have not been shy of issuing compulsory licences. This was seen when during the Great War the United States government pooled various flight-related patents and compulsorily licensed them, as well as what we are currently seeing with many Aids-related drugs being compulsorily licensed in developing countries. Thus, there are precedents for such licensing, and governments should explore them in the realm of e-governance. Many countries now have statutes that guarantee the right to government-held information. Government Interoperability Frameworks should take these into account, and mandate all government-to-citizen (G2C) information be transacted via open standards. This must be backed up by a strong accessibility policy to ensure that the governments don't discriminate between their citizens.</p>
<p>Proprietary standards act like pseudo-intellectual property rights, just as DRMs do. They add a layer on top of rights such as copyright, and can prevent the exercise of fair use and fair dealing rights because of an inability to legally negotiate the standards in which the content is encoded in a cost-free manner. In guaranteeing this balance between copyrights and fair dealing rights, free software and alternative IP models play a crucial role. Because of software patents being recognized in a few countries, development of free software which allows citizens to exercise their fair use rights is harmed in all countries.</p>
<p>Steve Mutkoski of Microsoft spoke next and placed the standards debate in a large context. He noted that standards are a technicality that are only a small part of the large issue which is interoperability in e-governance and delivery to citizens. The real challenges are organizational and semantic interoperability. Frequently interoperability is not harmed by technical issues, but by legal and organizational issues. Governments used to work on paper; during the shift to electronic data, they didn't engage in any organizational changes. Thus they continue to function with electronic data the same way that they did with paper-based data. Governments often lack strong privacy policies regarding the data that each of their departments holds. This harms governmental functioning. Additionally, legacy hardware and software have to be catered to by the standards we are talking about: sometimes an open standard just will not work. </p>
<p>Standards don't guarantee interoperability, and there is significant work done on this by noted academics ("Why Standards Are Not Enough To Guarantee End-to-End Interoperability" Lewis et al.; "Difficulties Implementing Standards" Egyedi & Dahanayake; "Standards Compliant, But Incompatible?" Egyedi et al.). Mandated standards lists will not help address interoperability issues between different implementations of the same standard. What would help? Transparency of implementations; collaboration with community; active participation in maintenance of standards, etc., would help. There is a need for continued public sector reform, with a focus on citizen-centric e-governance, and a need to engage with the question of whether government-mandated standards lists lead the market or follow the market.</p>
<p>Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, a senior researcher at UN University, Maastricht, spoke next. He started by noting that technical standards are left to technical experts. That needs to change, which is why discussing open standards at the IGF is important. He next set off a hypothetical: imagine you go to the city council office in Sharm el Sheik, and at the parking lot there it says that your car has to be a Ford if you are to park there; or if the Dutch government insists that you have a Philips TV if you are to receive the national broadcaster's signal. While these might seem absurd, situations like this arise all the time when it comes to the realm of software. Thus, the social effects of open standards are of utmost importance, and not just their technical qualities. Analysing the social effects of open standards takes us back to the economics of technology and technological standards. Technological standards exhibit network externalities: their inherent value is less than the value of others using them. Being the only person in the world with a telephone won't be very useful. Technological standards also exhibit path dependence: once you go with one technological format, it is difficult to change over to another even if that other format is superior to the first. Thus, clearly, standards benefit when there is a 'natural monopoly'. The challenge really arises when faced with the question of how to ensure a monopoly in a technology without the supplier of that technology exhibiting monopolistic tendencies. This can only be done when the technology is open and developed openly, of which the web standards and the W3C are excellent examples. If the technology or the process are semi-open, then because of the few intellectual property rights attached to the technology, some would be better off than others. Just as governments cannot insist on driving a particular make of cars as a prerequisite for access to them, they cannot insist on using a particular proprietary standard as a means of accessing them.</p>
<p>Many interesting questions arose when the floor was thrown open to the audience. "Should governments only mandate a particular standard when it is certain that market maturity exists?" Not really, since governmental decisions also give signals to the market and help direct attention to those standards. It would be best if roadmaps were provided, with particular under-mature standards being designated as "preferred standards", thus helping push industry in a particular direction. Examples where this strategy has borne fruit abound. This is also the strategy found in the Australian GIF. On the issue of multiplicity of standards, Sir Tim was very clear that they have to be avoided at all costs. He gave the example of XSLT and CSS, which are both stylesheet formats. He noted that their domain of operation was very different (with one being for servers and the other for clients), so having two standards with similar functions but different domains of operation does not make them multiple standards. Multiple standards defeat the purpose of the standardization process.</p>
<p>It was noted that governmental choices are of practical importance to citizens. During the Hurricane Katrina emergency, the federal emergency website only worked properly if Internet Explorer was used. How do we move forward? We must move forward by having policies that strike a balance between allowing for the natural evolution of standards and stability. The Government Interoperability Frameworks must be dynamic documents, allowing for categorization between standards and having clear roadmaps to enable industry to provide solutions to the government in a timely fashion. Governments must be strong in order to push industry towards openness, for the sake of its citizens, and not let industry dictate proprietary standards as the solution. Some opined that since there are dozens of domains that governments function in, maintaining lists of standards is a time-consuming process that is not justified, but others rebutted that by noting that for enterprise architectures to work, governments have to maintain such lists internally. Opening up that list to citizens and service providers would not entail greater overheads.</p>
<p><strong>Sunil Abraham talking Open Standards at IGF09</strong></p>
<p>(Video added on December 30, 2009)<br /><br /><br /><a title="<OBJECT>, shockwave-flash@http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" class="__noscriptPlaceholder__" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1">
</a></p>
<div style="float: none; text-align: start;" class="__noscriptPlaceholder__1"><a title="<OBJECT>, shockwave-flash@http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" class="__noscriptPlaceholder__" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1">
<div class="__noscriptPlaceholder__2"> </div>
</a></div>
<a title="<OBJECT>, shockwave-flash@http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" class="__noscriptPlaceholder__" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1">
</a>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-workshop-09'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-workshop-09</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsConsumer RightsDigital GovernanceFair DealingsFLOSSWorkshopOpenness2011-08-23T02:54:03ZBlog EntryOpenness, Videos, Impressions
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/OVSreport
<b>The one day Open Video Summit organised by the Centre for Internet & Society, iCommons, Open Video Alliance, and Magic Lantern, to bring together a range of stakeholders to discuss the possibilities, potentials, mechanics and politics of Open Video. Nishant Shah, who participated in the conversations, was invited to summarise the impressions and ideas that ensued in the day.</b>
<p></p>
<p>The notion of free and open is under great debate even under
that, and I think even when you side with a camp, there are going to be further
splinters. There are many ways of defining the free and open, and I think that the
tension, rather than being resolved, needs to be sustained and creatively
perpetrated to keep an internal checks and balances on not getting carried away
with it. All the groups did indeed circle around this in different,
often tangential ways – that there is need to define, variously and almost
endlessly, in defining the context of the free that we are dealing with.</p>
<p>Open video, in that matter, has gone through different
iterations, and I think it is nice that different stakeholders have defined it
variously, and also looked at the problems that it might lead to. However, for
the sake of synthesis, I am going to let you have your own idea of free and
open but instead look at five key words which have emerged, in my selective
hearing, through the day: <strong>Access, Archive,
Share, Remix, Repurpose</strong>. And it is these five that we need to now
imbricate these concepts across different thematic that emerged in the groups
today.</p>
<p><strong>Access</strong> has been one primary question that almost everybody
dealt with; Access has its legacies in the Open and Free culture movements,
where technological access, dealing with questions of open standards and
content, of bandwidth and infrastructure. More interestingly, in an emerging
information society like India, there are other concerns of language, access,
privilege, bandwidth, education etc. To
contextualise access and to put it into different perspectives is something
that different participants have voiced the need for.</p>
<p><strong>Archive</strong> is a preoccupation with most people because
archiving has close relationships with knowledge and subsequently retrieval and
usage. If knowledge is being digitised so that it is made accessible to
different people, there are older questions of representation, voice,
empowerment, participation, ethics, privacy, ownership etc. Crop up. In
education archiving has to do with the curricula building and knowledge
production. In networking, collaboration and film making, it is the kind of
issues that pad.ma is trying to tackle with. It also leads to notions of
access, distribution etc.</p>
<p><strong>Sharing </strong>is what is almost defining the spirit of the Open
and Free culture movements. There is a need to understand and explore what
sharing means. When does it infringe laws and what kind of regulation needs to
be advocated so that sharing becomes possible. How does one overcome questions
of piracy, stealing, IPR etc? More interestingly, what do we share and who do
we share it with? Tools by which sharing
leads to innovation? How does it lead to new participation and learning
practices and pedagogies? What kind of open distribution models and networks
can be built up?</p>
<p><strong>Remix</strong> has been of great value because it means that you are
being converted into some sort of a stakeholder or a contributor to the
process. Networking and nodes, network-actor, collaborator , peer 2 peer – the
possibility of looking at questions of internet and digital traces is
interesting. Or imagine that the act of sharing is also a remix. Sometimes just
putting it into new contexts, making it available to newer constituencies, etc.
