The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 4.
A Guide to Key IPR Provisions of the Proposed India-European Union Free Trade Agreement
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society presents a guide for policymakers and other stakeholders to the latest draft of the India-European Union Free Trade Agreement, which likely will be concluded by the end of the year and may hold serious ramifications for Indian businesses and consumers. </b>
<div class="visualClear">In its ongoing negotiation for a FTA with the EU, a process that began in 2007 and is expected to end sometime this year, India has won several signicant IP-related concessions. But there remain several IP issues critical to the maintenance of its developing economy, including its robust entrepreneurial environment, that India should contest further before ratifying the treaty. This guide covers the FTA's IP provisions that are within the scope of CIS' policy agenda and on which India has negotiated favorable language, as well as those provisions that it should re-negotiate or oppose.</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">Download the guide <a title="A Guide to the Proposed India-European Union FTA" class="internal-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/a2k/publications/CIS%20Open%20Data%20Case%20Studies%20Proposal.pdf">here</a>, and please feel free to comment below.</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">You may also download a <a title="India-EU FTA TRIPS Comparison Chart" class="internal-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/ipr/upload/India-EU_FTA_Chart.odt">chart</a> comparing the language proposed by India and the EU respectively with that included in the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">Following is a summary of CIS' findings:</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">
<div class="visualClear">
<ul><li>India has become a de facto leader of developing countries at the WTO, and an India-EU FTA seems likely to provide a model for FTAs between developed and developing states well into the future.</li><li>The EU has proposed articles on reproduction, communication, and broadcasting rights which could seriously undermine India's authority to regulate the use of works under copyright as currently provided for in the Berne Convention, as well as narrowing exceptions and limitations to rights under copyright.</li><li>The EU asserts that copyright includes "copyright in computer programs and in databases," without indicating whether such copyright exceeds that provided for in the Berne Convention. Moreover, by asserting that copyright "includes copyright in computer programs and in databases," the EU has left open the door for the extension of copyright to non-original databases.</li><li>India should explicitly obligate the EU to promote and encourage technology transfer -- an obligation compatible with and derived from TRIPS -- as well as propose a clear definition of technology transfer.</li><li>The EU has demanded India's accession to the WIPO Internet Treaties, the merits of which are currently under debate as India moves towards amending its Copyright Act, as well as several other international treaties that India either does not explicitly enforce or to which it is not a contracting party.</li><li>In general, the EU's provisions would extend terms of protection for material under copyright, within certain constraints, further endangering India's consumer-friendly copyright regime.</li><li>An agreement to establish arrangements between national organizations charged with collecting and distributing royalty payments may obligate such organizations in India collect royalty payments for EU rights holders on the same basis as they do for Indian rights holders, and vice versa in the EU, but more heavily burden India.</li><li>The EU has proposed a series of radical provisions on the enforcement of IPRs that are tailored almost exclusively to serve the interests of rights holders, at the expense of providing safety mechanisms for those accused of infringing or enabling infringers. </li><li>The EU has proposed, under cover of protecting intermediate service providers from liability for infringement by their users, to increase and/or place the burden on such providers of policing user activity.</li></ul>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement</a>
</p>
No publishergloverDevelopmentConsumer RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeDiscussionEconomicsAnalysisTechnological Protection MeasuresIntermediary LiabilityinnovationIntellectual Property RightsPatentsPublications2011-08-30T13:06:03ZBlog EntryRound Table on Assessing the Efficacy of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for Public Initiatives: A Report
http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/round-table-assessing-efficacy
<b>Zainab Bawa reports on the Round Table on Assessing the Efficacy of Information and Communication Technologies for Public Initiatives, hosted by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, on 17 June 2009, in collaboration with the Liberty Institute, New Delhi. </b>
<p></p>
<p>
In
recent times, there has been an upsurge in the use of ICTs to provide
information to people and to elicit participation. Individuals, corporate
organisations, NGOs, civil society organisations, collectives, municipalities,
political parties and politicians have been using the internet and other
mediums to communicate with people. The round table was organised primarily to
discuss two issues:</p>
<ol><li>What is the
effectiveness of the initiatives introduced in recent times?</li><li>How do we
move forward in terms of partnerships/collaborations in the areas of data
gathering, sharing, dissemination and architecture of information? </li></ol>
<p>Given
the constraints of time, however, we were only able to discuss a few issues with
respect to efficacy of initiatives, rather than come up with a concrete action
plan on how to measure effectiveness of many of the existing initiatives. This
remains an agenda for subsequent meetings.</p>
<p>This round table was the first meeting of its kind. It
brought together participants from diverse backgrounds to discuss key issues
involved in leveraging ICTs towards various ends, and to collaborate with each
other on ongoing initiatives. Participants included researchers,
persons who have developed information platforms and databases, individuals
working in the area of leveraging technology for streamlining processes in
society and people who have been studying usage patterns of social media tools.
