Centre for Internet and Society

Press Release: Users’ rights and interests should be balanced with those of IP rights-holders: Global Congress

geetha — 2015-12-17T08:40:05Z

The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and Public Interest is being held at the National Law University, Delhi, on 15-17 December 2015. The global event is jointly organized by CIS, NLU Delhi, Open A.I.R., CREATe, Columbia University and American University. Below is the Press Release from Day 2 of the Global Congress.

Press Release

16 December 2015

Users’ rights and interests should be balanced with those of IP rights-holders

Today, on the 2^nd day of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and Public Interest at NLU-Delhi, a range of issues were discussed across the parallel tracks. The Access to Medicines track opened with a keynote address by the honourable Justice Kirby, former judge of the High Court of Australia and current member of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Access to Medicines. The Openness track saw discussions on collaborative innovation, the future of openness and access to education, along with cross-sectoral perspectives on openness.

In the Intellectual Property and Development track, the discussions centred around the intersection of traditional knowledge, geographical indicators and indigenous rights, on agriculture and plant varieties with specific references to the Indian position, and an exploration of the global South’s research networks on IP, innovation and development. The track focused on a range of themes, including the development issues that arise from varying approaches to intellectual property, i.e., closed or open approaches, depending on the limitations placed on the sharing and use of knowledge produced with public funding.

The User Rights track is closely aligned with openness. Today, the track explored issues of copyright reform and digital democracy, along with concerns of increasing propertisation of data. A discussion around trade agreements and their impact and enforcement on copyright and the Internet allied with the above sessions.

Speakers shared their views on a variety of issues:

Access to Medicines

Justice Michael Kirby, former judge of the High Court of Australia and its longest serving judge, spoke on the changing challenges in the ‘access to medicine’ movement. There has been a sea change in the access to anti-retroviral drugs, he said, but also increasing challenges.

“The key question in access to medicines is this: How do you provide just returns for inventors, while at the same time respecting the universal right to essential healthcare? Developing states like India are increasingly at risk. In 2001, the UN Special Rapporteur on Access to Medicines expressed his concern about the fact that TRIPS flexibilities open to developing states are rarely used. This concern is deepening with the trend of United States, Japan Switzerland and other European countries convincing poorer states to give up their TRIPS exceptions and flexibilities.”

Anand Grover of Lawyers Collective was concerned that intellectual property is not delivering on its stated objectives, particularly in developed states.

“It is important,” he said, “to keep checking whether objectives are met through the patent system. Earlier, generic manufacturers were keen to employ a strategy that invited conflict from patent-holders and pharmaceutical companies. But increasingly, their strategies are backfiring; courts are leaning towards granting injunctions against generic manufacturers. This is a real concern.”

Shiba Phurailatpam of the Asia-Pacific Network of People living with HIV/AIDS spoke of the increasingly dismal scenario of access to affordable medicines in middle-income countries:

“Multinational companies are using World Bank classifications of GDP to deny affordable medicines to millions in the developing world. With the profits they are making in these countries, they then lobby their governments to push TRIPS-plus measures in our countries through FTAs and bilateral pressure. Meanwhile they are also entering into restrictive voluntary licenses with key Indian generic companies that exclude middle-income countries. 20 years of TRIPS has only strengthened pharmaceutical corporate power over the lives and health of patients. If we are serious about universal health care the monopolies on medicines have to end.”

Openness

“The digital environment cannot be developed without an important agenda on open policy and copyright reforms,” said Carolina Botero of the Karisma Foundation.

Lawrence Liang, legal researcher and expert on the practice and ethics of intellectual property and openness, said,

“Over the past decade and a half, the language of openness and ‘Access to Knowledge’ has emerged as an important counter to the dominant proprietary and protectionist approach of the global IP regime. By shifting the focus from proprietary systems to open ones, and from control to equitable access, the openness frame has created a political and ethical language with which people could redress the harmful effects of strong IP regimes. Open systems of knowledge production and dissemination such as Wikipedia and Open Access journals could play a key role in helping developing countries gain access to learning materials and knowledge which are locked into expensive databases. In that sense openness is an important political strategy to address questions of equity and distributive justice in the information era.”

Alek Tarkowski, Director of Centrum Cyfrowe Projekt in Poland, concurred,

“Open licensing models and modern copyright rules are complementary from the perspective of ensuring freedom of education."

Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director of SFLC.in, said that

“The government of India is right in embracing Free and Open Source Software, and in encouraging free sharing enabled by the suite of Creative Commons licences. It is crucial to understand that intellectual property is not an end in itself. The 21^st century needs innovation policy and collaborative innovation, not IP maximalism.”

Intellectual Property and Development

K.M. Gopakumar, legal advisor and senior researcher at Third World Network, said,

“The current IP regime prioritises the rights of intellectual property-holders without addressing development needs. A change in this status quo is the need of the hour. There is an urgent need for governments, specially in developing countries, to interrogate the international IP regime to achieve sustainable development goals, instead of simply following the propaganda of transnational corporations and their home governments.”

Lucienne Abrahams, Director of the LINK Centre for Digital Transformation in South Africa, argued that,

“Innovation to produce more effective medicines for dread diseases and pandemics, to produce clean technologies, and digital technologies, in the high technology hubs forming across the African continent, the Asian continent and other developing regions of the world, requires open innovation approaches to keep up with the demand of more than 4 billion people for new technologies to enhance quality of life and to address conditions of dire poverty. Patents and copyright provide too meager opportunities for development-oriented innovation.”

User Rights

Claudio Ruiz of Derechos Digitales spoke of the need for greater engagement between advocates and scholars towards openness:

“There needs to be a better connection between advocates and scholars towards openness, and therefore, develop a better Intellectual Property regime, especially for developing countries. The Users Rights track at the Global Congress is a great gathering to connect those worlds and therefore to fill the existent gaps in terms of research and advocacy.

“One of the most important challenges we are facing today is to fight existing narratives on intellectual property. Today, these are considered the only way to enhance and protect creation of content and culture. But new developments, especially those connected with technology and the Internet, are a huge opportunity to create new narratives around this topic and to create a safer space for users around the world who are seen today as pirates and copyright infringers. The last 40 years’ of international regulation on copyright has been mainly driven by private interest of copyright owners, the users and the general public being alien to these discussions. The development of the Internet today creates a great opportunity to connect users and the general public with the international regulation of copyright. Copyright regulation is not just about content owners, but about access to knowledge and information for everyone. That implies the need to address public interest as the main topic and not as a marginal one.”

“One of the most important issues for India and for the world today,” said Prabir Purkayastha of the Knowledge Commons Collective, “is the question of data rights. The world is grappling with these. The Internet economy today is based on converting personal information into private property. Data rights are critical from the perspective of privacy, and also whether data rights should constitute property rights.”

*

Photographs of the speakers can be found at this link: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B60BN7sFZRQFSzNFSERkTmtrcEE&usp=sharing.

For more information, please contact me at geetha@cis-india.org.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/press-release-users2019-rights-and-interests-should-be-balanced-with-those-of-ip-rights-holders-global-congress

Press Release: Medicines should not bankrupt patients or public health systems: Access to medicines at the Global Congress

geetha — 2015-12-17T08:33:54Z

PRESS RELEASE
DECEMBER 15, 2015: DAY 1

Medicines should not bankrupt patients or public health systems: Access to medicines at the Global Congress

No wealth? No health, then!

Today, on the 2nd day of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and Public Interest, access to medicines has been a crucial theme. All the more so, since the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Access to Medicines had its first meeting on December 11, 2015. At a critical crossroads for access to medicines, we are delighted to welcome Justice Michael Kirby, former justice of the High Court of Australia and a member of the High Level Panel, as a keynote speaker at the Global Congress. Justice Kirby will be speaking on 16 December 2015, the 3rd day of the Congress.

On day 1, reflecting on the critical questions in the ‘access to medicines’ movement, Matt Kavanagh of HealthGAP and University of Pennsylvania, said,
“In high-, middle- and low-income countries, people are going without access to new medicines for many disease areas including HIV, hepatitis C and cancer. This is because a year’s worth of meds can cost many times more than a year’s salary. This is driven by an IP system that is out of sync with the needs of the people. We are now seeing a global reckoning of how to reign in maximalist rights for intellectual property holders in favour of models that balance innovation, health and access.”

Dr. Germán Velásquez, Special Advisor for Health and Development at South Centre, agreed that,
“There has been a total failure in the model involving pharmaceutical patents. This is both an important problem and there is an urgent need to find alternatives to the patent system. The issue,” he said, “is the lack of an international authority. The World Health Organization no longer has teeth. What we need is a binding international treaty to tackle this crisis. Developed countries argue against this by claiming it will be financially burdensome for them, but a successful treaty on medical R&D would lead to better and more affordable medicines for everyone.”

Judit Rius of Médecins Sans Frontiéres concurred,
“There is ample evidence that the current intellectual property system has failed not only to deliver innovation, but also access. Prices of medicines are rising globally. The threats are more dire than ever with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It contains a very aggressive and dangerous IP-maximising agenda that will endanger access to medicines and increase drug prices for the whole of the ASEAN region, and potentially at the global level. Not only this, but India is under immense pressure to abandon the public health safeguards that have made it the ‘pharmacy of the developing world’. We should be looking for global solutions, and for that, India is critical and this Congress is pertinently timed.”

The TPP and its IP-maximising agenda weigh heavy on the minds of many experts. James Love, Director of Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), a human rights group that works on intellectual property rights and innovation, said,
“Trade agreements that expand and extend drug monopolies create policy-induced inequality in health. Governments need to resist measures that increase drug prices, but also fashion alternative frameworks for financing innovation, based upon the delinkage of R&D costs from drug prices."

The TPP is imposing US-centric standards on the rest of the world, said Burcu Kilic, Legal and Policy Director for Public Citizen’s Global Access to Medicines Program.
“Being here and discussing 20 years’ of TRIPS, it becomes clear that the intellectual property agenda has changed a lot. Today, we discuss not only TRIPS, but also the TPP, which is a ‘made-in-America’ agreement regulating IP. It seeks to introduce what it calls “21st century high standards”, but the evidence is clear that those higher standards on IP will result in lower standards of health and reduced access to medicines.”