can also be looked upon as remixing. Remix as a knowledge production aesthetic
and mechanics seems to have emerged.</p>
<p><strong>Repurpose </strong>is my additional reading of something that perhaps
needs no mention to this group, but nonetheless needs flagging. The fact
remains, that the technology is not a solution in itself. It is a tool that
enables the solutions which one is seeking for. The processes, paradigms,
protocols and practices are indeed shaped and mediated by technologies and
there are new solution possibilities which are produced. However, there still
seem to be anxieties, concerns, questions and problems which are cropping up
and need to be addressed outside of technology but within technology ecologies.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/OVSreport'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/OVSreport</a>
</p>
No publishernishantConferenceOpen StandardsArtWorkshopDigital AccessFLOSSOpen ContentArchivesOpennessOpen InnovationMeetingOpen Access2011-09-22T12:23:13ZBlog EntryDCOS Agreement on Procurement
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-agreement-on-procurement
<b>On December 6, 2008, at the closing of the third Internet Governance Forum in Hyderabad, India, the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS), of which the Centre for Internet and Society is a member, released an agreement entitled the "Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) Agreement on Procurement in Support of Interoperability and Open Standards".</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-agreement-on-procurement'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-agreement-on-procurement</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsInternet Governance ForumWorkshop2011-08-23T02:58:35ZBlog EntryWorkshop on Reforming the International ICT Standardization System
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/workshop-on-reforming-the-international-ict-standardization-system
<b>On Day 4, the last day, of the Internet Governance Forum, a workshop was conducted by the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards on the reforming the international ICT standardisation system. The panellists were Bob Jolliffe of Freedom to Innovate South Africa, Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society, Ashish Gautam of IBM India, and Aslam Raffee, Chairperson of the Government IT Officers' Council, OSS Working Group, Republic of South Africa, who moderated the session.</b>
<p>Mr. Rafee, after introducing the panellists, laid out the parameters of the discussion. He noted that the discussion was not about "open standards" per se, but about the standardisation process.</p>
<p>Mr. Jolliffe noted that the main problems revolved around the question of legitimacy of the Standard Setting Organizations, which often arises from "standardisation by corporations" (a phrase coined by Martin Bryan), as shown by the representatives of the individual countries to the international bodies. For the international standardization process to acquire legitimacy, the national bodies need to do so first. A start can be made, Mr. Jolliffe noted, through simple steps like increase in stakeholder participation beyond vendors, full disclosure of institutional affiliations at the standardisation bodies, better streamlining of processes such as the fast-track system, and full and clear disclosures with regard to IP licensing terms would help in increasing accountability and legitimacy of standard setting organizations.</p>
<p>He also indicated that financial transparency, modernisation of processes (including remote participation), regulation of proportional influence of private interests, a code of best practices and innovation in patent searches, full interest disclosures, and clear display of IPR policies of committees would help in increasing the openness of standards.</p>
<p>Mr. Abraham chose to focus on the national standardization processes, and the lessons that can be learnt from those. He highlighted that the discussions around open standards were really discussions about standards followed by public institutions. He analogized the situation to private houses vs. the public road infrastructure, noting how the road infrastructure cannot be private. Ensuring that the public infrastructure was open to all, he said, was the important role played by the standardisation process. He went on to highlight the importance of open standards as a lever in the hands of governments which can be used to fix monopoly situations, as it was in the case of SCOSTA smart card standard, where the use of an open standard led to a drop in price from Rs.600 to Rs.30 and increased the number of vendors from 3 to 12. He then narrated a number of "stories" from India, Pakistan and Malaysia to show the various forms of weaknesses within the national standard setting processes. He further concluded that countries with weak institutions are the ones less likely to support open standards.</p>
<p>Mr. Abraham added the need to adopt common definitions of "open standards" and transparency of processes and encouragement of remote participation as suggestions for the standardization system.</p>
<p>Mr. Gautam from IBM India chose to talk about the standards principles that the company follows, and the need for reform of the standardization processes.<br /><br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/workshop-on-reforming-the-international-ict-standardization-system'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/workshop-on-reforming-the-international-ict-standardization-system</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsWorkshop2011-08-23T02:56:30ZBlog EntryCIS Comments on the Interoperability Framework for e-Governance (Phase I)
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/comments-ifeg-phase-1
<b>In November 2010, the Central Government released the Draft 0.6 of the Technical Standards for the Interoperability Framework for e-Governance (Phase I), requesting comments by January 27, 2011. Here are the comments that CIS submitted.</b>
<h3>General Review Comments</h3>
<ul>
<li>The present document is an excellent step in the right direction, following very ably the policy guidelines laid down in the National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance.</li>
<li>The Expert Committee and other contributors have made excellent choices as to the 19 standards that have been laid down in the IFEG. It is praiseworthy that of these 18 are designated as mandatory, and only two are designated as interim standards. Furthermore, the system has been very transparent with the selection of standards, providing concise descriptions for each.</li>
<li>It is also important to note that while accessibility has been mentioned while talking of HTML, accessibility standards should preferably also be specifically mentioned in the presentation and archival domain. </li>
<li>However, many other governmental interoperability frameworks are going beyond merely listing technical standards. Some governments, such as Germany and the EU, go beyond technical interoperability, and also have documents dealing with organizational, informational, and legal interoperability. These are equally important components of an interoperability framework. Other governments also also lay down best practice guides, and other aids to implementation, sometimes even including application recommendations. Further, there are many which lay out standards for the the semantic layer, business services layer, etc. </li>
<li>We at the Centre for Internet and Society are currently advising the government of Iraq on development of their e-Governance Interoperability Framework, and would be glad to extend any support that the Department of IT may require of us, including comments on all further phases. </li>
</ul>
<h3>Specific Section-wise Review Comments</h3>
<div>Section 5.2.7 - In the “additional remarks” row, it is stated that “If Adobe Systems Incorporated’s intent to make it royalty free is achieved then no further reviews will be necessary.”</div>
<div></div>
<div>This should be changed to indicate that (a) there might be entities other than Adobe that hold necessary patents over PDF v1.7, and (b) that a desirable feature—of there being multiple implementations of the standard—might not be fulfilled by PDF v1.7.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Adobe has in fact published a <a class="external-link" href="http://www.adobe.com/pdf/pdfs/ISO32000-1PublicPatentLicense.pdf">public patent licence</a> that covers PDF v1.7 (ISO 32000-1:2008), and makes all of Adobe’s essential claims over PDF v1.7 available royalty-free.</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/comments-ifeg-phase-1'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/comments-ifeg-phase-1</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsOpennessSubmissions2013-05-22T10:48:52ZBlog EntryComments on the draft National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/draft-ndsap-comments
<b>A draft of the 'National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy', which some hope will be the open data policy of India, was made available for public comments in early May. This is what the Centre for Internet and Society submitted.</b>
<p>These are the comments that we at the Centre for Internet and Society submitted to the National Spatial Data Infrastructure on the draft <a class="external-link" href="http://dst.gov.in/NDSAP.pdf">National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy</a>.</p>
<h2>Comments on the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy by the Centre for Internet and Society</h2>
<p>We would like to begin by noting our appreciation for the forward-thinking nature of the government that is displayed by its pursuit of a policy on sharing of governmental data and enabling its use by citizens. We believe such a policy is a necessity in all administratively and technologically mature democracies. In particular, we applaud the efforts to make this applicable through a negative list of data that shall not be shared rather than a positive list of data that shall be shared, hence making sharing the default position. However, we believe that there are many ways in which this policy can be made even better than it already is.</p>
<h2>1. Name</h2>
<p>We believe that nomenclature of the policy must accurately reflect both the content of the policy as well as prevailing usage of terms. Given that 'accessibility' is generally used to mean accessibility for persons with disabilities, it is advisable to change the name of the policy.</p>
<h3>Recommendation:</h3>
<p>A. We would recommend calling this the "National Open Data Policy" to reflect the nomenclature already established for similar policies in other nations like the UK. In the alternative, it could be called a "National Public Sector Information Reuse Policy". If neither of those are acceptable, then it could be re-titled the "National Data Sharing and Access Policy".</p>
<h2>2. Scope and Enforceability</h2>
<p>It is unclear from the policy what all departments it covers, and whether it is enforceable.</p>
<h3>Recommendation:</h3>
<p>A. This policy should cover the same scope as the Right to Information (RTI) Act: all 'public authorities' as defined under the RTI Act should be covered by this policy.</p>
<p>B. Its enforceability should be made clear by including provisions on consequences of non-compliance.</p>
<h2>3. Categorization</h2>
<p>The rationale for the three-fold categorization is unclear. In particular, it is unclear why the category of 'registered access' exists, and on what basis the categorization into 'open access' and 'registered access' is to be done. If the purpose of registration is to track usage, there are many better ways of doing so without requiring registration.</p>
<h3>Recommendation:</h3>
<p>A. Having three categories of:</p>
<ul><li>Open data</li><li>Partially restricted data</li><li>Restricted data</li></ul>
<p>B. Data that is classified as non-shareable (as per a reading of s.8 and s.9 of RTI Act as informed by the decisions of the Central Information Commission) should be classified as ‘restricted’.</p>
<p>C. The rationale for classifying data as 'open' or 'partially restricted' should be how the data collection body is funded. If it depends primarily on public funds, then the data it outputs should necessarily be made fully open. If it is funded primarily through private fees, then the data may be classified as 'partially restricted'. 'Partially restricted' data may be restricted for non-commercial usage, with registration and/or a licence being required for commercial usage.</p>
<h2>4. Licence</h2>
<p>No licence has been prescribed in the policy for the data. Despite India not allowing for database rights, it still allows for copyright over original literary works, which includes original databases. All governmental works are copyrighted by default in India, just as they are in the UK. To ensure that this policy goes beyond merely providing access to data to ensure that people are able to use that data, it must provide for a conducive copyright licence.</p>
<h3>Recommendation:</h3>
<p>A. The licence that has been created by the UK government (another country in which all governmental works are copyrighted by default) may be referred to: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/</p>
<p>B. However, the UK needed to draft its own licence because the concept of database rights are recognized in the EU, which is not an issue here in India. Thus, it would be preferable to use the Open Data Commons - Attribution licence:</p>
<p>http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/</p>
<p>The UK licence is compatible with both the above-mentioned licence as well as with the Creative Commons - Attribution licence, and includes many aspects that are common with Indian law, e.g., bits on usage of governmental emblems, etc.</p>
<h2>5. Integrity of the data</h2>
<p>Currently, there is no way of ensuring that the data that is put out by the data provider is indeed the data that has been downloaded by a citizen.</p>
<h3>Recommendation:</h3>
<p>It is imperative to require data providers to provide integrity checks (via an MD5 hash of the data files, for instance) to ensure that technological corruption of the data can be detected.</p>
<h2>6. Authenticity of the data</h2>
<p>Currently, there is no way of ensuring that the data that is put out by the data provider indeed comes from the data provider.</p>
<h3>Recommendation:</h3>
<p>It is preferable to require data providers to authenticate the data by using a digital signature.</p>
<h2>7. Archival and versioning</h2>
<p>The policy is silent on how long data must be made available.</p>
<h3>Recommendation:</h3>