Most of the participants were using ICTs to improve information access
related to health issues, education, budgets, development of rural areas and
recently, elections and governance. In the subsequent sections, I will briefly
elaborate on some of the key themes around which discussions took place
during the round table.</p>
<p><strong>Building on Ideas:</strong> In the morning
and pre-lunch sessions, one issue that featured prominently was the importance of developing ideas rather than trying to work out a perfect model that
we believe will solve what we perceive to be people’s problems. Two of the
participants explained that they started implementing ideas as they came to
them, rather than trying to come up with a framework that they thought would
work for the masses. They worked towards evolving their ideas, exploring what
works and what does not. One of them further pointed out that such evolution
cannot be observed as it happens; it only becomes apparent in hindsight. Hence,
discussions such as the current round table are useful.</p>
<p>It is
also important to note that we are still in a nascent stage of understanding
how ICTs can impact people’s lives and deploying them accordingly. As a result, many efforts are likely to be in the stage of trial and error.</p>
<p><strong>Key areas of interest and concern:</strong> Based
on the input from participants in the morning session, we
arrived at a list of areas that require more understanding and discussion.</p>
<ol><li><u>Information gathering, dissemination, access –
including information architecture, technology design</u>:
Here, three issues were discussed:</li>
<ul><li>Who are we talking about when we refer to information
access? It was pointed out that information is crucial particularly for people
who do not have computers and for whom internet is not a priority. The intensity
with which they seek information is remarkable. One of the participants argued
that we undervalue the potential of information to make a difference to
people’s lives.</li><li>How do we deliver information? Providing information
is not enough.</li><li>Representativeness of the information for those who it
is provided for.
</li></ul>
</ol>
<p>Another issue that was referred to
was whether language is a problem, i.e., most information is available only in
English. One of the participants suggested that this is not the case because Google has found that a very small percentage of the population actually refers
to material on the web in languages other than English.</p>
<ol type="1" start="2"><li><u>Community mobilization</u>:
During the deliberations, we referred to the problem of replication of initiatives. Two observers of social media pointed
out that replication happens because people are trying to create their own
unique communities around their initiatives. This is an important insight
for future efforts and also indicates the need to share databases and
information that individuals and organisations have compiled. They also
suggested that it is important to discover existing communities and spaces
where conversations around issues of governance, education, health and
development are taking place. This helps to plug into existing resource
pools and to extend outreach. <br /></li></ol>
<ol type="1" start="3"><li><u>Citizens’ participation</u>:
Initiatives that work and why they
succeed - We briefly discussed the Jaagore campaign and India Vote Report,
which were launched before the 2009 national elections in India to enable
people to register on the electoral rolls and to report irregularities during
elections respectively. Some people found it difficult to register
themselves on the Jaagore website and some had difficulties in finding the
local offices where they needed to follow-up with the process. It was also
pointed out that Vote Report did not connect with the end user because it
would have been easier to report irregularities and anomalies via SMS
rather than trying to report them by logging on to the site. If one looks
at the case of the Online Complaint Management System (OCMS) developed by
Praja, the availability of the telephone hotline service through which
citizens could register their complaints helped in widening usage. Thus,
it appears that two issues are pertinent:</li>
<ul><li>Whether the initiative connects with the people who
are likely to use it;</li><li>Simplicity of design/system that enables more users. <br />
</li></ul>
</ol>
<p><strong>Target
Audience:</strong> One of
the participants pointed out that some initiatives do not work because they are
targeted towards the wrong audiences. For example, when it comes to voting and
elections, poor groups are the ones who go out and vote in large numbers.