Dr. Susan K. Sell, intellectual property expert and Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University, spoke of dangerous trends in access to medicines.
“The rise of investor-state dispute mechanisms is the ‘camel’s nose inside the tent’ in access to medicine,” said Dr. Sell. “The Eli Lilly case in Canada is important to IP rights-holders. They are trying to use a non-transparent channel to get public health rules struck down.”

Anand Grover of Lawyers Collective said, “Inter-state dispute resolution systems under BITs are private, non-transparent entities which are taking decisions that impact health and welfare.” Also, “product patents lead to monopoly and exorbitant prices, and process patents lead to relative competition. This is a message that is being lost in a lot of governments, including ours.”

Dr. Amit Sengupta of the Delhi Science Forum offered his views on the impact on India. “At the moment, there are principal shifts in public policy in India, with impacts on the generic drugs industry. The ‘pharmacy of the global South’ is under threat,” said Dr. Sengupta, “and this affects not only India, but also those in need in other states as well. The Global Congress is very relevant, in that we perceive India under pressure to ensure patent protection, while other states move towards emulating India’s health safeguards.”

*

Please find photographs of some of the quoted speakers in this folder:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B60BN7sFZRQFVGtZWDQ3c25MbDg&usp=sharing.

For further information, please contact:
Matthew Kavanagh: mkav@sas.upenn.edu
Burcu Kilic: bkilic@citizen.org
Geetha Hariharan: geetha@cis-india.org

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/press-release-medicines-should-not-bankrupt-patients-or-public-health-systems-access-to-medicines-at-the-global-congress

Press Release: India to Host 4th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest

geetha — 2015-12-14T09:21:01Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is happy to announce that 4th edition of the Global Congress will be held at the National Law University, New Delhi (NLU-D) on 15-17 December 2015. The Congress is jointly organised by CIS, NLU-D, Open A.I.R., CREATe, Columbia University and American University.

In October this year, the 7-year-long negotiations leading up to the Trans-pacific Partnership (TPP) came to an end. The pluri-lateral TPP has not received the coverage it deserves; its provisions do more harm to users and developing countries than are easily spotted. For instance, the TPP has an anti-FOSS clause, which may prevent and prohibit governments like India from adopting open access and FOSS mandates in research.

This should cause public outrage. FOSS (Free and open source software), which allows users to freely use, study, adapt and modify the source code, plays a crucial role in access to knowledge and information. Many states, including India, mandate the use of FOSS in research and make open access mandatory. For instance, an IIM study says that India could save Rs. 8254 crores by implementing FOSS in schools and other institutions. But with the TPP, all this could change.

Access to knowledge is not the only sufferer. With our progressive patent regime, India is often called the pharmacy of the world. Indeed, we may go so far as to say that the poor depend on India for generic, affordable drugs. But the global story is far from India’s success. In many states, the pharmaceutical industry’s stronghanded lobbying has had drastic impacts on access to medicines. A disheartening exemplar is Martin Shkreli, the CEO of Turing Pharma and KaloBio Pharmaceuticals. To public outrage, Mr Shkreli announced an astronomic hike in the price of benznidazole, a drug commonly used in the treatment of Chagas diseas. Mr Shkreli plans to increase prices from US $50-$100 for a typical treatment, to US $60,000-100,000. What is worse: Mr Shkreli is neither the first nor the only man in the price-hike arena.

Intellectual property laws are meant to balance innovation and access, serving the interests of rights-owners and users alike. But today, global intellectual property regimes prioritise the interests of rights-owners, often neglecting the consequences on users and the general public. The result is expensive barriers to access to medicines, scientific and academic scholarship, and technologies for development.

The 4^th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and Public Interest, the first gathering in Asia of over 500 public interest-oriented intellectual property practitioners from across the world, seeks to balance users’ rights and interests with those of rights-owners. It brings together research, civil society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual property issues

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is happy to announce that 4^th edition of the Global Congress will be held at the National Law University, New Delhi (NLU-D) on 15-17 December 2015. The largest ever in Asia, the Congress is jointly organised by CIS, NLU-D, Open A.I.R., CREATe, Columbia University and American University.

The 4^th Congress is themed around “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS” and will be organised in four parallel ‘tracks’ of (1) Openness, (2) Access to Medicines, (3) User Rights, (4) IP and Development. The Congress seeks to produce three outcomes — first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices; second, the collaborative identification of urgent global and local research priorities towards generating joint research/advocacy agendas; and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and global networked community of experts and practitioners focused on the public interest aspects of Access to Knowledge policy and practice.

Distinguished Speakers and Scholars

We are delighted to host a distinguished group of keynote speakers with a wide range of expertise. The Congress will open with plenary sessions featuring keynote speakers such as Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, Vice Chancellor of NLU-D, Mr. G.K. Raghavendar, Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Prof. (Dr.) Hong Xue, Director of the Institute for Internet Policy and Law at Beijing Normal University, Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, and Dr. Nagla Rizk, Founding Director of the Access to Knowledge for Development Center (A2K4D) at the School of Business, The American University in Cairo.

Throughout the Congress, participants will break into rooms for theme-specific presentations, workshops and panel discussions. In a decentralised, democratic manner, experts in the field will curate thematic, problem-based discussions in parallel ‘tracks’ to explore content.

In an interview prior to the Congress, several experts shared their views on the burning issues in intellectual property. Sharing his views on access to medicines, Prof. Shamnad Basheer, founder of SpicyIP said, “The gap between generic interests and patient interests are widening. As a result of this, there is increasing pressure on civil society to fight the good fight and continue opposing frivolous pharma patents. Also, we need to look into the specifics and determine whether the innovation brought forth by an entity really furthers personal interests or the interests of the community or society at large. Good faith is a large part of this equation and it can help determine if what one is doing is in larger public interest or private interest.”

On the same issue, Prof. Susan Sell from George Washington University said, “There are big differences between NGOs in the access to medicine movement and pharmaceutical companies. There are many representatives of pharmaceutical firms that really believe in the morality of their position – that you need protection to innovate the next generation of drugs. They sincerely believe that the development of drought-resistant plants is something that is good for the world. So these people also make a moral claim whether or not you agree with it. The point is such claims are not purely cynical or instrumental on the part of such actors.”

Dr. Michael Geist, Law Professor at University of Ottawa commented on the movement advocating open access to scholarly and scientific literature. He raised his concerns on Article Processing Charges (APC), a model currently employed by publishers, saying, “The APC model may price open access out of the hands of many scholars. We need experimentation with different open models, recognizing the economic uncertainty of switching away from high-priced subscriptions. However, APC may entrench much of the current model and is among the least desirable (though increasingly common) publisher approaches to Open Access.”

Concurring with Dr. Geist’s statement, Mr. Zakir Thomas, an expert in the field of intellectual property rights and open source innovation, said, “Creating a national depository of open access journals which are properly cited and indexed, organized subject-wise and searchable online by all our academic institutions should be the next step. Open access is about access to knowledge. It will ensure that the work you do at your lab is now accessible by people at large.”

New at the Global Congress

The 4^th Congress comes with marked changes based on feedback from participants from the earlier editions. A Room of Scholars is planned, in which key research outputs such as advanced chapters or white papers may be presented. Another important addition will be structured Cross-Track Meetings, focusing on research cutting across tracks, so that the tracks may share learnings and research outputs, and enter into collaborative dialogue.

A ‘Youth Workshop on Intellectual Property, Public Health and Access to Medicines’ is a novel feature at this Congress. Organised at NLU-D by the Institute for Studies in Industrial Development (ISID), Peoples Health Movement (PHM) and Prayas, from 14-22 December 2015.

The detailed schedule for the Global Congress can be accessed here.

For more information regarding the Global Congress or participation, please contact our team:

Swaraj Paul Barooah, Organiser: swaraj.barooah@gmail.com
Shruthi Chandrasekaran, Organiser: shruthi.chandrasekaran@gmail.com
Geetha Hariharan, Press Officer: geetha@cis-india.org

***

About CIS

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS, http://cis-india.org) is a non-for-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research from policy and academic perspectives on digital technologies and the Internet. Our focus areas of research 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. CIS’ academic wing seeks to understand the mediation and reconfiguration of social and cultural processes and structures by the Internet and digital media technologies.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/press-release-india-to-host-4th-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest

Preliminary Submission on "Internet Governance Issues" to the Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India

geetha — 2015-02-12T14:52:04Z

On January 30, 2015, Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) held a consultation on Internet governance. A committee was set up to draft a report on Internet governance, with a focus on issues relevant to India. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is represented on the committee, and has provided its preliminary comments to ASSOCHAM.

ASSOCHAM convened a meeting of its members and other stakeholders, at which CIS was represented. At this meeting, inputs were sought on Internet governance issues relevant for India, on which the industry body proposed to make comments to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. Such a discussion, proposing to consolidate the views of ASSOCHAM members in consultation with other stakeholders, is a commendable move. This submission presents preliminary comments from the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in light of ASSOCHAM's consultation on Internet governance.

I. About CIS

1. CIS is a non-profit research organization that works, inter alia, on issues relating to privacy, freedom of expression, intermediary liability and internet governance, access to knowledge, open data and open standards, intellectual property law, accessibility for persons with disabilities, and engages in academic research on the budding Indian disciplines of digital natives and digital humanities.

2. CIS engages in international and domestic forums for Internet governance. We are a Sector-D member of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU),[1] and participated in the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), 2012 (Dubai) [2] and the Plenipotentiary Conference, 2014 (Busan).[3] We have also participated in the WSIS+10 Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform (MPP)[4] and the WSIS+10 High Level Event, organized by the ITU.[5]

3. CIS is also a member of the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) at ICANN. Pranesh Prakash, our Policy Director, held a position on the NCUC Executive Committee from December 2013 to November 2014.[6]

4. CIS has been engaging at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) since 2008, and has organized and participated in over 60 panels to date.[7] We have also organized panels at the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF (APrIGF). [8] Our Executive Director Sunil Abraham is a member of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) for the India-IGF, and has attended in its meetings.[9] We are also in the process of developing international principles for intermediary liability, in collaboration with international civil society organisations like EFF and Article19. [10]

II. Structure of Submission

5. In this submission, we identify issues in Internet governance where engagement from and within India is necessary. In particular, brief descriptions of issues such as freedom of expression and privacy online, cyber-security, critical Internet resources and ICANN, multistakeholderism and net neutrality are provided.