<p>There must be a system of archival that is prescribed to enable citizens to access older data. Further, a versioning and nomenclature system is required alongside the metadata to ensure that citizens know the period that the data pertains to, and have access to the latest data by default.</p>
<h2>8. Open standards</h2>
<p>While the document does mention standards-compliance, it is preferable to require open standards to the greatest extent possible, and require that the data that is put out be compliant with the Interoperability Framework for e-Governance (IFEG) that the government is currently in the process of drafting and finalizing.</p>
<h3>Recommendation:</h3>
<p>A. The policy should reference the National Open Standards Policy that was finalised by the Department of Information Technology in November 2010, as well as to the IFEG.</p>
<p>B. The data should be made available, insofar as possible, in structured documents with semantic markup, which allows for intelligent querying of the content of the document itself. Before settling upon a usage-specific semantic markup schema, well-established XML schemas should be examined for their suitability and used wherever appropriate. It must be ensured that the metadata are also in a standardized and documented format.</p>
<h2>9. Citizen interaction</h2>
<p>One of the most notable failings of other governments' data stores has been the fact that they don't have adequate interaction with the citizen projects that emerge from that data. For instance, it is sometimes seen that citizens may point out flaws in the data put out by the government. At other times, citizens may create very useful and interesting projects on the basis of the data made public by the government.</p>
<h3>Recommendation:</h3>
<p>A. The government's primary datastore (data.gov.in) should catalogue such citizen projects, including open and documented APIs that the have been made available for easy access to that data.</p>
<p>B. Additionally the primary datastore should act as a conduit for citizen's comments and corrections to the data provider. Data providers should be required to take efforts to keep the data up-to-date.</p>
<p>C. Multiple forms of access should preferably be provided to data, to allow non-technical users interactive use of the data through the Web.</p>
<h2>10. Principles, including 'Protection of Intellectual Property'</h2>
<p>It is unclear why ‘protection of intellectual property’ is one of the guiding principles of this policy. Only those ideals which are promoted by this policy should be designated as ‘principles’. This policy, insofar as we can see, has no relation whatsoever with protection of intellectual property. The government is not seeking to enforce copyright over the data through this policy. Indeed, it is seeking to encourage the use of public data. Indeed, the RTI Act makes it clear in s.9 that government copyright shall not act as a barrier to access to information.</p>
<p>Given that, it makes no sense to include ‘protection of intellectual property’ amongst the principles guiding this policy. Further, there are some other principles that may be removed without affecting the purpose or aim of this document: ‘legal conformity’ (this is a given since a policy wouldn’t wish to violate laws); ‘formal responsibility’ (‘accountability’ encapsulates this); ‘professionalism’ (‘accountability’ encapsulates this); ‘security’ (this policy isn’t about promoting security, though it needs to take into account security concerns).</p>
<h3>Recommendation:</h3>
<p>A. Remove ‘protection of intellectual property’, ‘legal conformity’, ‘formal responsibility’, ‘professionalism’, and ‘security’ from the list of principles in para 1.2.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/draft-ndsap-comments'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/draft-ndsap-comments</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsOpen DataSubmissionsOpenness2011-08-24T06:32:55ZBlog EntryWikipedia Introductory Session organized for Data and India portal consultants
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/wikipedia-introductory-session
<b>On May 13, 2013, the Access to Knowledge team led by Subhashish Panigrahi conducted a Wikipedia Introductory Session at the National Informatics Centre in New Delhi for the consultants working for Data and India portal. This session was aimed to emphasize how these portals and their useful data could be used on Wikipedia to create good quality articles.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Recently <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/" class="external-link">Centre for Internet and Society</a>'s <a class="external-link" href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge">Access To Knowledge</a> team was invited to demonstrate the usefulness of Wikipedia for the consultants of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.nic.in/">National Informatics Centre</a> (NIC) working for the <a class="external-link" href="http://data.gov.in/">Data.gov.in</a> and the <a class="external-link" href="http://india.gov.in/">National Portal of India</a> at NIC's New Delhi office. Data portal being one of the very important open data portal of the Government of India has worked immensely to populate over 2400 datasets from 32 departments participating in it.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc"><sup>1</sup></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many of the data need to be transcribed in popular medias especially on web. Wikipedia being world's largest online encyclopedia could be one such primary platform to use these useful data. <a class="external-link" href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Psubhashish">Subhashish</a> from A2K team explained the usefulness of Wikipedia for the people associated with this project. The session went with discussing about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_policies">policies</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style">Manual of style</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars">Five pillars of Wikipedia</a> followed by a demonstration of editing articles on English Wikipedia. Post editing session there was a discussion session about the notability and how to check accuracy of articles by using valid references.</p>
<hr />
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym">1</a> <a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/11DMH5w">http://bit.ly/11DMH5w</a></p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/wikipedia-introductory-session'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/wikipedia-introductory-session</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaOpen StandardsDigital GovernanceDigital AccessOpen DataOpen ContentOpen AccessOpennessOpen Innovation2013-07-17T06:33:20ZBlog EntryEvent Report: Community Discussion on Open Standards
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/event-report-community-discussion-on-open-standards
<b>This community discussion organised by HasGeek was held at the office of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, India on June 20, 2019. </b>
<p> </p>
<p>Open standards are important for the growth and evolution of technology and practices for consumers and industries. They provide a range of tangible benefits, including, for instance, a reduction in cost of development for small businesses and organizations, facilitation of interoperability across different technologies in certain cases, and encouragement of competitiveness in the software and services market. Open standardization also encourages innovation, expansion in market access, transparency — along with a decrease in regulatory rigidity, as well as volatility in the market, and subsequently the surrounding economy, as well.</p>
<p>The importance of open standards is perhaps most strikingly evident when considering the ardent growth and impact the Internet — and the World Wide Web in particular — have been able to enjoy. The modern Internet has arguably been governed, at least for the most part, by the continuous development and maintenance of an array of inventive protocols and technical standards. Open standards are usually developed in a public-consultancy process, where the standards development organizations (“SDOs”) involved follow a multi-stakeholder model of decision-making. Multi-stakeholder models like this ensure equity to groups with varying interests, and also ensures that any resulting technology, protocol or standard which is developed is in accordance with the general consensus of those involved.</p>
<p>This event report highlights a community discussion on the state of open standardization in the age where immediately accessible cloud computing services are readily available to consumers — along with an imagined roadmap for the future; one which ensures steady ground for users as well as the open standards and open source software communities. Participants in the discussion focused on what they believed to be the key areas of open standardization, establishing a requirement for regulatory action in the open standards domain, while also touching upon the effects of market forces on stakeholders within the ecosystem, which ultimately guide the actions of software companies, service providers, users, and other consumers.</p>
<p>The event report can be accessed <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/open_standards-event_report_2019.pdf">here.</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/event-report-community-discussion-on-open-standards'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/event-report-community-discussion-on-open-standards</a>
</p>
No publisherKaran Saini, Prem Sylvester and Anishka VaishnavCommunitiesOpen StandardsEvent2019-08-02T06:51:00ZBlog EntryRegulating the Internet: The Government of India & Standards Development at the IETF
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/regulating-the-internet-the-government-of-india-standards-development-at-the-ietf
<b>The institution of open standards has been described as a formidable regulatory regime governing the Internet. Given the regulatory and domestic policy implications that technical standards can have, there is a need for Indian governmental agencies to focus adequate resources geared towards achieving favourable outcomes at standards development fora.</b>
<p>This brief was authored by Aayush Rathi, Gurshabad Grover and Sunil Abraham. Click <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/regulating-the-internet">here</a> to download the policy brief.</p>
<hr />
<h2>Executive Summary</h2>
<div> </div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The institution of open standards has been described as a formidable regulatory regime governing the Internet. As the Internet has moved to facilitate commerce and communication, governments and corporations find greater incentives to participate and influence the decisions of independent standards development organisations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">While most such bodies have attempted to systematise fair and transparent processes, this brief highlights how they may still be susceptible to compromise. Documented instances of large private companies like Microsoft, and governmental instrumentalities like the US National Security Agency (NSA) exerting disproportionate influence over certain technical standards further the case for increased Indian participation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The debate around Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.3 at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) forms an important case for studying how a standards body responded to political developments, and how the Government of India participated in the ensuing discussions. Lasting four years, the debate ended in favour of greater communications security. One of the security improvements in TLS 1.3 over its predecessor is that is makes less information available to networking middleboxes. Considering that Indian intelligence agencies and government departments have expressed fears of foreign-manufactured networking equipment being used by foreign intelligence to eavesdrop on Indian networks, the development is potentially favourable for the security of Indian communication in general, and the security of military and intelligence systems in particular. India has historically procured most networking equipment from foreign manufacturers. While there have been calls for indigenised production of such equipment, achieving these objectives will necessarily be a gradual process. Participating in technical standards can, then, be an effective interim method for intelligence agencies, defence wings and law enforcement for establishing trust in critical networking infrastructure sourced from foreign enterprises.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Outlining some of the existing measures the Indian government has put in place to build capacity for and participate in standard setting, this brief highlights that while these are useful starting points, they need to be harmonised and strengthened to be more fruitful. Given the regulatory and domestic policy implications that technical standards can have, there is a need for Indian governmental agencies to focus adequate resources geared towards achieving favourable outcomes at standards development fora.</p>
<hr />
<p>Click <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/regulating-the-internet">here</a> to download the policy brief.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Note: The recommendations in the brief were updated on 17 December 2018 to reflect the relevance of technical standard-setting in the recent discussions around Indian intelligence concerns about foreign-manufactured networking equipment.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/regulating-the-internet-the-government-of-india-standards-development-at-the-ietf'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/regulating-the-internet-the-government-of-india-standards-development-at-the-ietf</a>
</p>
No publisherAayush Rathi, Gurshabad Grover and Sunil AbrahamOpen StandardsCryptographyCybersecurityInternet GovernanceSurveillanceIETFEncryption Policy2019-01-22T07:29:39ZBlog Entryଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sambada-rabibara-subhashish-panigrahi-december-6-2015-odia-wikisource
