Centre for Internet and Society

Search Engine and Prenatal Sex Determination: Walking the Tight Rope of the Law

geetha — 2015-02-12T06:05:24Z

In Sabu George v. Union of India, the Supreme Court is looking at the constitutionality of sex-selection ads appearing on search engines, either as search results or ads placed on the search pages. Balaji Subramanian and Geetha Hariharan analyse the relevant provision of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.

The Supreme Court, in Sabu George v. Union of India and Ors. (WP (C) 341/2008), is looking into the presence of material regarding pre-natal sex determination on search engines such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo!. The petitioner alleges that search engines have been displaying content that falls foul of §22 of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, as amended in 2002 (“the Act”).

The relevant parts of §22 that search engines are alleged to have violated are as follows:

“22. Prohibition of advertisement relating to pre-natal determination of sex and punishment for contravention.-

No person, organization, Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic, including clinic, laboratory or centre having ultrasound machine or imaging machine or scanner or any other technology capable of undertaking determination of sex of foetus or sex selection shall issue, publish, distribute, communicate or cause to be issued, published, distributed or communicated any advertisement, in any form, including internet, regarding facilities of pre-natal determination of sex or sex selection before conception available at such centre, laboratory, clinic or at any other place.
No person or organization including Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall issue, publish, distribute, communicate or cause to be issued, published, distributed or communicated any advertisement in any manner regarding pre-natal determination or preconception selection of sex by any means whatsoever, scientific or otherwise” (emphasis supplied)

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, ‘advertisement’ includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or any other document including advertisement through internet or any other media in electronic or print form and also includes any visible representation made by means of any hoarding, wall-painting, signal, light, sound, smoke or gas.

From a cursory reading, it would appear that the section serves as a clear and unequivocal ban on advertisements for clinics or other laboratories that perform pre-natal sex determination. However, the Supreme Court seems to have landed itself into a mess by muddling the distinction between web/online advertisements (in the sense that the word has been used in the quoted provision) and organic search results. The court has received little assistance from the words of the statute, since the Act contains no exhaustive definition of ‘advertisement’. The closest thing to such a definition is the explanation to §22, which only specifies that the term is inclusive of some common forms of adverts – label wrappers, audiovisual representations, etc. This is not a definition, and does not expand the meaning of the word to include organic search results, which are commonly understood not to be advertisements (see here and here, for example). This distinction was pointed out to the court in the submission of the Group Coordinator, Cyber Laws Formulation and Enforcement Division, Department of Information Technology, as noted by the bench in its order dated the 4^th of December 2014.

It is our view that this distinction is of vital importance to the entire debate surrounding the PNDT Act, and therefore we have clearly differentiated between organic search results and “sponsored links”, or advertisements, wherever required.

In order to examine whether search engines were in compliance with the law, we systematically searched for terms most likely to trigger advertisements that would violate §22 of the Act. Further, we selected search engines across the market spectrum, from high-revenue organisations likely to have performed comprehensive due diligence (Google, Bing, etc.) to relatively low-revenue operators who did not have offices in India, or dedicated service offerings specific to India, and were therefore unlikely to have taken special measures to comply with the provisions of the PNDT Act (Yandex, DuckDuckGo, etc.). Further, where search engines had India-specific websites, we checked to see whether there was any difference in the advertising outputs of the India site and the US site.

Since the advertising systems work on a bidding mechanism, where the same keywords were likely to trigger different ads based on the rates selected by advertisers, our methodology also included making multiple (five, in most cases) iterations of searches that yielded advertisements, even if the ads displayed were not violative of the Act.

Online Advertisements

The results of this analysis (tabulated below) are surprising, to say the least. First, we found that major search engines such as Google, Yahoo and Bing (constituents of the advertising alliance, the Yahoo! Bing Network) did not display incriminating ads for many of the searches we attempted [see Table 1 below]. In searches for “sex selective abortion”, for example, Google even provided sponsored links to NGOs attempting to generate awareness against the practice. Nor were any non-compliant ads present on their US sites. No violative ads were observed on Yandex. DuckDuckGo did display a questionable advertisement for the term “prenatal sex determination”, but we shall discuss this in detail later.