III. Internet Governance Issues

6. The history of the Internet is unique, in that it is not exclusively government-regulated. Though governments regulate the Internet in many ways (for instance, by ordering website blocking or filtering, licensing of ISPs, encryption controls, investment caps, etc.), the running of the Internet is largely in the hands of private businesses, technical organisations and end-users.

7. International processes like the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), and forums such as ICANN, the ITU, the IGF and the UN are involved in governing in the Internet in many ways. Regional organisations like the OECD, APEC and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) are also involved (for instance, in cyber-security matters).

8. The issues surrounding Internet governance are many, and range from telecom infrastructure and technical coordination to human rights and access to information.

Rights Online

9. The status of 'human rights online' has come under discussion, with the NETmundial Outcome Document affirming that offline rights must also be protected online. These issues are important in the context of, among others, the large scale violations of privacy in light of the Snowden Revelations,[11] and increased instances of website blocking and takedowns in different parts of the world.[12]

10. Internationally, issues of freedom of speech, privacy and access or the digital divide (though it is debatable that the latter is a human right) are discussed at the UN Human Rights Council, such as the resolution on human rights and the Internet, and the UN Human Rights Commissioner's report on the right to privacy in the digital age , which discusses the need for checks and balances on digital mass surveillance. During the Universal Periodic Review of India in 2012, India noted a recommendation from Sweden to " ensure that measures limiting freedom of expression on the internet is based on clearly defined criteria in accordance with international human rights standard ".

11. Freedom of speech and privacy are also relevant for discussion at the ITU.[13] For instance, at the Plenipotentiary meeting in 2014 (Busan), India proposed a resolution that sought, among other things, complete traceability of all Internet communications. [14] This has implications for privacy that are not yet addressed by our domestic laws. A Privacy Bill and such other protections are only in the pipeline in India.[15]

12. At ICANN as well, the root zone management function may affect freedom of expression. If, for instance, a top level domain (TLD) such as .com is erased from the root zone file, hundreds of thousands of websites and their content can be wiped from the World Wide Web. A TLD can be erased by Verisign if a request to that effect is raised or accepted by ICANN, and signed off on by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the US government. Similarly,the WHOIS database, which contains information about the holders of domain names and IP addresses, has implications for privacy and anonymity.

13. In India, the judiciary is currently adjudicating the constitutionality of several provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008), including S. 66A, S. 69A and S. 79. A series of writ petitions filed, among others, by the Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI) and Mouthshut.com, relate to the constitutionality of the nature of content controls on the Internet, as well as intermediary liability. [16]

14. A judgment on the constitutionality of Ss. 66A, 69A and 79 are crucial for end-users and citizens, as well as companies in the Internet ecosystem. For instance, an uncertain intermediary liability regime with penalties for intermediaries - S. 79, IT Act and Intermediaries Guidelines Rules, 2011 - disincentivises ISPs, online news websites and other content providers like Blogger, Youtube, etc. from allowing free speech to flourish online. [17] The ongoing cases of Kamlesh Vaswani v. UOI and Sabu George v. UOI also have consequences for ISPs and search engines, as well as for fundamental rights.[18] International and domestic engagement is desirable, including in consultations with the Law Commission of India (for instance, the consultation on media laws).

Critical Internet Resources

15. Critical Internet Resources form the backbone of the Internet, and include management of IP addresses, the domain name system (DNS) and the root zone. [19] ICANN, a global non-profit entity incorporated in California, manages the IANA functions (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) for the global Internet. These functions include allocating the global pool of IP addresses (IPv4 and IPv6) to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), administering the domain name system and maintaining a protocol registry.

16. At present, the IANA functions are performed under a contract with the NTIA. On March 14, 2014, the NTIA announced its intention to transition oversight of the IANA functions to an as-yet-undetermined "global multi-stakeholder body". The deadline for this transition is September 30, 2015, though the NTIA has expressed its willingness to renew the IANA contract and extend the deadline. ICANN was charged with convening the transition process, and set up the IANA Coordination Group (ICG), a team of 30 individuals who will consolidate community input to create a transition proposal. At the moment, thenames (CWG-Names),numbers (CRISP) and protocols (IETF) communities are debating existing draft proposals. A number of new entities with which ICANN will have contractual arrangements have been proposed. At ICANN's meetings in Singapore (February 7-12, 2015) and Buenos Aires (June 2015), these proposals will be discussed.

17. At the same time, a parallel track to examine ICANN's own transparency and accountability has been introduced. The CCWG-Accountability is considering ICANN's accountability in two Workstreams: first, in light of the IANA transition and second, a revision of ICANN's policies and by-laws to strengthen accountability. ICANN's accountability and transparency are crucial to its continued role in Internet governance.

18. Several issues arise here: Should ICANN continue to remain in the US? Should the IANA Functions Department be moved into a separate entity from ICANN? Ought ICANN's by-laws be amended to create oversight over the Board of Directors, which is now seen to have consolidated power? Ought ICANN be more transparent in its financial and operational matters, proactively and reactively?

19. It is, for instance, beneficial to the stability of the Internet and to India if the IANA department is separate from ICANN - this will ensure aseparation of powers. Second, stronger transparency and accountability mechanisms are necessary for ICANN; it is a growing corporate entity performing a globally Internet function. As such, granular information about ICANN's revenues and expenses should be made public. See, for ex.,CIS' request for ICANN's expenses for travel and meetings, and ICANN's response to the same.

20. The most ideal forum to engage in this is ICANN, and within India, working groups on Internet governance at the Ministry level. As such, ASSOCHAM may seek open, transparent and inclusive consultations with the relevant departments of the Government (the Ministry of External Affairs, DeitY, Department of Telecommunications). At ICANN, industry bodies can find representation in the Business Constituency or the Commercial Stakeholders Group. Additionally, comments and proposals can be made to the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability by anyone.

Cyber-security

21. Cyber-security is often used as an umbrella-term, covering issues ranging from network security (DNSSEC and the ICANN domain), cyber-crime, and cyber-incidents such as the Distributed Denial of Service attacks on Estonian public institutions and the Stuxnet virus that attacked Iran's nuclear programme. Within the ITU, spam and child safety online are also assessed as security issues (See Study Group 17 under ITU-T).

22. At the international level, the UN Group of Governmental Experts has published three reports to date, arguing also that in cyber-security incidents, international humanitarian law will apply. International humanitarian law applies during armed attacks on states, when special rules apply to the treatment of civilians, civilian and military buildings, hospitals, wounded soldiers, etc.

23. The ITU also launched a Global Cybersecurity Agenda in 2007, aiming at international cooperation. Such cooperative methods are also being employed at the OSCE, APEC and the SCO, which have developed drafts of Confidence Building Measures. The Global Conferences on Cyberspace (London 2011, Budapest 2012, Seoul 2013, The Hague 2015) resulted in, inter alia, the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. India has not ratified the Convention, and remains tight-lipped about its security concerns.

24. Surveillance and monitoring of online communications is a crucial issue in this regard. In India, the surveillance power finds its source in S. 5, Telegraph Act, 1888, and the Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules, 1951. Further, S. 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Interception Rules, 2009 enable the government and authorized officers to intercept and monitor Internet traffic on certain grounds. Information regarding the implementation of these Rules is scant.

25. In any event, the applicability of targeted surveillance should be subject to judicial review , and a balance should be struck between fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and privacy and the needs of security. An accountability model such as that present in the UK for the Interception of Communications Commissioner may provide valuable insight.

26. In India, the government does not make public information regarding its policies in cyber-security and cybercrime. This would be welcome, as well as consultations with relevant stakeholders.

Models of Internet Governance

27. Multi-stakeholderism has emerged as one of the catchphrases in Internet governance. With the display of a multi-stakeholder model at NETmundial (April 2014), controversies and opinions regarding the meaning, substance and benefits of multi-stakeholderism have deepened.

28. The debates surrounding stakeholder-roles in Internet governance began with ¶49 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles and ¶35 of the Tunis Agenda, which delineated clear roles and responsibilities. It created a 'contributory' multi-stakeholder model, where states held sovereign authority over public policy issues, while business and civil society were contributed to 'important roles' at the 'technical and economic fields' and the 'community level', respectively.

29. As the WGEC meeting (April 30-May 2, 2014) demonstrated, there is as yet no consensus on stakeholder-roles. Certain governments remain strongly opposed to equal roles of other stakeholders, emphasizing their lack of accountability and responsibility. Civil society is similarly splintered, with a majority opposing the Tunis Agenda delineation of stakeholder-roles, while others remain dubious of permitting the private sector an equal footing in public policy-making.

30. The positions in India are similarly divided. While there is appears to be high-level acceptance of "multi-stakeholder models" across industry, academia and civil society, there exists no clarity as to what this means. In simple terms, does a multi-stakeholder model mean that the government should consult industry, civil society, academia and the technical community? Or should decision-making power be split among stakeholders? In fact, the debate is more specific.

31. In India, the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) for the India-IGF was established in February 2014, and some meetings were held. Unfortunately, neither the minutes of the meetings nor action points (if any) are publicly available.

32. The Indian government's position is more complex. At the 68^th UN General Assembly session in 2011, India argued for a (multilateral) 50-member UN Committee on Internet-related Policies (CIRP). However, the Ministry for Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) has, over the years, presented differing views at the IGF and ITU through its two departments: DeitY and DoT. Further, at the meetings of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC), India has presented more nuanced views, suggesting that certain issues remain within the governmental domain (such as cyber-security and child online protection). At the 9^th IGF (Istanbul, September 2014), Mr. R.S. Sharma of the DeitY echoed such a view of delineated roles for stakeholders.

33. A clear message from the Indian government, on whether it favours multistakeholderism or governmental policy authority for specific issues, would be invaluable in shaping opinion and domestic processes. In any event, a transparent consultative procedure to take into account the views of all stakeholders is desirable.

Emerging Issues

Net Neutrality

34. In simple terms, net neutrality concerns differential treatment of packets of data by carriers such as ISPs, etc. over networks. The issue has gained international attention following the U.S. FCC's regulatory stance, and the U.S. Court of Appeal's 2014 decision in Verizon v. FCC. Though this decision turned on the interpretation of 'broadband providers' under the Communications Act, 1934, net neutrality has since been debated in the US, both by the FCC and other stakeholders. There is no international consensus in sight; the NETmundial Outcome Document recognized net neutrality as an emerging issue (page 11, no. IV).