<b>Odia newspaper Sambad carried this featured column of mine yesterday in their Sunday supplement "Sambada Rabibara" on December 6, 2015. </b>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">It sheds light on how important it is to digitize published work and make them available in open standard. Odia Wikisource, a sister project of Odia Wikipedia and a free and open online library, is growing up with more and more Odia books every day. With a vast majority of the native language speakers seeking knowledge online, useful content like available online is going to pay a very crucial role. Be it popular literature or popular science writings, Odia Wikisource is growing up with books of various genre and helping preserve old published works.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଭାଷାଟିଏ ବଢ଼ିଲେ ବଢ଼ନ୍ତି ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ । ବଢ଼େ ସେ ଭାଷାର ଅଭିଲେଖ । ଆଉ ଆମ ଭାଷାଟି କେଇ ଶହ-ହଜାର ବର୍ଷ ଭିତରେ ଶାଖା ପ୍ରଶାଖା ମେଲି ଯେ କେଡ଼େ ବିଶାଳ ହୋଇଛି ତାହା ଆମେ ଜାଣୁ । ଭାଷା ନଈଟି ବହୁ ଜାଗା ଦେଇ ବହୁ ବହୁ ଅନେକ ବହି ମଧ୍ୟ ଉତୁରିଉଠିଛି । ସେ ବହିମାନଙ୍କ ଭିତରୁ ଜଣାଶୁଣା ଲେଖକଙ୍କ ବହିଗୁଡ଼ିକ ଭଲ ଭାବେ ସଂରକ୍ଷିତ ହୋଇ ପୁନମୁଦ୍ରଣ ହେବା ସହିତ ପିଢ଼ି ପିଢ଼ି ଧରି ପଢ଼ାହେଉଛି। ହେଲେ ଗୁରୁତ୍ଵପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ତଥ୍ୟ ଥାଇ ମଧ୍ୟ ଅନେକ ବଣମଲ୍ଲୀ ସମ ଉପାଦେୟ ବହି ପ୍ରଚାର ପ୍ରସାର ଅଭାବରୁ ଲୋକଲୋଚନକୁ ଆସିପାରିନାହିଁ। ତା’ଛଡ଼ା ଅନେକ ବହି ପ୍ରକାଶକ ଓ ଲେଖକଙ୍କ ସମ୍ବଳ ଅଭାବ ହେତୁ, ପାଠକଙ୍କ ଅନାଗ୍ରହ ଯୋଗୁ ସାରା ଓଡ଼ିଶା ବା ଓଡ଼ିଶା ବାହାରକୁ ଯାଇପାରନ୍ତି ନାହିଁ । ଏମିତି ଅବସ୍ଥାରେ ଆମ ଭବିଷ୍ୟତ ସବୁଯାକ ବହି ନ ହେଲେ ମଧ୍ୟ କିଛି ପାଇବେ ତ?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">ଆଗରୁ ଆମର କୋଠକାଠିଆ ସମାଜ ଥିଲା। ଏକାଠି ବହୁଲୋକ ବସି ଆଳାପ ଆଲୋଚନା କରୁଥିଲେ। ବହି ପଢ଼ାଠୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ନ୍ୟାୟ ବିଚାର ଯାଏ ସବୁ ହେଉଥିଲା ସେଇଠି । ଆମ ବଡ଼ବଡ଼ୁଆମାନେ ସବୁ ଗୁରୁତ୍ଵପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ସିଦ୍ଧାନ୍ତ ସେଇଠି ନେଉଥିଲେ । ଅନେକ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ବୁଦ୍ଧଙ୍କ ଛବି ଖୋଜିଲେ ଏବେ ବି ଗଛ ତଳେ ଚଉକି ଉପରେ ଏକାଠି ହୋଇ ଲୋକେ ବିଚାର କରୁଥିବା ଦେଖିବାକୁ ମିଳେ । ଏକଦା ଭାଗବତ ଟୁଙ୍ଗିରେ ଭାଗବତ ପଢ଼ାହେବା ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇଥିଲା । ସେ ଥିଲା କେଇଘଣ୍ଟା ପାଇଁ ପାଠାଗାର ଆଉ ବେଳ ପାଇଁ ଚଳଣି ଆଉ ନ୍ୟାୟଘରା ପରେ ବହିର ଆଲୋଚନାଠାରୁ ସଂଗ୍ରହ ଓ ସଂରକ୍ଷଣ ଲୋଡ଼ା ପଡ଼ିବାରୁ ପାଠାଗାର ଆରମ୍ଭ ହେଲା । ତେବେ ଧୀରେ ଧୀରେ ଲୋକେ ବହି ପଢ଼ାଠାରୁ ଦୂରେଇ ଯିବାରୁ ପାଠାଗାର ବଣମଲ୍ଲୀ ସମାନ ହୋଇପଡ଼ିଲାଣି । ଆଜିର ପିଢ଼ି ଯେବେ ପୂରାପୂରି ଡିଜିଟାଲ୍ ମୁହାଁ ହୋଇସାରିଲେଣି, ଆମକୁ ବିଚାରିବାକୁ ହେବ ଏ ରାଶି ରାଶି ପୋଥି କାହା ପାଇଁ । ସମାଜଟିଏ ତା’ର ଆଗାମୀ ଭବିଷ୍ୟତର ଆଖିରେ ସପନ ଦେଖେ । ତେଣୁ ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନ ପିଢ଼ିର ଆବଶ୍ୟକତାକୁ ଅଣଦେଖା କରି କେବଳ ବହି ଛାପିଲେ ପାଠାଗାର ଯେ ଅଳିଆଗଦାରେ ପରିଣତ ନ ହେବ କିଏ କହିବ? ଆଗାମା ପିଢ଼ି ପାଇଁ କ’ଣ ଲେଖାହେବ, କ’ଣା ଲେଖା ନ ହେବ ଆଉ କିପରି ଲେଖା ହେବ ତାହା ଏକ ଜଟିଳ ବିଷୟ । ଭାଷା କହିଲେ ଖାଲି ସାହିତ୍ୟକୁ ବୁଝାଏ ନାହିଁ ବରଂ ସାହିତ୍ୟ ଭାଷାର ଏକ ଅଂଶ ବୋଲି ଅନେକଙ୍କୁ ବୁଝିବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିବ । ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଧରଣର ରଚନା ଓ ସେସବୁ ସାଇତା ହେବାର ଆବଶ୍ୟକତା ବହୁ ଭାବେ ରହିଛି । ଆମେ ଆଗକୁ ବଢ଼ିବା ବେଳେ ଆଉ ନୂଆ ଭାବିବା ବେଳେ ଆଗରୁ ଘଟିଥିବ ଘଟଣା ଆମ ପାଦ ତଳର ନିଅଁ ଭଳି କାମ କରେ । ତେଣୁ ନୂଆ ପିଢ଼ି ବହିଠାରୁ ଦୂରେଇ ଯାଉଛନ୍ତି ବୋଲି ଭାବିଲେ ଚୋରକୁ ମାନ ମାରି ଖପରାରେ ଖାଇବା ଭଳି ଦେବାକାମି ହେବା କାଗଜ ଉପରେ ଛପା ବହି ଯେତେ ନିଜର ଲାଗିଲେ ମଧ୍ୟ ଦିନେ ନା ଦିନେ ଚିରିବ କି ଉଇଙ୍କ ଆହାର ହେବା ଆଉ ଆଗତ ଦିନ ପାଇଁ ତାକୁ ସାଇତି ରଖିବାର ସଳଖ ବାଟଟିଏ ହେଲା ତା’ର ଡିଜିଟାଲ୍ କପି ତିଆରିବା । ଇଂରାଜି, ଫ୍ରେଞ୍ଚ, ସ୍ଥାନିସ୍, ଜର୍ମାନ, ଜାପାନୀ ଆଦି ଭାଷାରେ ଲେଖା ପୋଥିପତର ସବୁ ସେଠାର ପାଠକ ଆଜି ବି ଆମ ଭଳି ବହିଧରି ପଢ଼ିବାକୁ ଭଲପାଆନ୍ତି । ଲଣ୍ଡନରେ କିଛି ଦିନର ରହଣି କାଳରେ ଦେଖି ଅଭିଭୂତ ହେଲି ସେଠା ଲୋକଙ୍କ ବହି ପଢ଼ାର ସଉକ । ଟ୍ରେନ୍ ଷ୍ଟେସନ୍ ବାଡ଼ାକୁ ଆଉଜି କିଏ ପଢୁଛି ତ କିଏ ଜନଗହଳି ଥାନରେ କଣଟିଏ ବାଛି ଫରଦ ପରେ ଫରଦ ଲେଉଟଉଛି । କିନ୍ତୁ ସେଠାର ପାଖାପାଖି ସବୁ ନୂଆ ବହି ଉଭୟ ଛପା ଓ ଇ-ବହି ବିକ୍ରି ହେଉଛି। ନୂଆ ଟେକ୍ନୋଲୋଜି ଆସିଗଲା ବୋଲି ପୁରୁଣା, ପୂରା ଫୋପାଡ଼ିଦେବା କେବଳ ମଝିମଝିଆ ସମାଜର ଲକ୍ଷଣ । ହେଲେ ଉଚ୍ଚତର ସମାଜରେ ପୁରୁଣା ଓ ନୂଆର ବିଭା ସବୁଠି ଦେଖିବାକୁ ମିଳେ। ତେଣୁ ଆମ ବହିମାନଙ୍କ ବିକ୍ରି କମିଯିବ ବୋଲି ହାଉଳି ଖାଇ ଆମେ ନୂଆପିଢ଼ିକୁ ଆମ ବହିର ବାସନାପାଣିରୁ ବଞ୍ଚିତ କରୁନୁ ତ ? ଯଦି ସତରେ ଆମ ପର ପିଢ଼ି ଆମ ବହିଯାକ ନ ପଢ଼ନ୍ତି ତା’ହେଲେ ଏ ଜାତିର ଇତିହାସରେ ଆମେ ଲାଙ୍ଗୁଡ଼ଜକା ଆଉ ଚିରକାଳ ଦୋଷୀ ହୋଇ ରହିଯିବୁ ।</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">ଅବଶ୍ୟ ବହି କିଣି ହାତରେ ଧରି ପଢୁଥିବା ଲୋକଟି କେବେ ହେଁ ମୋବାଇଲ: ଟାବଲେଟ୍-କିଣ୍ଡିଲ୍-କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ ପଢ଼ିବାକୁ ସୁଖ ମଣିବ ନାହିଁ । କିନ୍ତୁ ବିମାନରେ ଯିବା ବେଳେ ଲୋଡ଼ା ପଡ଼ିଲେ ଡିଜିଟାଲ ମାଧମରେ ପଢ଼ିବା ଆଉ ବିଶାଳ ଗ୍ରନ୍ଥର କେଉଁ କୋଣରେ ଲେଖାଟିଏ ଖୋଜିବାକୁ ଚାହିଲେ, ସବୁ ପୃଷ୍ଠା ନ ଖୋଜି ପାଠକଟିଏ ସଳଖେ ସଳଖେ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଖୋଜିପାରିବା ବହିର ଡିଜିଟାଲ ରୂପ ତିଆରିବାରେ ‘ସୃଜନିକା’ ନାମକ ଅନୁଷ୍ଠାନର ଅବଦାନ କାହିଁରେ କେତେ ପାଖାପାଖି ଦେଢ଼ ଲକ୍ଷ ପୃଷ୍ଠା ସ୍କାନ୍ କରି ସେମାନେ ଅନେକ ଇ-ବହି ତିଆରି କରିସାରିଲେଣି। ୧୮୫୦-୧୯୫୦ ଭିତରେ ଛପା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପତ୍ରପତ୍ରିକାସବୁ ପ୍ରାୟ ଏଥିରେ ସାମିଲ । odia.org ନାମକ ଆଉ ଏକ ୱେବସାଇଟ୍ କିଛି ନିଜ ଉଦ୍ୟମରେ ଆଉ କିଛି ବାକିମାନଙ୍କ ସହଯୋଗରେ କିଛି ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବହି ଇଣ୍ଟର୍ନେଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇଛନ୍ତି । ଇଣ୍ଟର୍ନେଟ୍ ଆର୍କାଇଭ୍ (archive.org) ସାଇଟରେ ବହିସବୁ ପିଡିଏଫ୍ ଭାବେ ଅପ୍ଲୋଡ କଲେ ତାହା ମୋବାଇଲ୍ ଓ ଅନ୍ୟାନ୍ୟ ଆକାରରେ ଦେଖିବାକୁ ସୁବିଧା । ହେଲେ ଲୋଡ଼ାଥିଲା ଇଣ୍ଟର୍ନେଟରେ ପାଠାଗାରଟିଏ । ହେଲେ ଇଣ୍ଟର୍ନେଟ୍ ଯେତେବେଳେ ଖାଲି ପାଠକ ରହିଲେ କି ମଉଜ? ଦିଆ-ନିଆ ନ ଥାଇ ସେ କି ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ୍? ପାଠକ ଯଦି କେଉଁଠି ଭୁଲ୍ଟିଏ ଦେଖିଲେ ତାକୁ ବଦଳାଇ ପାରୁଥିବେ, ତା’ହେଲେ ସିନା । ଅନେକ ହୁଏତ ଜାଣି ନ ଥିବେ ସମାଧାନର ବାଟଟିଏ ରହିଛି । ଉଇକିପିଡିଆ (Wikipedia)ର ଓଡ଼ିଆ ସଂସ୍କରଣ or.wikipedia.org ୨୦୦୨ରୁ ସକ୍ରିୟ ଆଉ ଏଥିରେ ୧୦,୦୦୦ ପ୍ରସଙ୍ଗ ରହିଛି । ଏହାର ଆଉ ଏକ ସହ-ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ହେଲା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର । ଇଣ୍ଟର୍ନେଟ୍ରେ or wikisource. orgରେ ଖୋଲାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଏହି ଅନ୍ଲାଇନ୍ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପାଠାଗାରଟି କେବଳ ପଠନ ପାଇଁ ନୁହେଁ ବରଂ ସମ୍ପାଦନା ଓ ବହିର ଡିଜିଟାଲ୍ ରୂପ ତିଆରି ପାଇଁ । ପ୍ରତିଟି ପାଠକର ବହି ପାଇଁ ଟିକେ ହେଉ ପଛେ, କିଛି ଅବଦାନ ରହିବା ଉଚିତ । ଆଉ ସେ ଅବଦାନ ଯଦି ପୁରୁଣା ବିରଳ ବହିର ଲେଖାତକ ଆଉଥରେ ଟାଇପ୍ କରିହୁଏ କି ଆଉ କାହା ଦେଇ ଟାଇପ୍ ହୋଇଥିବା ବହିରେ ଭୁଲଭଟକା ସୁଧାରିବା ହୁଏ, ତା’ହେଲେ ପ୍ରତିଟି ପାଠକ ଜଣେ ଜଣେ ସମ୍ପାଦକ ହେବ । ଆଜିଯାଏ ଭାଷା କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ ହେଉ କିମ୍ବା ଆଉ କେଉଁ କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ ହେଉ ବିଶାଳତମ କୃତିସବୁ କେବେ ଜଣଙ୍କ ଦେଇ ନୁହେଁ ବରଂ ଗଣଙ୍କ ଦେଇ ହୋଇଛି । ଏଇ ଆଗରୁ ଯେଉଁ ଉଇକିପିଡିଆ କଥା କୁହାଗଲା, ସେ ବି ୨୦-୨୫ ପାଖାପାଖି ସକ୍ରିୟ ଉଇକିଆଳିଙ୍କ ଦେଇ ଲିଖିତ ଓ ସମ୍ପାଦିତ । ସେଇଭଳି ଏ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର ପାଇଁ ପାଖାପାଖି ୮-୯ ଜଣ ସକ୍ରିୟ ସଭ୍ୟ । ଆଉ ଆନନ୍ଦର କଥା ହେଲା, ଏଥିରେ ନାରୀ-ପୁରୁଷଙ୍କ ଯୋଗଦାନ ପାଖାପାଖି ଏକା । ବହୁଲୋକ ଏକାଠି ମିଳିମିଶି କାମ କଲେ ଆଉ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ବର୍ଗର, ଲିଙ୍ଗର ସମାନତା ରହିଲେ ଯାଇ କାମଟି ଯେ ପରିପୁଷ୍ଟ ହୁଏ । ଏ ବିଚାର ଥାଇ ମଧ୍ୟ ଅନେକ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ପାଳନ ହୋଇପାରେନା । ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାରରେ ଏଯାବତ୍ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଗବତ ଭଳି ବିଶାଳ କୃତିକୁ ଛାଡ଼ି ପୁରାତନ ଓ ଆଧୁନିକ ପଞ୍ଚସଖା, ସାଲବେଗ, ଭୀମଭୋଇ, ଭଞ୍ଜଙ୍କଠାରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ ଏ ଯୁଗର କେତେକ ଲେଖକଙ୍କ କୃତି ରହିଛି । ୨୦୧୨ରେ ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପଟଫ ଦୁଇବର୍ଷ ଧର ସଜବାଜ ହୋଇ ଶେଷରେ ୨୦୧୪ରେ ଜନ୍ମନେଲା । ଆଉ ଏଇ ମାସ ୨୦ରେ ପଢୁଆଁ ଜନ୍ମତିଥି ପାଳିଥିବା ଏ ପାଠାଗାରରେ ଏବେ ମାତ୍ର ୨୦୬ ଖଣ୍ଡ ବହି । ଆମ ବିଶାଳ ଭାଷାର ବହି-ଦରିଆକୁ ସେ ଶଂଖେ । କପିରାଇଟ୍ ବାହାରେ ଥିବା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବହିମାନ ଏଥିରେ ଆଣିବା ପାଇଁ ଲୋଡ଼ା ଆହୁରି କେତେ ହାତ । ଏବେ ଗୁଗୁଲ୍ ତିଆରି "ଅପ୍ଟିକାଲ୍ କ୍ୟାରେକ୍ଟର୍ ରେକଗନିସନ୍" ବଳରେ ଅନେକ ବହିର ଛବିରୁ ଲେଖା ବାହାର କରିହେଉଛି । ତାକୁ ସଂଶୋଧନ କରିପାରିଲେ ଅନେକ ବହିକୁ ପୂରା ଟାଇପ୍ କରିବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିବ ନାହିଁ । ଏକଥା ଆମେ ହେଜିଲେ ଆମ ଆଗାମୀ ପିଢ଼ିରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆହୀନତା ପାଇଁ ଆମକୁ ବେଶି ଭାବିବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିବ ନାହିଁ। ପିଲେ ତାଙ୍କ ମୋବାଇଲ୍ ଟାବଲେଟ୍ କିଣ୍ଡିଲ୍ ଖୋଲି ବଳେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପଢ଼ିବା ଆରମ୍ଭ କରିବେ।</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">- ଶୁଭାଶିଷ ପାଣିଗ୍ରାହୀ</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">ସେଣ୍ଟର୍ ଫର୍ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ୍ ଆଣ୍ଡ ସୋସାଇଟି, ବେଙ୍ଗାଲୁରୁ</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">A scanned version of the article below:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr"><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/OdiaWikisource.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Odia Wikisource" /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sambada-rabibara-subhashish-panigrahi-december-6-2015-odia-wikisource'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sambada-rabibara-subhashish-panigrahi-december-6-2015-odia-wikisource</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaOpen StandardsCIS-A2KAccess to KnowledgeOdia WikisourceOdia Wikipedia2016-01-05T06:30:35ZBlog EntryPre-Budget Consultation 2016 - Submission to the IT Group of the Ministry of Finance
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/pre-budget-consultation-2016-submission-to-the-ministry-of-finance
<b>The Ministry of Finance has recently held pre-budget consultations with different stakeholder groups in connection with the Union Budget 2016-17. We were invited to take part in the consultation for the IT (hardware and software) group organised on January 07, 2016, and submit a suggestion note. We are sharing the note below. It was prepared and presented by Sumandro Chattapadhyay, with contributions from Rohini Lakshané, Anubha Sinha, and other members of CIS.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>It is our distinct honour to be invited to submit this note for consideration by the IT Group of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, as part of the pre-budget consultation for 2016-17.</p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society is (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 diverse abilities, 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. We receive financial support from Kusuma Trust, Wikimedia Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, IDRC, and other donors.</p>
<p>We have divided our suggestions into the different topics that our organisation has been researching in the recent years.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) is the Basis for Digital India</h3>
<p> </p>
<p>We congratulate the policies introduced by the government to promote use of free/libre and open source software and that of open APIs for all e-governance projects and systems. This is not only crucial for the government to avoid vendor lock-in when it comes to critical software systems for governance, but also to ensure that the source code of such systems is available for public scrutiny and do not contain any security flaws.</p>
<p>We request the government to empower the implementation of these policies by making open sharing of source code a necessity for all software vendors hired by government agencies a necessary condition for awarding of tenders. The 2016-17 budget should include special support to make all government agencies aware and capable of implementing these policies, as well as to build and operate agency-level software repositories (with version controlling system) to host the source codes. These repositories may function to manage the development and maintenance of software used in e-governance projects, as well as to seek comments from the public regarding the quality of the software.</p>
<p>Use of FLOSS is not only important from the security or the cost-saving perspectives, it is also crucial to develop a robust industry of software development firms that specialise in FLOSS-based solutions, as opposed to being restricted to doing local implementation of global software vendors. A holistic support for FLOSS, especially with the government functioning as the dominant client, will immensely help creation of domestic jobs in the software industry, as well as encouraging Indian programmers to contribute to development of FLOSS projects.</p>
<p>An effective compliance monitoring and enforcement system needs to be created to ensure that all government agencies are Strong enforcement of the 2011 policy to use open source software in governance, including an enforcement task force that checks whether government departments have complied with this or not.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Open Data is a Key Instrument for Transparent Decision Making</h3>
<p> </p>
<p>With a wider set of governance activities being carried out using information systems, the government is increasingly acquiring a substantial amount of data about governance processes and status of projects that needs to be effectively fed back into the decision making process for the same projects. Opening up such data not only allows for public transparency, but also for easier sharing of data across government agencies, which reduces process delays and possibilities of duplication of data collection efforts.</p>
<p>We request the 2016-17 budget to foreground the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy and the Open Government Data Platform of India as two key enablers of the Digital India agenda, and accordingly budget for modernisation and reconfiguration of data collection and management processes across government agencies, so that those processes are made automatic and open-by-default. Automatic data management processes minimise the possibility of data loss by directly archiving the collected data, which is increasingly becoming digital in nature. Open-by-default processes of data management means that all data collected by an agency, once pre-recognised as shareable data (that is non-sensitive and anonymised), will be proactively disclosed as a rule.</p>
<p>Implementation of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy has been hindered, so far, by the lack of preparation of a public inventory of data assets, along with the information of their collection cycles, modes of collection and storage, etc., by each union government agency. Specific budgetary allocation to develop these inventories will be crucial not only for the implementation of the Policy, but also for the government to get an extensive sense of data collected and maintained currently by various government agencies. Decisions to proactively publish, or otherwise, such data can then be taken based on established rules.</p>
<p>Availability of such open data, as mentioned above, creates a wider possibility for the public to know, learn, and understand the activities of the government, and is a cornerstone of transparent governance in the digital era. But making this a reality requires a systemic implementation of open government data practices, and various agencies would require targeted budget to undertake the required capacity development and work process re-engineering. Expenditure of such kind should not be seen as producing government data as a product, but as producing data as an infrastructure, which will be of continuous value for the years to come.</p>
<p>As being discussed globally, open government data has the potential to kickstart a vast market of data derivatives, analytics companies, and data-driven innovation. Encouraging civic innovations, empowered by open government data - from climate data to transport data - can also be one of the unique initiatives of budget 2016-17.</p>
<p>For maximising impact of opened up government data, we request the government to publish data that either has a high demand already (such as, geospatial data, and transport data), or is related to high-net-worth activities of the government (such as, data related to monitoring of major programmes, and budget and expenditure data for union and state governments).</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Promotion of Start-ups and MSMEs in Electronics and IT Hardware Manufacturing</h3>