However, there were some advertisements of questionable legal status. In Google, for instance, our searches for “Dubai indian pregnancy centre” and a litany of similar searches showed searches that featured international services. These services for sex-selection would, presumably, extend to India [see Table 2 below].

Table 1

Search Engine	"UAE pregnancy gender"	"Dubai Indian pregnancy gender"	"Pregnancy gender determination"	"Prenatal ultrasound India"	"Dubai India sex ultrasound"
Google (.com, .co.in)	Advertisements of fertility centres in the Middle East, that conduct sex determination tests. Some prominently feature assistance to international patients.	Advertisements of UK Laboratory that sells Prenatal Gender Test Kits. Prominently featured International shipping.	No ads.	Offers Pre-natal Ultrasound scans, does not conduct sex determination test.	Does not mention explicit sex determination or International Services.
Yahoo	No ads.	No ads.	Advertisements of Ultrasound Laboratory in the USA that conducts sex determination tests.	No ads.	No ads.
Bing	No ads.	No ads.	No ads.	No ads.	No ads.

Advertisements within Search Results

We also examined the search results themselves to check whether the links led to advertisements. On the basis of our searches we found that there are instances both in Google and Yahoo!, where, when we clicked on the search result, we were directed to advertisements. Bing and Rediff, in these searches, did not lead to any prohibited links. Our findings are tabulated below:

Search Engine	"Indian pregnancy gender"	"Foetal sex determination"	"Ultrasound pregnancy"	"Ultrasound screening"	"Is my baby boy or girl"	"Baby boy or girl"	"Pregnancy gender determination"
Google (.com, .co.in)	No ads.	Yes. Gender Predictor Kit (baby2see.com/gender/study_ultrasound.html).	No ads.	Yes. Gender Scan (ultrasound-direct.com/babybond-pregnancy-scans/gender-scan/).	No ads.	No ads.	No ads.
Yahoo	Potentially violative. Intelligender Gender Prediction Test (intelligender.com/gender-myths.html).	Yes. Gender Predictor Kit (baby2see.com/gender/study_ultrasound.html).	No ads.	No ads.	Potential violation. Gender Predictor (mybabyboyorgirl.com).	No ads.	No ads.
Bing	No ads.	No ads.	No ads.	Yes several results	No ads.	No ads.	No ads.
Rediff	No ads.	No ads.	No ads.	No ads.	No ads.	No ads.	No ads.

Given that some search results do indeed seem to violate §22, we then examined the advertising policies of those search engines alleged to display prohibited advertisements in Sabu George – Google, Yahoo! and Bing.

Advertising Policies of Search Engines

The Yahoo! Bing Network, in its advertising guidelines, has an entire section dedicated to ads for pharmacy and health care products and services. In it, there exists a comprehensive list of advertisements prohibited specifically due to the existence of Indian law – such as, for example, ads for miracle cures. Further, under the ‘Family Planning’ category on the same page, the Network acknowledges the existence of regulatory restrictions against advertisements for abortion services, paternity tests, and pre-natal sex determination in India. The consequences of non-compliance with the guidelines are laid out clearly on the same page – they include ad disapprovals, domain blocks, and account suspensions. Despite this, a search for “pregnancy gender determination” displayed an advertisement of an ultrasound lab in the United States that conducts sex determination tests [Table 2].