Hence, information systems need to be tailored to provide them with the data
that they need most. Access also has to be configured accordingly. In some
instances, the target is too broad to reach out effectively.</p>
<p>It appears that there is a need to
develop strategies on how platforms and databases that have been created to
enhance access to information can be made known among the masses and how people
can be made aware to use them. It is equally important to understand what
constitutes ‘information’ and for whom. Here,
the other issue to explore is how information links back to the people for who
it is provided.</p>
<ol type="1" start="4"><li><u>Technology</u>: In this
area, a key concern was the high costs involved in developing technologies
and whether we could learn from each other’s experience of developing
technologies instead of reinventing the wheel. We also discussed whether
open source software helps to reduce costs of development. The other issue
with respect to open source is whether there is enough assistance and
support available to resolve problems that may crop up during use of
technology from time to time. </li></ol>
<p><strong>Sharing
of Data:</strong> Discussions also veered around the issue of whether
appropriate technology and applications could be created to help with sharing
existing databases and information pools. We did not discuss this issue
in depth, but it remains relevant for subsequent meetings.</p>
<ol type="1" start="5"><li><u>Back end integration</u>: According
to some of the participants, one of major problems is the interface
between government and citizens, which remains weak. Technology
can be used to enhance the interactions. Participants also pointed out
the difficulty in obtaining data from government bodies that is important
to create the interface between government and citizens. A participant
involved with the Jaagore campaign referred to the problem of back-end
integration during their efforts to help citizens register themselves with
the election commission (EC) offices. A participant from Google similarly
reported that they faced problems in obtaining election results from the EC’s
offices as a result of which, they had to rely on their partners for this
information. Here too, we could not deliberate on how to resolve this
problem, but this could be a major theme for a subsequent meeting. <br /></li></ol>
<ol type="1" start="6"><li><u>Performance (monitoring, evaluation)</u>:
One of the themes that participants zeroed in on was the evaluation of
the performance of elected representatives and making this evaluation available for
people to see. Here, the debate was around the problem of evaluation being carried out according to the criteria we set which may not seem relevant
to other sections of society. One of the suggestions that came up was to
develop a matrix for evaluation and put out information accordingly.
People can then use it to make their own judgments. <img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/uploads/00016.jpg/image_preview" alt="rt2" class="image-right" title="rt2" /><br /></li></ol>
<p>In
the post-lunch session, some of the participants shared their experiences with
implementation and also the work they and their organisations are currently
engaged with. Towards the end of the round table, each one of the participants
explained their respective projects and how they may wish to collaborate with
other participants (who were present) in their initiatives. An e-group called “CIS-Info-Access” has
been created to take these conversations and collaborations further. </p>
<h3><strong>Evaluation of the Round Table and Way Forward:</strong> <br /></h3>
<p>When
invitations were sent out to people to participate in the round table, many of
the invitees expressed a genuine and enthusiastic interest in being part of
this effort. As mentioned above, one of the reasons for this enthusiasm was
because this was the first meeting of its kind, bringing together
individuals from the fields of technology, research and implementation. We
invited a total of 35 people out of which 27 finally attended the meeting.
The diversity of the participants was an asset in that a variety of issues were
brought to the table. The drawback was that there was not enough time to
discuss some of the pertinent issues in depth. Future meetings can be tailored
to discuss one or two specific themes such as back-end integration and sharing
of information, technology issues, ideas for mobilising citizens and
communities, etc.</p>
<p>The
possibilities of collaboration between participants in this meeting are immense
and we hope that some of the synergies will materialise into concrete outcomes.
Further, a few participants have expressed an interest in organising similar
meetings in their cities/towns, perhaps focusing on a few issues instead of
bringing people together under a broad theme. Of some of the issues discussed,
participants have indicated that back-end integration with government and
ideating on different ways of disseminating data can be further deliberated on
in future. One of the participants also suggested that there is a need to make
‘data’ more relevant to people’s lives.</p>
<p>While
the meeting was fruitful in many respects, one issue needs to be underlined.
This concerns the imagination of internet and ICTs as mediums that can resolve all existing problems with respect to citizen-government
interface, streamlining of processes and provision of information. Such an
overarching imagination of technology overlooks the cultural, economic, social and
political specificities of communities and contexts. Technology
can also have negative implications in some circumstances. It also needs to be
reinforced that technology is embedded in society and culture. Therefore we
need to view technology as one of the avenues among others available which will
facilitate interactions between people and their governments and the state.