<p> </p>
<p>In line with the Make in India and Digital India initiatives, to enable India to be one of the global hubs of design, manufacturing, and exporting of electronics and IT hardware, we request that the budget 2016-17 focus on increasing flow of fund to start-ups and Medium and Small-Scale Manufacturing Enterprises (MSMEs) in the form of research and development grants (ideally connected to government, especially defense-related, spending on IT hardware innovation), seed capital, and venture capital.</p>
<p>Generation of awareness and industry-specific strategies to develop intellectual property regimes and practices favourable for manufacturers of electronics and IT hardware in India is an absolutely crucial part of promotion of the same, especially in the current global scenario. Start-ups and MSMEs must be made thoroughly aware of intellectual property concerns and possibilities, including limitations and exceptions, flexibilities, and alternative models such as open innovation.</p>
<p>We request the budget 2016-17 to give special emphasis to facilitation of technology licensing and transfer, through voluntary mechanisms as well as government intervention, such as compulsory licensing and government enforced patent pools.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Applied Mathematics Research is Fundamental for Cybersecurity</h3>
<p> </p>
<p>Recent global reports have revealed that some national governments have been actively involved in sponsoring distortion in applied mathematics research so as to introduce weaknesses in encryption standards used in for online communication. Instead of trying to regulate key-length or mandating pre-registration of devices using encryption, as suggested by the withdrawn National Encryption Policy draft, would not be able to address this core emerging problem of weak cybersecurity standards.</p>
<p>For effective and sustainable cybersecurity strategy, we must develop significant expertise in applied mathematical research, which is the very basis of cybersecurity standards development. We request the budget 2016-17 to give this topic the much-needed focus, especially in the context of the Digital India initiative and the upcoming National Encryption Policy.</p>
<p>Along with developing domestic research capacity, a more immediately important step for the government is to ensure high quality Indian participation in global standard setting organisations, and hence to contribute to global standards making processes. We humbly suggest that categorical support for such participation and contribution is provided through the budget 2016-17, perhaps by partially channeling the revenues obtained from spectrum auctions.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/pre-budget-consultation-2016-submission-to-the-ministry-of-finance'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/pre-budget-consultation-2016-submission-to-the-ministry-of-finance</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroOpen StandardsOpen SourceCybersecurityOpen DataIntellectual Property RightsOpen Government DataFeaturedPatentsOpennessOpen InnovationEncryption Policy2016-01-12T13:34:41ZBlog EntryResponse to the Draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/the-response
<b>Pranesh Prakash, Programme Manager at the Centre for Internet and Society, authored a response to the draft Open Standards Policy document published by the National Informatics Centre,
Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology.</b>
<p><span id="parent-fieldname-description" class="kssattr-atfieldname-description kssattr-templateId-widgets/textarea kssattr-macro-textarea-field-view inlineEditable">The National Informatics Centre (NIC),
Department of Information Technology (DIT), Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) has recently published a <a class="external-link" href="http://egovstandards.gov.in/Policy_Open_Std_review">Draft Policy on Open Standards for eGovernance</a>. Members of the public have been invited to provide feedback to the document. The last date for feedback is 21st November 2008.</span></p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society has prepared a draft response to the draft policy. This response letter only deals
with the policy document from the perspective of the global FLOSS
movement. This is not meant to be comprehensive feedback to the
document itself.</p>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Institutional Co-signatories</h3>
<ol><li>Richard Stallman, Founder, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.fsf.org">Free Software Foundation</a>, USA</li><li>Mishi Choudhary, Partner, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.sflc.org">Software Freedom Law Centre</a>, USA <br /></li><li>Dr. Alvin Marcelo, Director for Southeast Asia, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.iosn.net">International Open Source Network</a>, the Philippines <br /></li><li>Lawrence Liang, Founder, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.altlawforum.org">Alternative Law Forum</a>, Bangalore, India<br /></li><li>Dr. G. Nagarjuna, Chaiman, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.gnu.org.in">Free Software Foundation of India</a>, Mumbai, India<br /></li><li>Vinay Sreenivasa, Member, <a class="external-link" href="http://itforchange.net">IT for Change</a>, Bangalore, India <br /></li></ol>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Individual Co-signatories<strong> </strong></h3>
<ol><li>Shahid Akhtar, Founder, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.iosn.net">International Open Source Network</a>, Canada</li><li>Denis Jaromil Rojo, Developer, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.dyne.org">Dyne</a>, Netherlands<br /></li><li>Raj Mathur, Consultant, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.kandalaya.org">Kandalaya</a>, New Delhi, India<br /></li><li>Marek Tuszynski, Founder, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.tacticaltech.org">Tactical Technology Collective</a>, United Kingdom</li></ol>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Text <br /></h3>
<p>Dear Sir or Madam,</p>
<p>The government had done a commendable job of releasing a progressive and forward-looking policy on the usage of open standards in e-governance. Globally the European Union's Electronic Interoperability Framework (EIF) guidelines (version 2 of which is currently in the draft stage) is considered to be the gold standard as far as open standard policy is concerned. The draft National Policy on Open Standards meets all of the EIF's four open standard requirements. However, there is still some room for improvement as discussed below.</p>
<p>While the document talks of the standard being royalty free (4.1 and 5.1.1) and without any patent-related encumbrance (4.1), it limits those requirements "for the life time of the standard" (5.1.1), which seems a bit ambiguous and is not defined in the appendix either. It would be preferable to make it royalty-free for the lifetime of the patents (if any) as open archival material shouldn't one day (after the end of "life time of the standard", and before the expiry of the patents) suddenly be forced to become paid archives. It would be desirable to make declarations of patent non-enforcement irrevocable (as the EU EIF does), by incorporating a wording such as: "irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis, without any patent-related encumbrance". </p>
<p>There should also be a separate provision in the "policy statement on open standards adoption in e-governance" section of the document making explicit that there can be no restraint on use or implementation of the standard (as has been stated in the "guiding principles" section). </p>
<p>Perhaps when talking of specification documents (5.1.5) the words "any restrictions" could be amended to include a few examples of what the term "any restrictions" would include. The document could make explicit that it must be permissible for all to copy, distribute and use the specifications freely, without any cost or legal barriers. </p>
<p>Sometimes private companies can interfere with the standardisation process, the document could perhaps be more explicit regarding remedial measures that could be undertaken in the event – for example use of competition law, as in the case of the EU EIF which states: "Practices distorting the definition and evolution of open standards must be addressed immediately to protect the integrity of the standardisation process." </p>
<p>As it stands, the draft document addresses many notions of openness (freely accessible, at zero cost, non-discriminatory, extensible, and without any legal hindrances, thus preventing vendor lock-in), and there is much to applaud in it. It has a clear implementation mechanism, with a laudable aim of establishing a monitoring agency and an Open Source Solutions Laboratory. It is applicable not only to future e-governance initiatives, but to existing ones as well. Furthermore, it also has an in-built review mechanism, which is crucial given the rate of change of technologies and consequently of the requirements of the government. Thus, the draft policy document very clearly encourages competition and innovation in the software industry and promotes the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) movement and industry. As researchers from UNU MERIT have pointed out, even a nominal fee for usage of a standard can lead to exclusion of open source software implementations, leading to less competition in the software industry. Thus, all in all this draft document represents a commendable effort by the Indian government towards a sustainable and robust e-governance structure based on open standards. However, a few small amendments as suggested in this letter would make it an even greater guarantor of openness.</p>
<p><br />Yours sincerely,<br />Sunil Abraham<br />Director (Policy)<br />Centre for Internet and Society<br /><br /></p>
<p>Please download the draft response in the format you prefer.</p>
<ol><li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-10-sept-2008.odt" class="internal-link" title="Oo.org Format">Open Office </a><br /></li><li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-10-sept-2008.doc" class="internal-link" title="MS Format">MS Office</a></li><li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-09-sept-2008.pdf" class="internal-link" title="PDF Format">PDF</a><br /></li></ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/the-response'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/the-response</a>
</p>
No publishersunilOpen StandardsPublications2011-08-23T03:05:56ZPageSecond Response to Draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/second-response
<b>Another draft (labelled "version 2", dated May 26, 2009) of the draft national policy on open standards for e-governance was made available to Fosscomm, while many software companies were speaking out against NASSCOM's position on the policy. CIS drafted a second response addressing both the allegations against NASSCOM as well as the few shortcomings we perceive in the draft policy.</b>
<p>To<br />Shri Shankar Aggrawal<br />Joint Secretary (e-Governance)<br />Department of Information Technology<br />Ministry of Communications and Information Technology</p>
<p>Tuesday, July 7, 2009</p>
<p>Dear Sir,</p>
<h3>Sub: Comments on Draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance (version 2)</h3>
<p>I am writing on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, which is a Bangalore-based civil society organization involved both in research and policy advocacy. Public accountability and digital pluralism are two of our core concerns, and it is for this that we are writing to you today. As a natural corollary of our mission, we aim at representing the concerns of citizens and consumers. You would recall that we had submitted comments to the call for comments you had put out for the draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance last year (archived at <http://cis-india.org/advocacy/os/iosp/the-response/>). </p>
<p>We have recently received what appears to be a newer draft (version 2) of the National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance, dated May 26, 2009. We are yet again very pleased to note the progressive nature of this document and wish to congratulate the government on its decision to promote the interests of the citizens of India over the narrow partisan interests of a few companies which wish to promote proprietary standards.</p>
<p>It has brought to our notice by some in the software industry that the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM) has argued for the dilution of the definition of open standards by including standards licensed under “reasonable and non-discriminatory” terms to be considered “open”, and has also called for multiple standards in the same domain to be considered valid as a rule under the policy. We believe both these demands go against the interest of consumers of standards — which in this case is the Indian government — and are thus against the interest of citizens as well, since the Indian government handles data on behalf of its citizens.</p>
<p>Even “reasonable and non-discriminatory” terms of licensing of standards are in fact discriminatory as they prevent the development of free/libre/open source software based on those standards. And while having multiple implementations of a standard is beneficial as it increases consumer (i.e., governmental) choice, having multiple incompatible standards is detrimental to the government's interest as the policy itself recognizes in paragraph 4.2, and the very purpose (as enumerated in paragraphs 1, 3, and 4) of having standards is defeated. Even if the multiple standards are bi-directionally interoperable, additional costs are incurred in having concurrent multiple standards.</p>
<p>Thus, one hopes that the the threshold of “national interest” mentioned in paragraph 6.4.1 is set to a high level. Lastly, the views put forth by NASSCOM seem not to be truly legitimate as it has been the complaint of some that NASSCOM did not hold an open consultation with its own members before formulating its views. There are software giants, including IBM, Sun, and Red Hat, that have openly criticized the NASSCOMM position on open standards. More importantly, NASSCOM's position does not concur with what we believe is in the best interest of small and medium software enterprises, which constitute the bulk of the Indian software industry. We pray that you shall keep this in mind while considering NASSCOM's views.</p>