35. In India, a TRAI consultation on Over-The-Top Services on August 5, 2014 brought concerns of telecom and cellular operators to light. OTTs were seen as hijacking a portion of telcos' revenues, and as lacking consumer protection and privacy safeguards. While these concerns are legitimate, net neutrality regulation is not yet the norm in India. In any event, any such regulation must take into account the consequences of regulation on innovation, competition, and consumer choice, as well as on the freedom of the medium (which may have detrimental impacts freedom of expression).

36. Though net neutrality regulation is being mooted, there is as yet anarray of definitions of 'net neutrality'. The views of telcos themselves differ in India. Further study on the methods of identifying and/or circumventing net neutrality is necessary before a policy position can be taken.

IV. Conclusions

37. CIS welcomes ASSOCHAM's initiative to study and develop industry-wide positions on Internet governance. This note provides brief descriptions of several issues in Internet governance where policy windows are open internationally and domestically. These issues include freedom of expression and privacy under Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court's hearing of a set of cases alleging unconstitutionality of Ss. 66A, 69, 69A and 79 (among others) of the IT Act, 2000, as well as consultations on issues such as pornography by the Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Committee and media laws by the Law Commission of India are important in this regard.

38. International and domestic engagement is necessary in the transition of stewardship of the IANA functions, as well as ICANN's own accountability and transparency measures. Similarly, in the area of cyber-security, though several initiatives are afoot internationally, India's engagement has been cursory until now. A concrete position from India's stakeholders, including the government, on these and the question of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance would be of immense assistance.

39. Finally, net neutrality is an emerging issue of importance to industry's revenues and business models, and to users' rights such as access to information and freedom of expression.

[1] CIS gets ITU-D Sector Membership, goo.gl/PBGKWt (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[2] Letter for Civil Society Involvement in WCIT, goo.gl/gXpYQD (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[3] See, ex., Hariharan, What India's ITU Proposal May Mean for Internet Governance, goo.gl/hpWaZn (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[4] Panday, WSIS +10 High Level Event: Open Consultation Process MPP: Phase Six: Fifth Physical Meeting, goo.gl/3XR24X (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[5] Hariharan, WSIS+10 High Level Event: A Bird's Eye Report, goo.gl/8XkwyJ (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[6] Pranesh Prakash elected as Asia-Pacific Representative to the Executive Committee of NonCommercial Users Constituency, goo.gl/iJM7C0 (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[7] See, ex., CIS@IGF 2014, goo.gl/Werdiz (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[8] Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance: The Way Ahead , goo.gl/NuktNi; Minimising legal risks of online Intermediaries while protecting user rights, goo.gl/mjQyww (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[9] First Meeting of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group for India Internet Governance Forum, goo.gl/NCmKRp (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[10] See Zero Draft of Content Removal Best Practices White Paper, goo.gl/RnAel8 (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[11] See, ex., UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful 'for seven years', goo.gl/vG8W7i (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

[12] See, ex., Twitter: Turkey tops countries demanding content removal, goo.gl/ALyO3B (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

[13] See, ex., The ITU convenes a programme on Child Online Protection, goo.gl/qJ4Es7 (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

[14] Hariharan, Why India's Proposal at the ITU is Troubling for Internet Freedoms, goo.gl/Sxh5K8 (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

[15] Hickok, Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy vs. The Leaked 2014 Privacy Bill, goo.gl/454qA6 (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

[16] See, Supreme Court Of India To Hear Eight IT Act Related Cases On 11th April 2014 - SFLC, goo.gl/XLWsSq (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

[17] See, Dara, Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet, goo.gl/bwBT0x (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

[18] See, ex., Arun, Blocking online porn: who should make Constitutional decisions about freedom of speech?,goo.gl/NPdZcK; Hariharan & Subramanian, Search Engine and Prenatal Sex Determination: Walking the Tight Rope of the Law, goo.gl/xMj4Zw (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

[19] CSTD, The mapping of international Internet public policy issues, goo.gl/zUWdI1 (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/preliminary-submission-on-internet-governance-issues-to-assocham

NTIA Announcement

geetha — 2014-06-22T03:11:19Z

IANA Oversight Mechanism

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/Untitled.png

No more 66A!

geetha — 2015-03-26T02:01:31Z

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has struck down Section 66A. Today was a great day for freedom of speech on the Internet! When Section 66A was in operation, if you made a statement that led to offence, you could be prosecuted. We are an offence-friendly nation, judging by media reports in the last year. It was a year of book-bans, website blocking and takedown requests. Facebook’s Transparency Report showed that next to the US, India made the most requests for information about user accounts. A complaint under Section 66A would be a ground for such requests.

Section 66A hung like a sword in the middle: Shaheen Dhada was arrested in Maharashtra for observing that Bal Thackeray’s funeral shut down the city, Devu Chodankar in Goa and Syed Waqar in Karnataka were arrested for making posts about Narendra Modi, and a Puducherry man was arrested for criticizing P. Chidambaram’s son. The law was vague and so widely worded that it was prone to misuse, and was in fact being misused.

Today, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in its judgment on a set of petitions heard together last year and earlier this year. Stating that the law is vague, the bench comprising Chelameshwar and Nariman, JJ. held that while restrictions on free speech are constitutional insofar as they are in line with Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Section 66A, they held, does not meet this test: The central protection of free speech is the freedom to make statements that “offend, shock or disturb”, and Section 66A is an unconstitutional curtailment of these freedoms. To cross the threshold of constitutional limitation, the impugned speech must be of such a nature that it incites violence or is an exhortation to violence. Section 66A, by being extremely vague and broad, does not meet this threshold. These are, of course, drawn from news reports of the judgment; the judgment is not available yet.

Reports also say that Section 79(3)(b) has been read down. Previously, any private individual or entity, and the government and its departments could request intermediaries to take down a website, without a court order. If the intermediaries did not comply, they would lose immunity under Section 79. The Supreme Court judgment states that both in Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries Guidelines and in Section 79(3)(b), the "actual knowledge of the court order or government notification" is necessary before website takedowns can be effected. In effect, this mean that intermediaries need not act upon private notices under Section 79, while they can act upon them if they choose. This stops intermediaries from standing judge over what constitutes an unlawful act. If they choose not to take down content after receiving a private notice, they will not lose immunity under Section 79.

Section 69A, the website blocking procedure, has been left intact by the Court, despite infirmities such as a lack of judicial review and non-transparent operation. More updates when the judgment is made available.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/no-more-66a

NETmundial Outcome Document - Draft Article 13

geetha — 2014-04-29T17:13:43Z

Compilation of comments made in relation to the draft Article 13 of the NETmundial outcome document. The Article dealt with enabling environment for innovation and creativity.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/netmundial-outcome-document-draft-article-13

Multi-stakeholder Models of Internet Governance within States: Why, Who & How?

geetha — 2014-06-16T14:27:38Z

Internet governance, for long a global exercise, has found new awareness within national frameworks in recent times. Especially relevant for developing countries, effective national IG mechanisms are important to raise awareness and ensure multi-stakeholder participation at technical, infrastructural and public policy levels.

This post is a surface-level overview of national IG bodies, and is intended to inform introductory thoughts on national IG mechanisms.

A Short Introduction

The previous decade has seen a proliferation of regional, sub-regional and national initiatives for Internet governance (IG). Built primarily on the multi-stakeholder model, these initiatives aim at creating dialogue on issues of regional, local or municipal importance. In Asia, Bangladesh has instituted a national IGF, the Bangladesh IGF, with the stated objective of creating a national multi-stakeholder forum that is specialized in Internet governance issues, and to facilitate informed dialogue on IG policy issues among stakeholders. India, too, is currently in the process of instituting such a forum. At this juncture, it is useful to consider the rationale and modalities of national IG bodies.

The Internet has long been considered a sphere of non-governmental, multi-stakeholder, decentralized, bottom-up governance space. The Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace, John Perry Barlow’s defiant articulation of the Internet’s freedom from governmental control, is a classic instance of this. The Internet is a “vast ocean”, we claimed; “no one owns it”.[1] Even today, members of the technical community insist that everyone ought to “let techies do their job”: a plea, if you will, of the complexity of cyber-walls and –borders (or of their lack).

But as Prof. Milton Mueller argues in Ruling the Root, the Internet has always been a contentious resource: battles over its governance (or specifically, the governance of the DNS root, both the root-zone file and the root servers) have leapt from the naïveté of the Declaration of Independence to a private-sector-led, contract-based exploitation of Internet resources. The creation of ICANN was a crucial step in this direction, following arbitrary policy choices by Verizon and entities managing the naming and numbering resources of the Internet.

The mushrooming of parallel tracks of Internet governance is further evidence of the malleability of the space. As of today, various institutions – inter-governmental and multi-stakeholder – extend their claims of governance. ICANN, the World Summit of Information Society, the World Conference on International Telecommunications, the Internet Governance Forum and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation under the ECOSOC Committee for Science, Technology and Development are a few prominent tracks. As of today, the WSIS process has absorbed various UN special bodies (the ITU, UNESCO, UNCTAD, UNDP are but a few), with the UNESCO instituting a separate study on Internet-related issues. A proposal for a multilateral Committee on Internet-Related Policies remains stillborn.

Amongst these, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) remains a strong contender for a truly multi-stakeholder process facilitating dialogue on IG. The IGF was set up following the recommendation of the Working Group of Internet Governance (WGIG), constituted after the Geneva phase of the WSIS.

Rationale: Why Have National IG bodies?

The issue of national multi-stakeholder cooperation/collaboration in IG is not new; it has been alive since the early 2000s. The Tunis Agenda, in paragraph 80, encourages the “development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional and international levels to discuss and collaborate on the expansion and diffusion of the Internet as a means to support development efforts to achieve internationally agreed development goals and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals” (emphasis supplied).

In its June 2005 Report, the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) emphasizes that “global Internet governance can only be effective if there is coherence with regional, subregional and national-level policies”. Towards this end it recommends that “coordination be established among all stakeholders at the national level and a multi-stakeholder national Internet governance steering committee or similar body be set up” (emphasis supplied). The IGF, whose creation the WGIG recommended, has since been commended for its impact on the proliferation of national IGFs.