Democratisation is more likely to be realised through such a perspective.</p>
<p></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/round-table-assessing-efficacy'>http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/round-table-assessing-efficacy</a>
</p>
No publishersachiaSocial mediaDigital ActivismDigital AccessPublic AccountabilityDiscussionFeaturedTransparency, Politics2011-08-20T22:28:55ZBlog EntryUsing Social Media for Mobilisation: Discussion with Dina Mehta and Peter Griffin
http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/using-social-media-for-mobilisation-discussion-with-dina-mehta-and-peter-griffin
<b>Zainab Bawa reports on the discussion with Peter Griffin and Dina Mehta, hosted at CIS on 19 June 2009, on 'Using Social Media for Mobilisation'. </b>
<p></p>
<p>Iran
Elections and the Twitter Revolution …</p>
<p>Memes
– how and why do some memes become popular on Twitter?</p>
<p>FaceBook
– privacy, community, locality, socializing?</p>
<p>Blogs
– once, we thought they would revolutionize the world, but how are blogs now placed
vis-à-vis twitter and facebook?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Many
questions abound concerning the phenomenon called 'social media', particularly
in the wake of the protests taking place in Iran and the ways in which information has
reached out to the world about what is going on in the country. The panel
discussion on social media, organised by the Centre for Internet and Society
(CIS) on 19 June 2009, aimed to understand how mobilisations take
place through social media and how memes are engineered and spread across
communities. We invited Dina Mehta and Peter Griffin to join us as panellists at the event and share
their experiences.</p>
<p>Dina
and Peter set up the tsunami help blog in December 2004 (<a href="http://tsunamihelp.blogspot.com/">http://tsunamihelp.blogspot.com</a>)
which for the first time demonstrated the importance of social media tools in
coordinating local efforts and disseminating information in the region. What
caused them to become involved through this medium? Both Dina and Peter used
discussion forums and email during the formative years of the internet in
India. 'The sheer miracle of chat', as Peter puts it, also allowed them to
connect with people. When the tsunami struck, they became nodes through which
action was mobilised and information was spread. It still remains to be
explored how nodes develop in different circumstances, how spaces of
conversations develop and what causes some individuals to enter the space of
social media and inhabit them in significant ways, to the extent of becoming
nodes for coordination and mobilisation.</p>
<p>So,
what is social media? Dina says she does not like the term. But, since it is
used so commonly, she follows the tide. For Dina and Peter, social media is a
set of tools which can be mobilised for various purposes – for a call to action,
response to a crisis, and persuading people to support a cause, among many other
things. What is curious however is that the use of social media becomes more marked
and prominent during moments of crisis. This observation led one audience member to ask
whether social media is mirroring some of the behaviours of mainstream media.
Dina pointed out that social media does not exist in opposition to mainstream
media – both complement each other. Social media becomes more powerful
during moments of crisis due to some of the following factors:</p>
<ol><li>Powerful search functions;</li><li>Tools for aggregating content which helps in picking
up the noise;</li><li>Hash (#) tags which make it easy to search and to
connect and contribute to ongoing conversations and mobilizations.
</li></ol>
<p>These
help to amplify what is going on. Dina also referred to the simplicity of
social media tools which enables diverse individuals to participate in their
own ways. She cited the recent example of showing solidarity with the Iranian
revolutionaries by adding the colour green to one’s Twitter image. 'I only had
to click to indicate whether I wanted to show support in this way and a program
automatically applied the green colour to my twitter image without my having to
do anything. I don’t have to write code to participate in this medium. I can be
anyone,' she added.</p>
<p>What
is also unique is that unlike newspapers and early television, interactions via
social media tend to be two-way. For instance, blogs have made it possible for
individuals to become publishers of their own materials whether it is diary-like entries or filter blogging. Moreover, in the case of the protests
following the Iran elections, people used their mobile phones to capture
images, make videos and post these on the internet for others to see.</p>
<p>Individuals
from the audience raised questions about how they and their organisations could
use social media tools effectively to raise funds and to communicate their
causes/issues to other people. To this, both Dina and Peter suggested that it
is important to find the spaces where conversations about issues are already
taking place and to participate in them. They also stated that credibility is
built over time through acts of giving to different communities that develop
around various issues. Dina also emphasised the need to recognise target
audiences, identify the mediums they use regularly and accordingly develop
strategies concerning the use of social media. If the outreach group is more
tuned into radio, it is more effective to reach out to them in this way. Dina
mentioned that the mobile phone is a powerful medium that is
often neglected because of the publicity that the internet tends to receive.