<p>We believe that apart from the technical reasons to favour open standards, there are many public interest reasons as well. We believe that the adoption of open standards is a step towards the promotion of equitable access to knowledge to all the people of our country. We further believe that public accountability will be served greatly by adoption of an open standards policy by the Central and State governments. While even developed countries (such as those of the EU) are mandating open standards in all governmental departments, processes, and interactions, it is developing countries that stand to gain most from open standards. Proprietary standards place a larger burden on developing economies than developed as developing economies have a greater need to participate in the global network by using standards, but do have lesser capabilities than developed economies in terms of paying for royalties.</p>
<p>On the document itself, while there are many reasons to hail it, we believe there are still a few shortcomings which we wish to bring to your notice.</p>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Issue 1: Possibility of following letter of policy while violating its spirit</h3>
<p><strong>Explanation</strong><br />Sometimes private companies can interfere with the standardisation process by exerting undue influence on the members of the standard setting body. That such undue influence have been sought to be applied even in India recently shows that this is not mere conjecture or idle speculation. Given this background, the document should note this as a problem and note that remedial measures could be undertaken in the event such undue influence comes to light.</p>
<p><strong>Resolution</strong><br />Introduce language, such as that used in the EU EIF, stating:<br />“Practices distorting the definition and evolution of open standards must be addressed immediately to protect the integrity of the standardisation process.”</p>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Issue 2: Patenting and licensing of government-developed standards</h3>
<p><strong>Explanation</strong><br />Paragraph 6.3 of the draft policy allows the government to opt for the development of a new standard by a Government of India-identified agency in case no standard is found to meet the government's functional requirements. However, it is not clear under what terms this standard will be available.</p>
<p><strong>Resolution</strong><br />Introduce a paragraph 6.3.1 stating:<br />“Any standard developed by or on behalf of the government shall be patent-free and the specifications of such a standard will be published online and will be available to all for no cost. Along with the standard, the government shall also provide, or shall cause to be provided, a free/libre/open source reference implementation of that standard.”</p>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Issue 3: No framework provided for review or phasing out interim standards</h3>
<p><strong>Explanation</strong><br />Paragraph 6.2 permits the government to adopt a non-open “interim” standard (one which does not fulfil all the mandatory requirements of open standards as laid out in 5.1) if no open standard exists in the specific domain for which the standard is required. This however does not have a clause necessitating the phasing out of such an interim standard.</p>
<p><strong>Resolution</strong><br />A review mechanism should be provided for periodic evaluation of all standards selected by the government, especially those designated as interim standards. A new paragraph 7.1.1 could be added:<br />“All standards selected through the processes outlined in this policy shall undergo an annual review by the Apex Body on e-Governance Standards, and all those designated as interim standards shall be reviewed biannually.”</p>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Issue 4: Problematic definition in the glossary</h3>
<p><strong>Explanation</strong><br />In Appendix A, the definition of “patents” (A.12) states: “The additional qualification 'utility patents' is used in countries such as the United States to distinguish them from other types of patents but should not be confused with utility models granted by other countries. Examples of particular species of patents for inventions include biological patents, business method patents, chemical patents and software patents.” Many of these references are U.S.-specific and are not valid forms of patents in India (e.g. biological patents, business method patents, and software patents).</p>
<p><strong>Resolution</strong><br />Delete the last two sentences in A.12</p>
<p><br />We once again wish to compliment the government on developing such a strong policy on open standards, and hope that our suggestions are incorporated into the text of the final version. We further hope that the policy will be notified at the earliest, as there has already been considerable opportunity for the public and industry to comment on the draft versions of the policy.</p>
<p><br />Yours sincerely,</p>
<p>Pranesh Prakash<br />Programme Manager<br />Centre for Internet and Society</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/second-response'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/second-response</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsPublic AccountabilitySoftware Patents2009-07-07T16:49:37ZPageReport on Open Standards for GISW2008
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/report-on-open-standards-for-gisw2008
<b>In this report, Sunil Abraham lays out the importance and the policy implications of Open Standards.</b>
<div id="introduction">
<p>[<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/sunil-abrahams-publications/Open-Standards-GISW-2008.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Report on Open Standards for GISW 2008">PDF copy</a>]</p>
<p>Most computer users today remain
“digitally colonised” (Bhattacharya, 2008) due to our unquestioning use
of proprietary standards. As users of proprietary standards we usually
forget that we lose the right to access our own files the moment the
licence for the associated software expires. For example, if I were to
store data, information or knowledge in .doc, .xls or .ppt format, my
ability to read my own files expires the moment the licence for my copy
of Microsoft Office expires.</p>
<h3>Definition</h3>
<p>Unlike
the terms “free software” or “open source software”, the term “open
standard” does not have a universally accepted definition. The free and
open source software (FOSS) community largely believes that an open
standard is:</p>
</div>
<p>[S]ubject to full public assessment and use
without constraints [royalty-free] in a manner equally available to all
parties; without any components or extensions that have dependencies on
formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an open
standard themselves; free from legal or technical clauses that limit
its utilisation by any party or in any business model; managed and
further developed independently of any single vendor in a process open
to the equal participation of competitors and third parties; available
in multiple complete implementations by competing vendors, or as a
complete implementation equally available to all parties (Greve, 2007).</p>
<div id="introduction">
<h3>The controversy</h3>
<p>Proprietary
software manufacturers, vendors and their lobbyists often provide a
definition of open standards that is not in line with the above
definition on two counts (Nah, 2006).</p>
<p>One, they do not
think it is necessary for an open standard to be available on a
royalty-free basis as long as it is available under a “reasonable and
non-discriminatory” (RAND) licence. This means that there are some
patents associated with the standard and the owners of the patents have
agreed to license them under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms
(W3C, 2002). One example is the audio format MP3, an ISO/IEC
[International Organisation for Standardisation/International
Electrotechnical Commission] standard where the associated patents are
owned by Thomson Consumer Electronics and the Fraunhofer Society of
Germany. A developer of a game with MP3 support would have to pay
USD 2,500 as royalty for using the standard. While this may be
reasonable in the United States (US), it is unthinkable for an
entrepreneur from Bangladesh. Additionally, RAND licences are
incompatible with most FOSS licensing requirements. Simon Phipps of Sun
Microsystems says that FOSS “serves as the canary in the coalmine for
the word ‘open’. Standards are truly open when they can be implemented
without fear as free software in an open source community” (Phipps,
2007). RAND licences also retard the growth of FOSS, since they are
patented in a few countries. Despite the fact that software is not
patentable in most parts of the world, the makers of various
distributions of GNU/Linux do not include reverse-engineered drivers,
codecs, etc., in the official builds for fear of being sued. Only the
large corporation-backed distributions of GNU/Linux can afford to pay
the royalties needed to include patented software in the official
builds (in this way enabling an enhanced out-of-the-box experience).
This has the effect of slowing the adoption of GNU/Linux, as less
experienced users using community-backed distributions do not have
access to the wide variety of drivers and codecs that users of other
operating systems do (Disposable, 2004). This vicious circle
effectively ensures negligible market presence of smaller
community-driven projects by artificial reduction of competition.</p>
<p>Two,
proprietary software promoters do not believe that open standards
should be “managed and further developed independently of any single
vendor,” as the following examples will demonstrate. This is equally
applicable to both new and existing standards.</p>
<p>Microsoft’s
Office Open XML (OOXML) is a relatively new standard which the FOSS
community sees as a redundant alternative to the existing Open Document
Format (ODF). During the OOXML process, delegates were unhappy with the
fact that many components were specific to Microsoft technology,
amongst other issues. By the end of a fast-track process at the ISO,
Microsoft stands accused of committee stuffing: that is, using its
corporate social responsibility wing to coax non-governmental
organisations to send form letters to national standards committees,
and haranguing those who opposed OOXML. Of the twelve new national
board members that joined ISO after the OOXML process started, ten
voted “yes” in the first ballot (Weir, 2007). The European Commission,
which has already fined Microsoft USD 2.57 billion for anti-competitive
behaviour, is currently investigating the allegations of committee
stuffing (Calore, 2007). Microsoft was able to use its financial muscle
and monopoly to fast-track the standard and get it approved. In this
way it has managed to subvert the participatory nature of a
standards-setting organisation. So even though Microsoft is ostensibly
giving up control of its primary file format to the ISO, it still
exerts enormous influence over the future of the standard.</p>
<p>HTML,
on the other hand, is a relatively old standard which was initially
promoted by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), an
international community of techies. However, in 2002, seven years after
the birth of HTML 2.0, the US Department of Justice alleged that
Microsoft used the strategy of “embrace, extend, and extinguish” (US
DoJ, 1999) in an attempt to create a monopoly among web browsers. It
said that Microsoft used its dominance in the desktop operating system
market to achieve dominance in the web-authoring tool and browser
market by introducing proprietary extensions to the HTML standard
(Festa, 2002). In other words, financial and market muscle have been
employed by proprietary software companies – in these instances,
Microsoft – to hijack open standards.</p>
<h3>The importance</h3>
<p>There
are many technical, social and ethical reasons for the adoption and use
of open standards. Some of the reasons that should concern governments
and other organisations utilising public money – such as multilaterals,
bilaterals, civil society organisations, research organisations and
educational institutions – are listed below.</p>
<ul><li><strong>Innovation/competitiveness:</strong>
Open standards are the bases of most technological innovations, the
best example of which would be the internet itself (Raymond, 2000). The
building blocks of the internet and associated services like the world
wide web are based on open standards such as TCP/IP, HTTP, HTML, CSS,
XML, POP3 and SMTP. Open standards create a level playing field that
ensures greater competition between large and small, local and foreign,
and new and old companies, resulting in innovative products and
services. Instant messaging, voice over internet protocol (VoIP),
wikis, blogging, file-sharing and many other applications with
large-scale global adoption were invented by individuals and small and
medium enterprises, and not by multinational corporations. </li><li><strong>Greater interoperability:</strong>
Open standards ensure the ubiquity of the internet experience by
allowing different devices to interoperate seamlessly. It is only due
to open standards that consumers are able to use products and services
from competing vendors interchangeably and simultaneously in a seamless
fashion, without having to learn additional skills or acquire
converters. For instance, the mail standard IMAP can be used from a
variety of operating systems (Mac, Linux and Windows), mail clients
(Evolution, Thunderbird, Outlook Express) and web-based mail clients.
Email would be a completely different experience if we were not able to
use our friends’ computers, our mobile phones, or a cybercafé to check
our mail. </li><li><strong>Customer autonomy: </strong>Open
standards also empower consumers and transform them into co-creators or
“prosumers” (Toffler, 1980). Open standards prevent vendor lock-in by
ensuring that the customer is able to shift easily from one product or
service provider to another without significant efforts or costs
resulting from migration. </li><li><strong>Reduced cost: </strong>Open
standards eliminate patent rents, resulting in a reduction of total
cost of ownership. This helps civil society develop products and
services for the poor. </li><li><strong>Reduced obsolescence: </strong>Software
companies can leverage their clients’ dependence on proprietary
standards to engineer obsolescence into their products and force their
clients to keep upgrading to newer versions of software. Open standards
ensure that civil society, governments and others can continue to use
old hardware and software, which can be quite handy for sectors that
are strapped for financial resources. </li><li><strong>Accessibility: </strong>Operating
system-level accessibility infrastructure such as magnifiers, screen
readers and text-to-voice engines require compliance to open standards.
Open standards therefore ensure greater access by people with
disabilities, the elderly, and neo-literate and illiterate users.