The rationale, then, was that multi-stakeholder steering committees at the national level would help to create a cohesive body to coordinate positions on Internet governance. In Reforming Internet Governance, WGIG member Waudo Siganga writes of the Internet Steering Committee of Brazil as a model, highlighting lessons that states (especially developing countries) may learn from CGI.br.

The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) was set up in 1995 and is responsible, inter alia, for the management of the .br domain, distribution of Internet addresses and administration of metropolitan Internet exchange points. CERT.br ensures network security and extends support to network administrators. Siganga writes that CGI.br is a “well-structured multistakeholder entity, having representation from government and democratically chosen representatives of the business sector, scientific and technological community and an Internet expert”.

Why is CGI.br a model for other states? First, CGI.br exemplifies how countries can structure in an effective manner, a body that is involved in creating awareness about IG issues at the national level. Moreover, the multi-stakeholder nature of CGI.br shows how participation can be harnessed effectively to build capacity across domestic players. This also reflects the multi-stakeholder aspects of Internet governance at the global level, clarifying and implementing the WSIS standards (for instance). Especially in developing countries, where awareness and coordination for Internet governance is lacking at the national level, national IG committees can bridge the gap between awareness and participation. Such awareness can translate into local solutions for local issues, as well as contributing to an informed, cohesive stance at the global level.

Stakeholders: Populating a national IG body

A national IG body – be in steering committee, IGF or other forum – should ideally involve all relevant stakeholders. As noted before, since inception, the Internet has not been subject to exclusive governmental regulation. The World Summit on Information Society recognized this, but negotiations amongst stakeholders resulted in the delegation of roles and responsibilities: the controversial and much-debated paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda reads:

Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues.
The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields.
Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role.
Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues.
International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.

This position remains endorsed by the WSIS process; the recent WSIS+10 High Level Event endorsed by acclamation the WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015, which “respect mandates given by Tunis Agenda and respect for the multi-stakeholder principles”. In addition to government, the private sector and civil society, the technical community is identified as a distinct stakeholder group. Academia has also found a voice, as demonstrated by stakeholder-representation at NETmundial 2014.

A study of the Internet Society (ISOC) on Assessing National Internet Governance Arrangements, authored by David Souter, maps IG stakeholders at the global, regional and national levels. At the global level, primary stakeholders include ICANN (not-for-profit, private sector corporation involved in governance and technical coordination of the DNS), the IETF, IAB and W3C (technical standards), governments and civil society organizations, all of which participate with different levels of involvements at the IGF, ICANN, ITU, etc.

At the national/municipal level, the list of stakeholders is as comprehensive. Governmental stakeholders include: (1) relevant Ministries (in India, these are the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology – the Department of Electronics and Information Technology under the MCIT is particularly relevant), and (2) regulators, statutory and independent (the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, for example). At the national level, these typically seek inputs from other stakeholders while making recommendations to governments, which then enact laws or make policy. In India, for instance, the TRAI conducts consultations prior to making recommendations to the government.

Within the private sector, there may be companies (1) on the supply-side, such as infrastructure networks, telecommunications service companies, Internet Service Providers, search engines, social networks, cybercafés, etc., and (2) on the demand-side, online businesses, advertising/media, financial service providers, etc. who use the Internet. There may also be national registries managing ccTLDs, such as the Registro.br or the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI). There may also the press and news corporations representing both corporate and public interest under specific circumstances (media ownership and freedom of expression, for distinct examples).

Civil society organisations, including consumer organisations, think-tanks and grassroots organisations, participate at various levels of policy-making in the formal institutional structure, and are crucial in representing users and public interest. The complexity of stakeholders may be seen from Souter’s report, and this enumeration is but a superficial view of the national stakeholder-population.

Processes: Creating effective national IG bodies

National IG bodies – be they steering committees, IGFs, consultative/working groups or other forums – may be limited by formal institutional governmental settings. While limited by the responsibility-gradient in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda, an effective national IG body requires robust multi-stakeholder participation, as Souter notes, in technical governance, infrastructure and public policy issues. Its effectiveness also lies in governmental acquiescence of its expertise and recommendations; in short, in the translation of the IG body’s decisions into policy.

How do these stakeholders interact at the national level? In addition to the Brazilian example (CGI.br), an ISOC study by Souter and Monica Kerretts-Makau, Internet Governance in Kenya: An Assessment, provides a detailed answer. At the technical level, the registry KENIC manages the .ke domain, while the Kenya Computer Incident Response Team Coordination Centre coordinates national responses to incidents and collaborates internationally on cyber-security issues. A specific IPv6 Force to promote Kenya’s transition to IPv6 was also created.

At the infrastructural level, both the government and the private sector play important roles. Directly, ministries and government departments consult with infrastructure providers in creating policy. In India, for instance, the TRAI conducts multi-stakeholder consultations on issues such as telecom tariffs, colocation tariffs for submarine cable stations and mobile towers, etc. The government may also take a lead in creating infrastructure, such as the national optic fibre networks in India and Kenya, as also creating investment opportunities such as liberalizing FDI. At the public policy level, there may exist consultations initiated by government bodies (such as the TRAI or the Law Commission), in which other stakeholders participate.

As one can see, government-initiated consultations by ministries, regulators, law commissions or specially constituted committees. Several countries have also set up national IGFs, which typically involve all major stakeholders in voluntary participation, and form a discussion forum for existing and emerging IG issues. National IGFs have been considered particularly useful to create awareness within the country, and may best address IG issues at the domestic policy level. However, Prof. Mueller writes that what is necessary is a “reliable mechanism reliable mechanisms for consistently feeding the preferences expressed in these forums to actual global policy-making institutions like ICANN, RIRs, WIPO, and WTO which impact distributional outcomes”.

[1] M. Mueller, Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace 57 (2002).

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/multi-stakeholder-models-of-internet-governance-within-states-why-who-how

Marco Civil da Internet: Brazil’s ‘Internet Constitution’

geetha — 2014-06-19T10:38:10Z

On March 25, 2014, Brazil's lower house of parliament passed bill no. 2126/2011, popularly known as Marco Civil da Internet. The Marco Civil is a charter of Internet user-rights and service provider responsibilities, committed to freedom of speech and expression, privacy, and accessibility and openness of the Internet. In this post, the author looks at the pros and cons of the bill.

Introduction:

Ten months ago, Edward Snowden’s revelations of the U.S. National Security Agency’s extensive, warrantless spying dawned on us. Citizens and presidents alike expressed their outrage at this sweeping violation of their privacy. While India’s position remained carefully neutral, or indeed, supportive of NSA’s surveillance, Germany, France and Brazil cut the U.S. no slack. Indeed, at the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff (whose office the NSA had placed under surveillance) stated, “Tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of International Law and is an affront to the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations.” Brazil, she said, would “redouble its efforts to adopt legislation, technologies and mechanisms to protect us from the illegal interception of communications and data.”

Some may say that Brazil has lived up to its word. Later this month, Brazil will be host to NETmundial, the Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, jointly organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) and the organization /1Net. The elephantine invisible presence of Snowden vests NETmundial with the hope and responsibility of laying the ground for a truly multi-stakeholder model for governing various aspects of the Internet; a model where governments are an integral part, but not the only decision-makers. The global Internet community, comprising users, corporations, governments, the technical community, and NGOs and think-tanks, is hoping devise a workable method to divest the U.S. Government of its de facto control over the Internet, which it wields through its contracts to manage the domain name system and the root zone.

But as Internet governance expert Dr. Jeremy Malcolm put it, these technical aspects do not make or break the Internet. The real questions in Internet governance underpin the rights of users, corporations and netizens worldwide. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, when he called for an Internet Bill of Rights, meant much the same. For Sir Tim, an open, neutral Internet is imperative if we are to keep our governments open, and foster “good democracy, healthcare, connected communities and diversity of culture”. Some countries agree. The Philippines envisaged a Magna Carta for Internet Freedom, though the Bill is pending in the Philippine parliament.

Marco Civil da Internet:

Last week, on March 25, 2014, the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies (the lower house of parliament) passed the Marco Civil da Internet, bill 2126/2011, a charter of Internet rights. The Marco Civil is considered by the global Internet community as a one-of-a-kind bill, with Sir Tim Berners-Lee hailing the “groundbreaking, inclusive and participatory process has resulted in a policy that balances the rights and responsibilities of the individuals, governments and corporations who use the Internet”.

The Marco Civil’s journey began with a two-stage public consultation process in October 2009, under the aegis of the Brazilian Ministry of Justice’s Department of Legislative Affairs, jointly with the Getulio Vargas Foundation’s Center for Technology and Society of the Law School of Rio de Janeiro (CTS-FGV). The collaborative process involved a 45-day consultation process in which over 800 comments were received, following which a second consultation in May 2010 received over 1200 comments from individuals, civil society organizations and corporations involved in the telecom and technology industries. Based on comments, the initial draft of the bill was revamped to include issues of popular, public importance, such as intermediary liability and online freedom of speech.

An official English translation of the Marco Civil is as yet unavailable. But an unofficial translation (please note that the file is uploaded on Google Drive), triangulated against online commentary on the bill, reveals that the following issues were of primary importance:

The fundamentals:

The fundamental principles of the Marco Civil reveal a commitment to openness, accessibility neutrality and democratic collaboration on the Internet. Art. 2 (see unofficial translation) sets out the fundamental principles that form the basis of the law. It pledges to adhere to freedom of speech and expression, along with an acknowledgement of the global scale of the network, its openness and collaborative nature, its plurality and diversity. It aims to foster free enterprise and competition on the Internet, while ensuring consumer protection and upholding human rights, personality development and citizenship exercise in the digital media in line with the network’s social purposes. Not only this, but Art. 4 of the bill pledges to promote universal access to the Internet, as well as “to information, knowledge and participation in cultural life and public affairs”. It aims to promote innovation and open technology standards, while ensuring interoperability.

The Marco Civil expands on its commitment to human rights and accessibility by laying down a “discipline of Internet use in Brazil”. Art. 3 of the bill guarantees freedom of expression, communication and expression of thoughts, under the terms of the Federal Constitution of Brazil, while at the same time guaranteeing privacy and protection of personal data, and preserving network neutrality. It also focuses on preserving network stability and security, by emphasizing accountability and adopting “technical measures consistent with international standards and by encouraging the implementation of best practices”.

These principles, however, are buttressed by rights assured to Internet users and responsibilities of and exceptions provided to service providers.