She said that in South East Asian countries, people have better mobile phone
connectivity, and often, political activism has taken place by spreading
messages through mobile phones. One of the participants questioned the feasibility of moving from an existing yahoogroup to start a new discussion group; to
which another audience member responded that it is preferable to stay with
existing mediums used rather than to switch. Discussion forums require
more participation and if the goal is only to send out announcements, a
yahoogroup serves the purpose.</p>
<p>The
issue of arm-chair activism was also raised – whether social media is in fact
leading people to participate in issues only through clicking ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Peter stated that this is true, but the ease of transmitting information to
others enhances the possibility of moving beyond arm-chair activism. 'For
instance, I am concerned about eve teasing and harassment of women in public
spaces, but I may not have the time to participate in an intervention or gathering
on a particular day. However, I forward the email/invitation to my friends who are
concerned similarly and they may choose to participate on-site,' he explained.</p>
<p>The
lack of connectivity to the internet and therefore to social media was referred
to in the discussions. An audience member pointed out that according to a
recent study, only 10% of the people in India are connected to the internet.
Peter immediately remarked that the figure of 10% translated into 10 million
people which is still a large number that can be reached out to. Similarly, it
was pointed out that English is still the predominant language of the web and
therefore social media can be exclusive. In this respect, the issues are
developing technologies for facilitating the use of scripts, the extent to
which the masses use languages other than English on the internet and also
whether people in fact use the internet and other communication technologies as
a means to learn English. In this context, a participant drew our attention to a
twitter community of approximately 800 people who tweet regularly in Malayalam.</p>
<p>The
discussion brought up some interesting nuanced perspectives on social media that users and
novices may not have thought about. Questions still remain about the efficacy
of social media, the nature and characteristics of communities that are formed
around use of social media, distinctions between networks and communities, etc. Over time, these questions will be answered as usage increases
and trends are studied in all their complex aspects.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/using-social-media-for-mobilisation-discussion-with-dina-mehta-and-peter-griffin'>http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/using-social-media-for-mobilisation-discussion-with-dina-mehta-and-peter-griffin</a>
</p>
No publishersachiaSocial mediaDigital ActivismDiscussion2011-08-20T22:28:42ZBlog EntryReport from DigiActive’s Bangalore Meet-up
http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/report-from-digiactive2019s-bangalore-meet-up
<b>A blog entry by Mary Joyce on the meet-up hosted at CIS, Bangalore</b>
<p>We had a great meet-up yesterday at the offices of the <a href="http://cis-india.org/">Centre for Internet and Society</a>
in Bangalore (thanks so much to Sunil, Pranesh, Sanchia, and Deepika
for making it possible!) It was a very diverse group, with
participants from Indian and international NGOs, techies from Yahoo!,
and even a radio producer and film-maker.</p>
<p>
We started out by dissecting this <a href="http://www.thepinkchaddicampaign.blogspot.com/">Pink Chaddis campaign</a>, a very popular women’s rights campaign <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49641698651&ref=mf">organized through Facebook</a> that had just organized a big action on Valentines’ Day. (I’ll be posting on the campaign a little later - it’s a great one.)</p>
<p>
However, when we went about creating a definition for digital activism,
the discussion became more theoretical. Although DigiActive is
optimistic about the possibility of digital tools to empower those
fighting injustice, this meet-up group decided that digital activism
was value neutral and that it simply mapped onto the existing goals and
motives within a society. It is a technique that can be used for
constructive or destructive ends.</p>
<p> At the end of the event, some
participants came up to me to make sure my feelings weren’t hurt by the
disagreement, but I assured them I was really happy with the result.
Only if digital activism is debated and dissected will we be able to
understand and use it well.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/report-from-digiactive2019s-bangalore-meet-up'>http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/report-from-digiactive2019s-bangalore-meet-up</a>
</p>
No publishersachiaDigital ActivismDiscussion2011-08-20T22:28:34ZBlog Entry