Examples include the US government’s Section 508 standards, and the
World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) WAI-AA standards.</li><li><strong>Free access to the state:</strong>
Open standards enable access without forcing citizens to purchase or
pirate software in order to interact with the state. This is critical
given the right to information and the freedom of information
legislations being enacted and implemented in many countries these
days. </li><li><strong>Privacy/security:</strong> Open
standards enable the citizen to examine communications between personal
and state-controlled devices and networks. For example, open standards
allow users to see whether data from their media player and browser
history are being transmitted along to government servers when they
file their tax returns. Open standards also help prevent corporate
surveillance. </li><li><strong>Data longevity and archiving: </strong>Open
standards ensure that the expiry of software licences does not prevent
the state from accessing its own information and data. They also ensure
that knowledge that has been passed on to our generation, and the
knowledge generated by our generation, is safely transmitted to all
generations to come. </li><li><strong>Media monitoring:</strong>
Open standards ensure that the voluntary sector, media monitoring
services and public archives can keep track of the ever-increasing
supply of text, audio, video and multimedia generated by the global
news, entertainment and gaming industries. In democracies, watchdogs
should be permitted to reverse-engineer proprietary standards and
archive critical ephemeral media in open standards.</li></ul>
<h3>Policy implications</h3>
<p>Corporations
have a right to sell products based on proprietary standards just as
consumers have a right to choose between products that use open
standards, proprietary standards, or even a combination of such
standards. Governments, however, have a responsibility to use open
standards, especially for interactions with the public and where the
data handled has a direct impact on democratic values and quality of
citizenship. In developing countries, governments have greater
responsibility because most often they account for over 50% of the
revenues of proprietary software vendors. Therefore, by opting for open
standards, governments can correct an imbalanced market situation
without needing any additional resources. Unfortunately, many
governments lack the expertise to counter the campaigns of fear,
uncertainty and doubt unleashed by proprietary standards lobbyists with
unlimited expense accounts.</p>
<p>Most governments from the
developing world do not participate in international standard-setting
bodies. On the other hand, proprietary software lobbyists like the
Business Software Alliance (BSA) and Comptia attend all national
meetings on standards. This has forced many governments to shun these
forums and exacerbate the situation by creating more (totally new)
standards. Therefore, governments need the support of academic and
civil society organisations in order to protect the interests of the
citizen. For example, the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur
(IIT-K) helped the government of India develop the open standard Smart
Card Operating System for Transport Applications (SCOSTA) for smart
card-based driving licences and vehicle registration documents.
Proprietary vendors tried to jettison the move by saying that the
standard was technically not feasible. IIT-K developed a reference
implementation on FOSS to belie the vendor's claims. As a consequence,
the government of India was able to increase the number of empanelled
smart-card vendors from four to fifteen and reduce the price of a smart
card by around USD 7 each (UNDP, 2007a). This will hopefully result in
enormous savings during the implementation of a national multi-purpose
identification card in India.</p>
<p>In some instances,
proprietary standards are technically superior or more universally
supported in comparison to open standards. In such cases the government
may be forced to adopt proprietary and de facto standards in the short
and medium term. But for long-term technical, financial and societal
benefits, many governments across the world today are moving towards
open standards. The most common policy instruments for implementation
of open standards policy are government interoperability frameworks
(GIFs). Governments that have published GIFs include the United
Kingdom, Denmark, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, Malaysia, Hong
Kong, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Australia (UNDP, 2007b).</p>
<p>While
challenges to the complete adoption of open standards in the public
sector and civil society remain, one thing is certain: the global march
towards openness, though slow, is irreversible and inevitable.</p>
<h3>References</h3>
<p align="left">Bhattacharya, J. (2008) <em>Technology Standards: A Route to Digital Colonization. Open Source, Open Standards and Technological Sovereignty</em>.
. <br />
Available at:<br />
<a href="http://knowledge.oscc.org.my/practice-areas/%E2%80%8Cgovernment%E2%80%8C/oss-seminar-putrajaya-2008/technology-standards-a-route-to-digital/at_download/file">knowledge.oscc.org.my/practice-areas/government/oss-seminar-putrajaya-2008/technology-standards-a-route-to-digital/at_download/file</a></p>
<p align="left">Calore, M. (2007) Microsoft Allegedly Bullies and Bribes to Make Office an International Standard. <em>Wired</em>, 31 August. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2007/08/ooxml_vote">www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2007/08/ooxml_vote</a></p>
<p align="left">Disposable (2004) <em>Ubuntu multimedia HOWTO</em>. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.oldskoolphreak.com/tfiles/%E2%80%8Chack/%E2%80%8Cubuntu.txt">www.oldskoolphreak.com/tfiles/hack/ubuntu.txt</a></p>
<p align="left">Festa, P. (2002) W3C members: Do as we say, not as we do. <em>CNET News</em>, 5 September. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-956778.html">news.cnet.com/2100-1023-956778.html</a></p>
<p>Greve, G. (2007) <em>An emerging understanding of open standards</em>.<br />
. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.fsfe.org/%E2%80%8Cfellows%E2%80%8C/greve/freedom_bits/an_emerging_understanding_of_open_standards">www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/an_emerging_understanding_of_open_standards</a></p>
<p align="left">Nah, S.H. (2006) <em>FOSS Open Standards</em> <em>Primer</em>. New Delhi: UNDP-APDIP. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.iosn.net/open-standards/foss-open-standards-primer/foss-openstds-withnocover.pdf">www.iosn.net/open-standards/foss-open-standards-primer/foss-openstds-withnocover.pdf</a></p>
<p align="left">Phipps, S. (2007) <em>Roman Canaries</em>.. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/%E2%80%8Croman_canaries">blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/roman_canaries</a></p>
<p align="left">Raymond, E.S. (2000) <em>The Magic Cauldron</em>. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.catb.org/%7Eesr/writings/%E2%80%8Ccathedral-%E2%80%8Cbazaar/%E2%80%8Cmagic-%E2%80%8Ccauldron/%E2%80%8Cindex.html">www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/magic-cauldron/index.html</a></p>
<p align="left">Toffler, A. (1980) <em>The Third Wave</em>. New York: Bantam.</p>
<p align="left">UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2007a) <em>e-Government Interoperability: A Review of Government Interoperability Frameworks in Selected Countries</em>. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.apdip.net/projects/gif/gifeprimer">www.apdip.net/projects/gif/gifeprimer</a></p>
<p align="left">UNDP (2007b) <em>e-Government Interoperability: Guide</em>. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.apdip.net/projects/gif/GIF-Guide.pdf">www.apdip.net/projects/gif/GIF-Guide.pdf</a></p>
<p align="left">US DoJ (Department of Justice) (1999) <em>Proposed Findings of Fact – Revised</em>. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/%E2%80%8Catr/%E2%80%8Ccases/%E2%80%8Cf2600/v-a.pdf">www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2600/v-a.pdf</a></p>
<p align="left">W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) (2002) <em>Current patent practice</em>. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice#def-RAND">www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice#def-RAND</a></p>
<p align="left">Weir, R. (2007) <em>How to hack ISO</em>. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/09/how-to-hack-iso.html">www.robweir.com/blog/2007/09/how-to-hack-iso.html</a></p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/report-on-open-standards-for-gisw2008'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/report-on-open-standards-for-gisw2008</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsFLOSS2009-01-05T06:52:54ZBlog EntryComments on the National Geospatial Policy (Draft, V.1.0), 2016
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/comments-on-the-national-geospatial-policy-draft-v-1-0-2016
<b>The Department of Science and Technology published the first public draft of the National Geospatial Policy (v.1.0) on May 05, 2016, and invited comments from the public. CIS submitted the following comments in response. The comments were authored by Adya Garg, Anubha Sinha, and Sumandro Chattapadhyay.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>1. Preliminary</h2>
<p><strong>1.1.</strong> This submission presents comments and recommendations by the Centre for Internet and Society (<strong>"CIS"</strong>) on the proposed draft of the National Geospatial Policy 2016 (<strong>"the draft Policy / the draft NGP"</strong>) <strong>[1]</strong>. This submission is based on Version 1.0 of the draft Policy released by the Department of Science and Technology (<strong>"DST"</strong>) on May 5, 2016.</p>
<p><strong>1.2.</strong> CIS commends the DST under the aegis of the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders to draft a National Geospatial Policy. CIS is thankful for this opportunity to provide a clause-by-clause submission.</p>
<h2>2. The Centre for Internet and Society</h2>
<p><strong>2.1.</strong> The Centre for Internet and Society, CIS, <strong>[2]</strong> 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 diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfiguration of social processes and structures through the internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa.</p>
<p><strong>2.2.</strong> This submission is consistent with CIS’ commitment to safeguarding general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved. The comments in this submission aim to further the principle of citizens’ right to information, instituting openness-by-default in governmental activities, and the various kinds of public goods that can emerge from greater availability of open (geospatial) data created by both public and private agencies and crucially, by the citizens. The submission is limited to those clauses that most directly have an impact on these principles.</p>
<h2>3. Comments and Recommendations</h2>
<p><em>This section presents comments and recommendations directed at the draft policy as a whole, and in certain places, directed at specific clauses of the draft policy.</em></p>
<p><strong>3.1.</strong> The draft policy should make references to five policies applicable to geospatial data, products, services, and solutions</p>
<p><strong>3.1.1.</strong> CIS observes that the draft policy lists the key policies related to geospatial information and sharing of government data, namely the National Map Policy 2005, the Civil Aviation Requirement 2012, the Remote Sensing Data Policy 2011 and 2012, and the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy 2012 (“NDSAP”).</p>
<p><strong>3.1.2.</strong> CIS submits that apart from the policies mentioned above, Geospatial Data,Products, Services and Solutions (“GDPSS”) are also intricately linked to concepts of “open standards,” “open source software,” “open API,” “right to information,” and prohibited places” These concepts are governed by specific acts and policies, and are applicable to geospatial data, as follows:</p>
<ul><li>Adoption of Open Standards: CIS observes that the draft policy captures the importance of open standards in the section 1.4 of the draft policy. It states that “A very high resolution and highly accurate framework to function as a national geospatial standard for all geo-referencing activity through periodically updated National Geospatial Frame [NGF] and National Image Frame [NIF] by ensuring open standards based seamless interoperable geospatial data.”<br /><br />CIS submits that the Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance <strong>[3]</strong> which establishes the Guidelines for usage of open standards to ensure seamless interoperability, and the Implementation Guidelines of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy, 2012 <strong>[4]</strong> listing two key open standards for geospatial data - KML and GML, should be mentioned in the draft policy.<br /><br />CIS recommends that the final version of the NGP embrace open standards as a key principle of all software projects and infrastructures within the purview of the Policy. This is essential for easier sharing and reuse of open (geospatial) data.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Adoption of Open Source Software: The Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software for Government of India states that the “Government of India shall endeavour to adopt Open Source Software in all e-Governance systems implemented by various Government organisations, as a preferred option in comparison to Closed Source Software” <strong>[5]</strong>. As the draft policy proposed to guide the development of GDPSS being developed and implemented both by the Government of India and by other agencies (academic, commercial, and otherwise), it must include an explicit reference and embracing of this mandate for adoption of Open Source Software, for reasons of reducing expenses, avoiding vendor lock-ins, re-usability of software components, enabling public accountability, and greater security of software systems.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Implementation of Open APIs: To actualise the stated principle to “[e]nable promotion, adoption and implementation of emerging / state of the art technologies” as well as to ensure the “[a]vailability of all geospatial data collected through public funded mechanism to all users,” CIS suggests that final version of the NGP must refer to and operationalise the Policy on Open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for Government of India <strong>[6]</strong>. This will ensure that the openly available geospatial data is available to the public, as well as to all the government agencies, in a structured digital format that is easy to consume and use on one hand, and is available for various forms of value addition and innovation on the other.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Right to Information Act 2005: The framework for reactive disclosure of information and data collected and held by the Government of India, as well as the basis for proactive disclosure of the same, is enshrined in the Right to Information Act 2005 <strong>[7]</strong>. The draft NGP, CIS proposes, should refer to this Act, and ensure that whenever an Indian citizen request for such government data and/or information that is of geospatial in nature, and the requested data and/or information is both shareable and non-sensitive, the citizen must be provided with the geospatial data and/or information in an open standard and under open license, as applicable.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Refer to Official Secrets Act, 1923: The Official Secrets Act defines “Prohibited Places” and prohibits all activities involving “sketch, plan, model, or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly; or indirectly, useful to an enemy or (c) obtains collects, records or publishes or communicates to any other person any secret official code or password, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy” <strong>[8]</strong>. This provides the fundamental legal basis for regulation, expunging, and stopping circulation of geospatial data containing information about Vulnerable Points and Vulnerable Areas. CIS submits that this Act should be referred to in this context of ensuring non-publication of sensitive geospatial data (that is geospatial data related to Prohibited Places).<br /><br /></li></ul>