Rights and responsibilities of users and service providers:

Net neutrality:

Brazil becomes one of the few countries in the world (joining the likes of the Netherlands, Chile and Israel in part) to preserve network neutrality by legislation. Art. 9 of the Marco Civil requires all Internet providers to “to treat any data package with isonomy, regardless of content, origin and destination, service, terminal or application”. Not only this, but Internet providers are enjoined from blocking, monitoring or filtering content during any stage of transmission or routing of data. Deep packet inspection is also forbidden. Exceptions may be made to discriminate among network traffic only on the basis of essential technical requirements for services-provision, and for emergency services prioritization. Even this requires the Internet provider to inform users in advance of such traffic discrimination, and to act proportionately, transparently and with equal protection.

Data retention, privacy and data protection:

The Marco Civil includes provisions for the retention of personal data and communications by service providers, and access to the same by law enforcement authorities. However, record, retention and access to Internet connection records and applications access-logs, as well as any personal data and communication, are required to meet the standards for “the conservation of intimacy, private life, honor and image of the parties directly or indirectly involved” (Art. 10). Specifically, access to identifying information and contents of personal communication may be obtained only upon judicial authorization.

Moreover, where data is collected within Brazilian territory, processes of collection, storage, custody and treatment of the abovementioned data are required to comply with Brazilian laws, especially the right to privacy and confidentiality of personal data and private communications and records (Art. 11). Interestingly, this compliance requirement is applicable also to entities incorporated in foreign jurisdictions, which offer services to Brazilians, or where a subsidiary or associate entity of the corporation in question has establishments in Brazil. While this is undoubtedly a laudable protection for Brazilians or service providers located in Brazil, it is possible that conflicts may arise (with penal consequences) between standards and terms of data retention and access by authorities in other jurisdictions. In the predictable absence of harmonization of such laws, perhaps rules of conflicts of law may prove helpful.

While data retention remained a point of contention (Brazil initially sought to ensure a 5-year data retention period), under the Marco Civil, Internet providers are required to retain connection records for 1 year under rules of strict confidentiality; this responsibility cannot be delegated to third parties (Art. 13). Providers providing the Internet connection (such as Reliance or Airtel in India) are forbidden from retaining records of access to applications on the Internet (Art. 14). While law enforcement authorities may request a longer retention period, a court order (filed for by the authority within 60 days from the date of such request) is required to access the records themselves. In the event the authority fails to file for such court order within the stipulated period, or if court order is denied, the service provider must protect the confidentiality of the connection records.

Though initially excluded from the Marco Civil, the current draft passed by the Chamber of Deputies requires Internet application providers (such as Google or Facebook) to retain access-logs for their applications for 6 months (Art. 15). Logs for other applications may not be retained without previous consent of the owner, and in any case, the provider cannot retain personal data that is in excess of the purpose for which consent was given by the owner. As for connection records, law enforcement authorities may request a greater retention period, but require a court order to access the data itself.

These requirements must be understood in light of the rights that the Marco Civil guarantees to users. Art. 7, which enumerates these user-rights, does not however set forth their content; this is probably left to judicial interpretation of rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution. In any event, Art. 7 guarantees to all Internet users the “inviolability of intimacy and privacy”, including the confidentiality of all Internet communications, along with “compensation for material or moral damages resulting from violation”. In this regard, it assures that users are entitled to a guarantee that no personal data or communication shall be shared with third parties in the absence of express consent, and to “clear and complete information on the collection, use, storage, treatment and protection of their personal data”. Indeed, where contracts violate the requirements of inviolability and secrecy of private communications, or where a dispute resolution clause does not permit the user to approach Brazilian courts as an alternative, Art. 8 renders such contracts null and void.

Most importantly, Art. 7 states that users are entitled to clear and complete information about how connection records and access logs shall be stored and protected, and to publicity of terms/policies of use of service providers. Additionally, Art. 7 emphasizes quality of service and accessibility to the Internet, and forbids suspension of Internet connections except for failure of payments. Read comprehensively, therefore, Arts. 7-15 of the Marco Civil prima facie set down robust protections for private and personal data and communications.

An initial draft of the Marco Civil sought to mandate local storage of all Brazilians’ data within Brazilian territory. This came in response to Snowden’s revelations of NSA surveillance, and President Rousseff, in her statement to the United Nations, declared that Brazil sought to protect itself from “illegal interception of communications and data”. However, the implications of this local storage requirement was the creation of a geographically isolated Brazilian Internet, with repercussions for the Internet’s openness and interoperability that the Marco Civil itself sought to protect. Moreover, there are implications for efficiency and business; for instance, small businesses may be unable to source the money or capacity to comply with local storage requirements. Also, they lead to mandating storage on political grounds, and not on the basis of effective storage. Amid widespread protest from corporations and civil society, this requirement was then withdrawn which, some say, propelled the quick passage of the bill in the Chamber of Deputies.

Intermediary liability:

Laws of many countries make service providers liable for third party content that infringes copyright or that is otherwise against the law (such as pornography or other offensive content). For instance, Section 79 of the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008) is such a provision where intermediaries (i.e., those who host user-generated content, but do not create the content themselves) may be held liable. However, stringent intermediary liability regimes create the possibility of private censorship, where intermediaries resort to blocking or filtering user-generated content that they fear may violate laws, sometimes even without intimating the creator of the infringing content. The Marco Civil addresses this possibility of censorship by creating a restricted intermediary liability provision. Please note, however, that the bill expressly excludes from its ambit copyright violations, which a copyright reforms bill seeks to address.

At first instance, the Marco Civil exempts service providers from civil liability for third party content (Art. 18). Moreover, intermediaries are liable for damages arising out of third party content only where such intermediaries do not comply with court orders (which may require removal of content, etc.) (Art. 19). This leaves questions of infringement and censorship to the judiciary, which the author believes is the right forum to adjudicate such issues. Moreover, wherever identifying information is available, Art. 20 mandates the intermediary to appraise the creator of infringing content of the reasons for removal of his/her content, with information that enables the creator to defend him- or herself in court. This measure of transparency is particularly laudable; for instance, in India, no such intimation is required by law, and you or I as journalists, bloggers or other creators of content may never know why our content is taken down, or be equipped to defend ourselves in court against the plaintiff or petitioner who sought removal of our content. Finally, a due diligence requirement is placed on the intermediary in circumstances where third party content discloses, “without consent of its participants, of photos, videos or other materials containing nudity or sexual acts of private character”. As per Art. 21, where the intermediary does not take down such content upon being intimated by the concerned participant, it may be held secondarily liable for infringement of privacy.

This restricted intermediary liability regime is further strengthened by a requirement of specific identification of infringing content, which both the court order issued under Art. 20 and the take-down request under Art. 21 must fulfill. This requirement is missing, for instance, under Section 79 of the Indian Information Technology Act, which creates a diligence and liability regime without requiring idenfiability of infringing content.

Conclusion:

Brazil’s ‘Internet Constitution’ has done much to add to the ongoing discussion on the rights and responsibilities of users and providers. By expressly adopting protections for net neutrality and online privacy and freedom of expression, the Marco Civil may be considered to set itself up as a model for Internet rights at the municipal level, barring a Utopian bill of rights. Indeed, in an effusive statement of support for the bill, Sir Tim Berners-Lee stated: “If Marco Civil is passed, without further delay or amendment, this would be the best possible birthday gift for Brazilian and global Web users.”

Of course, the Marco Civil is not without its failings. Authors say that the data retention requirements by connection and application providers, with leeway provided for law enforcement authorities to lengthen retention periods, is problematic. Moreover, the discussions surrounding data localization and a ‘walled-off’ Internet that protects against surveillance ignores the interoperability and openness that forms the core of the Internet.

On the whole, though, the Marco Civil may be considered a victory, on many counts. It is possibly the first successful example of a national legislation that is the outcome of a broad, consultative process with civil society and other affected entities. It expressly affirms Brazil’s commitment to the protection of privacy and freedom of expression, as well as to Internet accessibility and the openness of the network. It aims to eliminate the possibility of private censorship online, while upholding privacy rights of users. It seeks to reduce the potential for abuse of personal data and communication by government authorities, by requiring judicial authorization for the same. In a world where warrantless government spying extends across national border, such a provision is novel and desirable. One hopes that, when the global Internet community sits down at its various fora to identify and enumerate principles for Internet governance, it will look to the Marco Civil as an example of standards that governments may adhere to, and not necessarily resort to the lowest common denominator standards of international rights and protections.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/marco-civil-da-internet

Is India’s website-blocking law constitutional? – I. Law & procedure

geetha — 2014-12-11T11:02:01Z

Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with its corresponding Rules, set out the procedure for blocking of websites in India. Over two posts, Geetha Hariharan examines the constitutional validity of Section 69A and the Blocking Rules.

Introduction:

The Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) is no stranger to litigation or controversy. Since its enactment in 2000, the IT Act has come under stringent criticism, both for the alleged Constitutional infirmities of its provisions and Rules, as well as for the way it is implemented. In recent years, Sections 66A (re: criminal liability for offensive, annoying or inconveniencing online communications), 67A (re: obscene 69A (re: website-blocking) and 79 (re: intermediary liability) have all come under attack for these reasons.

Today, these Sections and several others have been challenged before the Supreme Court. A total of ten cases, challenging various Sections of the IT Act, are being heard together by the Supreme Court. This is a welcome occasion, for the IT Act desperately needs judicial review. Nikhil Pahwa over at Medianama provides an update and the list of cases.

Among the challenged provisions are Section 66A, Section 79 and Section 69A. Section 66A was and continues to be used wantonly by the State and police. A student was recently arrested for a Twitter comment regarding Cyclone Hudhud, while anti-Modi comments led to several arrests earlier in the year (see here, here and here). At CIS, we have previously subjected Section 66A to constitutional analyses. Pranesh Prakash traced the genealogy of the Section and its import in targeting offensive, annoying and inconveniencing communications and spam, while Gautam Bhatia examined the Section’s overbreadth and vagueness. The casual wording and potential for misuse of Section 79 and the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 led Ujwala Uppaluri to offer strong arguments regarding their violation of Part III of the Constitution.

Similar infirmities also handicap Section 69A and its Rules. This provision empowers the Central government and officers authorised by it to order the blocking of websites or webpages. Website-blocking is permissible for reasons enumerated in Section 69A, and in accordance with the process laid out in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public (sic)) Rules, 2009 (“Blocking Rules”). In our view, Section 69A and the Blocking Rules are also unconstitutional, and liable to be declared as such by the Supreme Court. We provide our analysis in this post and the next.

Section 69A, IT Act:

Section 69A and the Blocking Rules provide for website-blocking in accordance with enumerated reasons and process. The Section reads as follows:

69A. Power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource.-

(1) Where the Central Government or any of its officer specially authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource.

(2) The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for access by the public may be carried out shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3) The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine.

As you will notice, the Central government may block any information that is “generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted” in any computer. This will extend, clearly, to any webpage available and/or hosted in India. The Government can order website-blocks if it is satisfied of the necessity or expedience for this on the basis of (any of) six reasons. These reasons are:

Sovereignty and integrity of India,
Defense of India,
Security of the State,
Friendly relations with foreign states,
Public order,
Preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above.

If the Central government is convinced it has a valid reason, then it must follow the blocking procedure set out in the Blocking Rules, which were notified on 27 October 2009. Before entering into an analysis of the Blocking Rules, let us understand the blocking procedure.

The Blocking Procedure:

I will explain the blocking procedure in 4 steps: (1) Relevant designations and committees; (2) Procedure to make and examine a blocking request, and issue blocking direction; (3) Blocking in special circumstances; and (4) Review of blocking directions.

(1) Relevant designations and committees:

Designated Officer (“DO”): The Central government notifies an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary as the Designated Officer, who will issue the blocking direction ot the relevant intermediary or agency [Rule 3]. By a notification dated 20 January 2010, the DO is the Group Coordinator, Cyberlaw Division, Department of Information Technology (DIT). Unfortunately, I was unable to locate the Group Coordinator, Cyberlaw Division on the website of the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY, the name to which DIT was renamed in 2012). I am also unable to find a notification updating the designation of the DO. Presumably, Dr. Gulshan Rai, Director General (Cyberlaws & E-security), DeitY, continues to be the DO.

Nodal Officer (“NO”): Every organization designates one of its officers as a Nodal Officer, who will receive blocking requests and forward them to the DO [Rule 4]. ‘Organisation’ is defined in Rule 2(g) as Ministries or Departments of the Government of India, State governments and Union Territories, and any Agency of the Central government notified in the Official Gazette. I am unable to find on the DeitY website a notification explaining which government Agencies are ‘organisations’ under Rule 2(g).

Intermediary Contact: Every intermediary also designates one person to receive and handle blocking directions from the DO [Rule 13].

Committee for Examination of Request (“CER”): The 5-membered CER comprises the DO as Chairman, along with officers not below the rank of Joint Secretary from the Ministries of Law & Justice, Home Affairs, Information & Broadcasting and CERT-In [Rule 7]. The CER examines each blocking request, before issuing recommendations to the DO to block or not to block. Regrettably, I am unable to identify the current membership of the CER, as no document is available that gives this information. However, the CER’s composition in 2010 may be gleaned (see Annexure III).

Review Committee (“RC”): Rule 2(i) defines the RC as the body set up under Rule 419A, Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. As per Rule 419A(16), the Central RC is constituted by the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary to the Government of India (Legal Affairs) and Secretary (Department of Telecom).

(2) Blocking procedure:

The Blocking Rules stipulate that the entire blocking procedure, from examining a blocking request to issuing a blocking direction, must be carried out within 7 days from the date on which the DO receives the blocking request from the NO [Rule 11].

(a) Making a blocking request: Any person may send a request for a website-block to an NO of any ‘organisation’ (“outside request”). Alternatively, the NO may himself raise a blocking request. The organization has to examine each outside request and be satisfied that it meets the requirements of Section 69A(1), IT Act. Once it is satisfied, the NO forwards the blocking request to the DO. Outside requests must be approved by the Chief Secretary of the State or Union Territory, before they are sent to the DO. [See Rule 6 for this procedure]

(b) Examining a blocking request: Once the DO receives a blocking request, he/she places it before the CER. The DO tries to identify the person/intermediary hosting the troubling information, and if identified, issues a notice seeking their representation before the CER. Foreign entities hosting the information are also informed over fax/email. The person/intermediary has 48 hours from the date of receiving the DO’s notice to make its representation.

After this, the CER will examine the blocking request. It will “consider whether the request is covered within the scope of Section 69A(1)”, and whether it is justifiable to block [Rule 8(4)].

(c) Blocking direction: The DO then places the CER’s recommendation to block or not to block before the Secretary (DeitY) for his/her approval. If and once approval is granted, the DO directs the relevant Agency or intermediary to block the website/page.

(3) Blocking in special circumstances:

(a) Emergencies [Rule 9]: In an emergency “when no delay is acceptable”, the DO passes over the blocking procedure described above. With written recommendations, the DO directly approaches the Secretary (DeitY) for approval of blocking request. If satisfied, the Secretary (DeitY) issues the blocking direction as an interim measure. Nevertheless, the DO is required to place the blocking request before the CER at the earliest opportunity (in any case, not later than 48 hours after blocking direction).

(b) Court orders [Rule 10]: If a court has ordered a website-block, the DO follows a procedure similar to an Emergency situation. He/she submits the certified copy of order to the Secretary (DeitY), and then initiates action as ordered by the court.

(4) Review of blocking directions:

The RC is to meet once in 2 months to evaluate whether blocking directions issued under the Blocking Rules are in compliance with Section 69A(1) [Rule 14]. No other review or appeal mechanism is provided under the Blocking Rules. Nor are aggrieved parties afforded any further opportunities to be heard. Also note that Rule 16 mandates that all requests and complaints received under the Blocking Rules are to the kept strictly confidential.

In the next post, I will subject Section 69A and the Blocking Rules to a constitutional analysis.

Blocking procedure poster:

CIS has produced a poster explaining the blocking procedure (download PDF, 2.037MB).

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/is-india2019s-website-blocking-law-constitutional-2013-i-law-procedure

India's Statement at ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, 2014

geetha — 2014-11-04T05:50:06Z

India's Draft Resolution at the ITU Plenipot, which we have previously blogged about, was not passed following discussions at the Ad Hoc Working Group on Internet-related Resolutions. Subsequently, India made a statement at the Working Group of the Plenary, emphasizing the importance of the issues and welcoming further discussions. The statement was delivered by Mr. Ram Narain, DDG-IR, Department of Telecommunications and Head of India's Delegation at PP-14. The full text of the statement is provided below.

"Chairman of Working Group Plenary, Mr Musab Abdulla, Head of Delegations, delegates, ladies and gentlemen, good morning/afternoon to you all. I was indeed impressed with the camaraderie with which discussions were held inspite of the fact that delegates discussing the issues have different cultures, languages, nuances, impressions and sometime interests.

"Governance of packet-switched data telecom Networks based on Internet Protocol (IP), popularly known as Internet, has become an important and contentious issue due to several reasons known to all of us. We put up a draft resolution to address some of these key issues pertaining to IP based networks. When we put up the proposal, I had thought that the proposal would contribute in diminishing some of the differences. These issues and their probable solutions are given in our draft resolution, document 98, about which we were ready to take constructive inputs.

"Information is power these days. The wise Lord Acton said about hundred and fifty years ago that Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The countries in modern times have become great on the principles of equality, liberty and justice. As and when these principles were compromised great powers lost their hold. Broadband penetration and connectivity has been the important running theme of this conference. We believe this, like great empires, can only be built on the principles of fairness, justice, and equality. No Telecom Network whether IP based or otherwise can function without naming and numbering, which is the lifeline of a network. Their availability in a fair, just and equitable manner, therefore, is an important public policy issue and need to be dealt that way. We believe that respecting the principle of sovereignty of information through network functionality and global norms will go a long way in increasing the trust and confidence in use of ICT.

"There are number of existing Internet related resolutions, but they only touch the issue in general and, therefore, without focus concrete action does not happen. Our Resolution was with a view to deal with the issues in a focused manner. Some countries supported our draft resolution, while some other were not able to support it. Some stated since the proposal is a comprehensive one, dealing with number of important issues, more time is needed for them to develop a view on it. Due to the number of proposals with Ad Hoc Group lined up before our draft resolution, there was no time left for detailed discussion on the proposal. Therefore, India agreed not to press the resolution for discussion due to paucity of time, with an understanding that for these issues of concerns for many Member States, contributions can be made in various fora dealing with development of IP based networks and future networks, including ITU. India would like that discussion should take place on these issues and look forward to these discussions. We would request that this Statement is included in the records of Plenipotentiary-14 meeting.

"We would like to thank for the cooperation extended by various Member States, particularly USA, for appreciating our concerns and all those who shared our concerns and supported the draft resolution. I would also like to thank Mr. Fabio Bigi, Chairman of Ad Hoc Working Group for giving patient hearing to all us and tolerating all our idiosyncrasies and still arriving at consensus. This is because of his wisdom, which comes with experience.

Thank you all."

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indias-statement-at-itu-plenipotentiary-conference-2014

India ITU Resolution (Busan, 2014) - Revised

geetha — 2014-11-02T15:08:34Z

Text of revised resolution presented by India at ITU Plenipot, Busan 2014.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-itu-resolution-busan-2014-revised

India Draft Resolution - ITU's Role in Securing Information Society

geetha — 2014-10-28T06:55:41Z

India's new draft resolution introduced at ITU PP14, Busan.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-draft-resolution-itus-role-in-securing-information-security

ICANN reveals hitherto undisclosed details of domain names revenues

geetha — 2014-12-12T05:08:02Z

Following requests from CIS, ICANN has shared a detailed list of its revenues from domain names for the fiscal year ending June 2014. Such level of detail has, until now, been unavailable. Historical data is still to be made available.

Five days ago, CIS received a detailed list of ICANN’s revenues from domain name sales and renewals for the fiscal year ending June 2014. The document, sent to us by ICANN’s India head Mr. Samiran Gupta, lists payments received by ICANN from registrars, registries, sponsors and other entities such as the NRO and Country Code TLD administrators. Such granular information is not available at the moment on ICANN’s website as part of its financial transparency disclosures. A summary has also been provided by ICANN.