<h3>3.2. Grant adequate permissions to the public to re-use geospatial data</h3>
<p><strong>3.2.1.</strong> CIS observes that section 1.4 of the draft policy states that, “Geospatial data of any resolution being disseminated through agencies and service providers, both internationally and nationally be treated as unclassified and made available and accessible by Indian Mapping and imaging agencies.”</p>
<p><strong>3.2.2.</strong> CIS recommends the abovementioned section be broadened to include not only availability and accessibility of geospatial data, but also its re-use. Further, such accessibility, availability and re-use should not be only limited to public and private entities such as Indian mapping and imaging agencies, but as well as to Indian people in general.</p>
<p><strong>3.2.3.</strong> CIS further submits that section 1.4 be revised as “[g]eospatial data of any resolution being disseminated through agencies and service providers, both internationally and nationally be treated as unclassified and made available, accessible, and reusable by Indian mapping and imaging agencies in particular, and by the people of India in general.”</p>
<h3>3.3. Ensure Open Access to shareable and non-sensitive geospatial data</h3>
<p><strong>3.3.1.</strong> CIS observes that the draft policy directs all “geospatial data generating agencies” to classify their data into “open access,” “registered access,” and “restricted access.” The document, however, neither defines “geospatial data generating agencies”, nor does it clarify what conditions the data must satisfy to be classified as one of the three types. Without a listing of such conditions (at least necessary, and not sufficient, conditions), nothing restricts the agencies from classifying all generated geospatial data as “restricted.”</p>
<p><strong>3.3.2.</strong> Further, CIS observes that the draft policy aims to provide geospatial data acquired through public funded mechanism to be made available to the public at free of cost. It is submitted that the policy should not only be made available for free of cost, but it should also be made available in open standard format under an open license.</p>
<p><strong>3.3.3.</strong> As defined in the section 1.3, the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (“NDSAP”) applies to “all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds” <strong>[9]</strong>. Clearly all shareable <strong>[10]</strong> and non-sensitive <strong>[11]</strong> geospatial data, either in digital or analog forms, and generated using public funds should be proactively disclosed by the government agency concerns in accordance to the NDSAP. CIS recommends that the draft policy makes an explicit reference to NDSAP when discussing the topic of Open Access geospatial data, and re-iterates the mandate of proactive publication of shareable and non-sensitive government data.</p>
<p><strong>3.3.4.</strong> Further, the process for defining an open government data license to be applied to all open government data sets being published under the NDSAP, and through the Open Government Data Platform India, is in progress. Given this, it is absolutely crucial important that the draft NGP takes this into consideration, and mandates that Open Access geospatial data must be published using the open government data license to be defined by the Implementation Guidelines of the NDSAP, when applicable.</p>
<h3>3.4. Lack of clarity regarding the clearances and permits required for data acquisition and dissemination, and the procedures thereof</h3>
<p><strong>3.4.1.</strong> Section 1.8 of the draft policy states that “[a]ll clearances / permits, as necessary, for data acquisition and dissemination be through a single window, online portal. These clearances be provided within a time span of 30 days of filing the online request.” CIS observes that the draft policy does not specify the kind of clearances/permits needed before a public or private entity, or an individual, can undertake acquisition and dissemination of geospatial data. It neither clarifies under what circumstances and conditions application for such clearance / permits would be required for users.</p>
<p><strong>3.4.2.</strong> Since the recently published draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill (“GIRB”) 2016, directly addresses this topic of clearance / permit required to acquire and share geospatial information <strong>[12]</strong>, it will be effective if the NGP can refer to this Bill and provide an overall governance framework for the same. Further, CIS noted that the time span of 30 days mentioned in the draft policy is inconsistent with the time period specified in the GIRB (which is 90 days).</p>
<p><strong>3.4.3.</strong> CIS recommends that the draft policy also be amended suitably to include the circumstances and conditions under which required permissions shall be issued. Accordingly, the draft policy should reference the standardised and time bound security vetting process envisaged in the GIRB.</p>
<h3>3.5. Clarification Needed regarding “Cybersecurity is to be ensured through … use of Digital Watermarks for authentication of GDPSS”</h3>
<p><strong>3.5.1.</strong> CIS submits that the draft policy does not elaborate on the use of “Digital Watermarks” to ensure cybersecurity, neither it is explained who will authenticate GDPSS, under what conditions, and for what reasons. CIS recommends that the draft policy be amended suitably to specify the same.</p>
<h3>3.6. Remove Classification of Non-Public (at Present) Satellite / Aerial Imagery as Restricted by Default</h3>
<p><strong>3.6.1.</strong> CIS observes that the draft policy recommends that “[s]atellite/aerial images of resolution other than those currently made available on websites” should all be “classified for restricted access.”</p>
<p><strong>3.6.2.</strong> CIS submits that blanket categorisation of all satellite / aerial imagery of resolution that is not currently available through a public website (for whatever reason it might be) as “restricted access” should be re-evaluated, given the immense importance of such imagery to mapping agencies and industry participants using GDPSS.</p>
<p><strong>3.6.3.</strong> CIS recommends that the section be revised to define clear principles for defining satellite /aerial imagery as “open,” “registered,” and “restricted.”</p>
<h3>3.7. Governance of User-contributed Geospatial Data</h3>
<p><strong>3.7.1.</strong> A key resource and feature of contemporary geospatial industry in particular, and the digital economy in general, is the proliferation of user-contributed and user-generated geospatial data and information. CIS observes that this crucial topic, as well as the unique governance concerns that it raises, has not been addressed in the draft policy at all. CIS requests the DST to consider this matter with due attention to the specific nature and values of such user-contributed and user-generated in the digital economy on one hand, and in emergency contexts such as natural disasters on the other, and prepare a framework for its appropriate governance as part of the NGP itself.</p>
<h3>3.8. Protect Geospatial Privacy of Citizens by Defining Sensitive Personal Geospatial Data and Information</h3>
<p><strong>3.8.1.</strong> CIS observes that the draft policy lacks rules for collection, use, storage, and distribution of geospatial data from an individual’s privacy standpoint. Further, neither does the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 address these concerns <strong>[13]</strong>. Section 3 of the Rules define “Sensitive personal data or information”, which do not include geospatial information.</p>
<p><strong>3.8.2.</strong> The argument of violation of constitutional right to privacy was pleaded in a case against Google and other private mapping agencies in 2008 <strong>[14]</strong>. In the judgment, Madras HIgh Court noted that there existed no legislation/guidelines to prohibit mapping programmes from conducting their activities indiscriminately, and the lack of one thereof prevented the Court from injuncting such activities. Thus, there exists a judicial ambiguity on the aspect of collection and use of geospatial data.</p>
<p><strong>3.8.3.</strong> CIS submits that the draft policy may be suitably amended to ensure that collection, processing and dissemination of geospatial information is in consonance with the constitutionally protection of an individual’s privacy.</p>
<h3>3.9. Clarification Needed regarding “Mechanisms to be put in place to evaluate / audit GDPSS creation, consumption and distribution”</h3>
<p><strong>3.9.1.</strong> The draft policy suggests that “mechanisms to be put in place to evaluate/audit GDPSS creation, consumption and distribution” without clarifying the scope, purpose, and purview of this mechanism, and most crucially it does not describe what exactly will be evaluated / audited. CIS submits that this section is revised and expanded.</p>
<p><strong>3.9.2.</strong> The same section also identifies the need for a “framework to be put in place to assess the data collection versus its utilization towards government program and socio-economic development.” CIS observes that this is a very promising and much welcome gesture by the DST, but this section must be developed as a separate and detailed mandate. At the least, the NGP may suggest that a more detailed guideline document regarding this framework will be developed in near future.</p>
<h3>3.10. Data Taxation and Geospatial Cess</h3>
<p><strong>3.10.1.</strong> The draft policy refers to imposition of “data taxation (geospatial cess)” and use of “licensing” of geospatial data to raise money for geospatial activities of the Government of India. CIS is of the opinion will severely affect the geospatial industry in the country in particular, and will raise the monetary barrier to public use of geospatial data and maps in general; and hence must be strictly avoided.</p>
<h3>3.11. Data Dissemination Cell</h3>
<p><strong>3.11.1.</strong> CIS submits that instead of development of a separate Data Dissemination Cell within all government agencies to operationalise the mandate of the NGP, the Chief Data Officers within all government agencies identified under the implementation process of the NDSAP be given this complementary responsibility. This would ensure effective channelisation of human and financial resources to take forward the joint mandate of NGP and NDSAP towards greater public availability and use of (shareable and non-sensitive) government data.</p>
<h3>3.12. Special Infrastructure for Governance, Management, and Publication of Real-time Geospatial Data</h3>
<p><strong>3.12.1.</strong> A key term that the draft policy does not talk about is “big data.” The static or much-slowly-changing geospatial data such as national boundaries and details of Vulnerable Points and Vulnerable Areas are really a very small part of of the global geospatial information. The much larger and crucial part is the real-time (that is continuously produced, stored, analysed, and used in almost real-time) big geospatial data – from geo-referenced tweets, to GPS systems of cars, to mobile phones moving through the cities and regions. Addressing such networked data systems, where all data collected by digital devices can quite easily be born-georeferenced, and the security and privacy concerns that are engendered by them, should be the ultimate purpose of, and challenge for, a future-looking NGP.</p>
<p><strong>3.12.2.</strong> Further, with increasing number of government assets being geo-referenced for the purpose of more effective and real-time management, especially in the transportation sector, the corresponding agencies (which are often not mapping agencies) are acquiring a vast amount of high-velocity geospatial data, which needs to be analysed and (sometimes) published in the real-time. CIS submits a sincere request to DST to highlight the crucial need for special infrastructure for such data, as well as its governance, and identify the key principles concerned in the next version of the draft NGP.</p>
<h3>3.13. Sincere Request for Preparation and Circulation of a Second Public Draft of the National Geospatial Policy</h3>
<p><strong>3.13.1.</strong> CIS commends the DST for publishing the draft policy, and facilitating a consultation process inviting stakeholders and civil society to submit feedback. The NGP envisages to address crucial concepts of privacy, licensing, intellectual property rights, liability, national security, open data, which cut across and impact various technology platforms, industries and the citizens.</p>
<p><strong>3.13.2.</strong> In view of the multifarious issues highlighted that arise at the intersection of various legal and ethical concepts, CIS respectfully requests the DST to conduct another round of consultation after the publication of the second draft of the NGP. Multiple rounds of consultation and feedback would contribute to the robustness of the lawmaking process and ensure that the final policy safeguards the general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved.</p>
<p><strong>3.13.3.</strong> CIS is thankful to DST for the opportunity to provide comments, and would be privileged to provide further assistance on the matter to DST.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Endnotes</h2>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> See: <a href="http://www.dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/Draft-NGP-Ver%201%20ammended_05May2016.pdf">http://www.dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/Draft-NGP-Ver%201%20ammended_05May2016.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> See: <a href="http://cis-india.org/">http://cis-india.org/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> See: <a href="https://egovstandards.gov.in/sites/default/files/Published%20Documents/Policy_on_Open_Standards_for_e-Governance.pdf">https://egovstandards.gov.in/sites/default/files/Published%20Documents/Policy_on_Open_Standards_for_e-Governance.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[4]</strong> See: <a href="http://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf">http://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[5]</strong> See: <a href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/policy_on_adoption_of_oss.pdf">http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/policy_on_adoption_of_oss.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[6]</strong> See: <a href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Open_APIs_19May2015.pdf">http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Open_APIs_19May2015.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[7]</strong> See: <a href="http://rti.gov.in/webactrti.htm">http://rti.gov.in/webactrti.htm</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[8]</strong> See: <a href="http://www.archive.india.gov.in/allimpfrms/allacts/3314.pdf">http://www.archive.india.gov.in/allimpfrms/allacts/3314.pdf</a>, sections 2(d) and 3(b).</p>
<p><strong>[9]</strong> See: <a href="https://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf">https://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[10]</strong> See section 2.11 of NDSAP.</p>
<p><strong>[11]</strong> See section 2.10 of NDSAP.</p>
<p><strong>[12]</strong> See: <a href="http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/GeospatialBill_05052016_eve.pdf">http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/GeospatialBill_05052016_eve.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[13]</strong> See: <a href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR313E_10511%281%29.pdf">http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR313E_10511%281%29.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[14]</strong> J. Mohanraj v (1) Secretary To Government, Delhi; (2) Indian Space Research Organisation, Bangalore; (3) Google India Private Limited, Bangalore, 2008 Indlaw MAD 3562.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/comments-on-the-national-geospatial-policy-draft-v-1-0-2016'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/comments-on-the-national-geospatial-policy-draft-v-1-0-2016</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroOpen StandardsOpen DataOpen Government DataFeaturedGeospatial DataNational Geospatial PolicyOpenness2016-06-30T09:40:59ZBlog Entry