This revenue disclosure from ICANN comes on the heels of public and email correspondence between CIS and ICANN staff. At the Asia Pacific Regional IGF (August 3-6, 2014), CIS’ Sunil Abraham sought granular data – both current and historical – on ICANN’s revenues from the domain name industry.

Again, at the ICANN Open Forum at IGF (4 September 2014), Sunil sought “details of a list of legal entities that give money to ICANN and how much money they give to ICANN every year”. In emails to Kuek Yu-Chuang (ICANN’s Asia Pacific head) and Xavier Calvez (ICANN CFO), CIS had asked for historical data as well.

The global domain name industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and ICANN sits at the centre of the web. ICANN is responsible for the policy-making and introduction of new Top Level Domains (TLDs), and it also performs technical coordination and maintenance of the Internet’s unique identifiers (domain names and IP addresses). For each domain name that is registered or renewed, ICANN receives payment through a complex contractual network of registries and registrars. The domain name industry is ICANN’s single largest revenue source.

Given the impending IANA transition and accountability debates at ICANN, and the rapid growth of the global domain name industry, one would imagine that ICANN is held up to the same standard of accountability as laid down in the right to information mechanisms of many countries. At the ICANN Open Forum (IGF Istanbul), Sunil raised this very point. Had a Public Information Officer in India failed to respond to a request for information for a month (as ICANN had to CIS’ request for granular revenue data), the officer would have been fined and reprimanded. Since there are no sufficiently effective accountability or reactive transparency measures at ICANN, such penalties are not in place.

In any event, CIS received the list of ICANN’s current domain name revenues after continual email exchanges with ICANN staff. This is undoubtedly heartening, as ICANN has shown itself responsive to repeated requests for transparency. But it remains that ICANN has shared revenue data only for the fiscal year ending June 2014, and historical revenue data is still not publicly available. Neither is a detailed list (current and historical) of ICANN’s expenditures publicly available. Perhaps ICANN could provide the necessary information during its regular Quarterly Stakeholder Reports, as well as on its website. This would go a long way in ascertaining and improving ICANN’s accountability and transparency.

The documents:

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014

ICANN accountability, IANA transition and open questions

geetha — 2015-02-06T11:39:21Z

On February 3, 2015, the Centre for Communication Governance (NLU, Delhi) hosted a pre-event briefing in light of ICANN52 (Singapore, February 7-12, 2015). Geetha Hariharan attended the event.

At a briefing on ICANN52 organized by the Centre for Communication Governance (NLU, Delhi) on 3 February, 2015 (‘CCG Briefing Event’), consensus was seen on two broad things: ICANN’s processes on IANA transition and accountability are crucial for Internet governance this year, and India’s participation (both municipal and international) is wanting. The meeting, which saw discussion following the Chatham House rules, was attended by members from industry associations, government and civil society. A light parsing of the current proposals from the CWG-Names and CRISP (the names and numbers communities) for IANA transition brought the composition of the transition proposals under scrutiny.

CRISP and the proposed Service Level Agreements:

The proposal from the numbers community, the CRISP, suggests that ICANN and the five RIRs enter into Service Level Agreements. Under the proposal, existing accountability, oversight and policy development mechanisms remain unchanged, with ICANN agreeing to perform IANA functions to meet requisite service levels. If it fails to meet such standards, the RIRs may terminate the contract or refuse to renew it.

The CRISP proposal does not look beyond ICANN for an IANA functions operator, and places its faith entirely in ICANN’s past performance of numbering IANA functions. As so many have said before, the CRISP proposal is blithe in its lack of review mechanism or safeguards, having even fewer safeguards than the CWG-Names proposal. Doubtless, a cause for concern.

CWG-Names and the Four New Entities:

The CWG-Names proposal suggests that four new entities be created to replace the NTIA’s role under the IANA Functions Contract. Under the proposal, ICANN will continue to be the IANA Functions Operator for the present. It will enter into an IANA Functions Contract with “Contract Co.”, a new shell entity which will replace NTIA as the contracting party. Contract Co. is to be a lightweight entity, with few staff or administrative capabilities.

At present, the NTIA performs what it considers a “clerical role” in its oversight of the DNS. However, the IANA Functions Contract also includes review functions, such as the rebidding and renewal process to determine whether ICANN (or some other entity) ought to continue as the IANA functions operator. Under the CWG-Names proposal, these review functions, which also include budget reviews, reporting, etc. are to be carried out by a “Multi-stakeholder Review Team (MRT)”, the terms of whose composition are as yet undecided.

The composition of the MRT is crucial to an independent and representative oversight of IANA. At the CCG Briefing Event, concerns were raised as to the representation of ccTLDs on the MRT. Not all ccTLDs are represented in the ICANN ecosystem, in the ccNSO; 152 ccTLDs are members of the ccNSO. Of course, one may argue that this concern exists under the present IANA functions contract as well. But the devil is in the details, or lack thereof. We don’t know, for instance, who will populate the MRT, whether they will enjoy immunities normally reserved for diplomatic or consular agents, or most importantly, what relationship the MRT will enjoy with ICANN. Will there be a contract with ICANN, or a memorandum of understanding that sets out ICANN’s responsibilities, failing which the IANA contract may be terminated?

The third new creation of the CWG-Names proposal is the “Customer Standing Committee (CSC)”. While the CSC’s composition is also nebulous, its functions are to work with the MRT to establish Service Levels and Performance Indicators for the naming functions, and to receive performance reports from the IANA operator (ICANN). Clause C.2.8 of the present IANA functions contract requires that the IANA operator (ICANN) develop performance standards for all enumerated IANA functions (see Clause C.2.9.1 to C.2.9.4), and also to report on them (Clause C.4). Presumably, the CSC will fill the role of the NTIA’s Contracting Officer’s Representative in receiving these performance reports.

The fourth and final new entity is the “Independent Appeals Panel (IAP)”, the composition of which is also undecided. The IAP is intended to hear and adjudicate all actions related to the root zone or root zone WHOIS, and under the present proposal, the CWG-Names suggests it should be constituted from time to time in the manner of a binding arbitration process. However, it should be noted that the CWG-Names proposal is unclear whether the IAP decisions are binding on or advisory to the ICANN Board. Concerns of the IAP’s composition aside, dangers of making its decisions only advisory to the ICANN Board loom large and real, and the CCG Briefing Event reflected this.

Already, the ICANN Board wields extensive power with regard to policy decisions. For instance, policies developed under the global policy development process by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) may be rejected by the ICANN Board by a 2/3rds majority vote. Such a rejection may result in a mediation process according to agreed procedure. Another instance is the change in the ICANN Board’s treatment of GAC advice. Prior to the amendment to ICANN’s Bye-laws, the Board was not required to provide reasons for its rejection of GAC advice. In its present form, Article XI, Section 2(1) of ICANN’s Bye-laws make such reasons mandatory. How ought IAP decisions be treated, as binding or advisory? If they are to be binding, ICANN or any other IANA functions operator will have to enter into a legal arrangement (by contract or MoU, or in the best case, an amendment to ICANN Bye-laws).

Dodging the real issues: ICANN incumbency, IANA separation and where will all the money come from?

Both the CWG-Names and CRISP proposals skim past certain issues relating to ICANN’s incumbency in the IANA role. The first concern, of course, is whether ICANN should continue to be the IANA functions operator. Both proposals accept ICANN’s role, suggesting no change. While there are compelling reasons for ICANN’s continued role as IANA functions operator, unquestioning incumbency is equal to lack of accountability. And as neither proposal sets out a review process (the CWG-Names proposal only mentions that the MRT shall have this function), it is a concern.

Perhaps the CCWG-Accountability, convened under the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process, is better equipped to provide suggestions. However, the CCWG-Accountability is hard-pressed for time. Its two Workstreams, dealing with IANA transition related accountability mechanisms and ICANN’s internal accountability, are unlikely to see desired progress before the transition deadline of September 2015. For instance, within the CCWG-Accountability, a debate is ongoing as to ICANN’s composition. At the time of its incorporation, a suggestion that ICANN ought to have statutory members was floated, but turned down. The suggestion has reared its head again in the CCWG-Accountability, to consider checks and balances on the ICANN Board.

The second concern relates to IANA’s continued existence within ICANN, without separation of policy and implementation. This concern has been clamouring for attention for many months. Milton Mueller, for instance, has recommended structural separation of IANA and ICANN, as did I and others during the course of the face-to-face meetings of the CWG-Names (I attended remotely).

A structural separation is beneficial for many reasons. It enforces a simple separation of powers. “When”, as Montesquieu stated, “the legislative and the executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may rise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner”. Tyranny is speaking in terms too extreme for ICANN, perhaps, it is undeniable that ICANN has grown larger in scope and size from its original incorporation. It was incorporated, as Professor DeNardis has noted [Protocol Politics, 161], to perform technical coordination of the global DNS and other functions performed originally by Jon Postel as IANA.

Today, in addition to technical coordination and policy-setting for names and numbers (through the gPDP), ICANN is a major player in the Internet governance institutional space; its involvement in and aggressive marketing of the NETmundial Initiative is but an example. For instance, ICANN budgets for less than US $10 million for providing core Internet functions out of a US $160 million strong budget (FY2015). It has budgeted, in comparison, US $13 million for travel and meetings alone (FY2015). Separating IANA from ICANN will, as others have suggested, protect it from political or other influences within ICANN.

In any event, once the NTIA terminates the IANA functions contract, IANA is not strictly required to be within the US. At the moment, Clause C.2.1 of the IANA functions contract requires that the IANA functions operator be “a wholly U.S. owned and operated firm or fully accredited United States University or College operating in one of the 50 states of the United States or District of Columbia; b) incorporated within one of the fifty (50) states of the United States or District of Columbia; and c) organized under the laws of a state of the United States or District of Columbia”.

Were structural separation to be achieved, IANA could be incorporated in another, neutral jurisdiction. Not only would be assuage optical considerations and ensure separation of powers, but as our experience with filtering on the Internet shows (see, for instance, the Open Net Initiative’s research), unilateral controls are much harder to enforce when the apparatus is decentralized.

The third concern raised at the CCG Briefing Event concerned the funding of the new entities proposed by the CWG-Names. Would these entities be self-financing, or perhaps ICANN would support them? While some participants felt ICANN could also provide financial support, this would, in my view, bring ICANN too close to its oversight entities, and increase chances of influence.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-accountability-iana-transition-and-open-questions