Google’s Adwords service has a similar policy statement, titled ‘Legal requirements & serving limitations’ for advertisements on its network. At the outset, Google asserts that the advertiser is responsible for the legality of the ad’s contents:

“As an advertiser, you're always responsible for ensuring that you comply with all applicable laws and regulations, in addition to Google's advertising policies, for all of the locations where your ads are showing. The guidelines below are intended to help highlight some areas where we've seen advertisers violate legal requirements in the past. However, this is not an exhaustive list of legal issues that you may need to consider, so we urge you to do your own research regarding appropriate advertising practices for the place where your business operates, as well as any other places where your ads are showing.”

Further, in its list of local legal requirements, under the head of ‘Regulated Products & Services’, Google clearly acknowledges that existing legal prohibitions shall be enforced against advertisements for, inter alia, infant food products and gender determination in India. Advertisements for infant food products are prohibited under §3(a) of the Infant Milk Substitutes Act, 2003. As with the Yahoo! Bing Network, the consequences for violating the advertising guidelines include disapproval of the ad, disabling of the domain from the ad network, and suspension of accounts. Despite these precautions, Google did show display some advertisements that would fall foul of §22, such as those we found in Table 2.

But it seems, at least, that in the case of major search engines, there exist concrete policies to back the relative lack of advertisements violating §22 of the PNDT Act. However, it is possible that these policies were evolved after the Writ Petition in Sabu George was filed in 2008.

Sources connected to the case indicate that the petitioner has alleged the presence of violative ads, and we have no data regarding 2008 advertising policies at either of these search engines. The Yahoo! Bing Network, however, does have an Editorial guidelines change log, stretching back all the way to the Network’s inception in 2012. The log does not detail any changes to the policy against ads for sex determination in India, so it follows that the Yahoo! Bing Network policy has existed at least from September 2012.

Interestingly, Yandex, the Russian search provider, appears to have prevented ads relating to pre-natal sex determination for different reasons. In its Advertising Requirements, Yandex mandates several restrictions on advertisements relating to medicines, medical products and medical services, which require licenses, registrations with Russian federal authorities, etc. to be produced to Yandex before an ad can be placed. Yandex has placed these restrictions in pursuance of Russian federal laws, but it appears that they have had the unintended consequence of keeping the site clear of advertisements that violate §22 of the PNDT Act, as well.

Finally, we come to the case of DuckDuckGo, which displayed questionable content in response to the term “prenatal sex determination” – an ad for ultrasound imaging services provided in the US. A similar ad was seen on Yahoo, as noted earlier. Even this, however, would not be a violation of the Act, since the service was located outside India, and the ad was placed by a foreign citizen residing in a foreign jurisdiction.

It is well-known that India is one of the few countries that has a ban on pre-natal sex determination, and it is a documented practice for couples to travel abroad and undergo diagnostic tests that enable them to discern the sex of the foetus – Thailand has been a destination of choice, if news reports are to be believed. Further, such non-Indian advertisements were seen on Google around 2009, and the argument made by Google’s counsel then stands today – that the situation was akin to an Indian library buying Thai magazines containing sex determination-related advertisements and making them available to the Indian public. Those ads are not targeted at Indians; the magazines were not meant for India. If the ad included invitations to foreigners (“Internationally famous for sex selection!”; “Sex of babies from around the world determined!”), and was published knowing that Indians would read it, then there is a greater likelihood that §22 of the Act stands violated. For instance, Google’s results for “UAE pregnancy gender” showed advertisements of fertility centres in the Middle East, some of which advertise for international patients.

In any event, since there exists no ban against the advertiser in his own jurisdiction, it would lead to an absurd result for search engines to be prosecuted for showing such ads to the Indian public, especially when the advertised service is not meant for or available in India. Displaying such a result would be especially detrimental to low-revenue search engines such as DuckDuckGo, who would be unable to conduct adequate due diligence to protect themselves from similar provisions in other Indian laws.

Organic Search Results

Having dealt with the issue of advertising against the provisions of §22, we now shift our focus to organic search results. At the outset, we must acknowledge the fact that the words of the statute specify “advertisement”, and it remains to be seen whether organic search results can be treated as advertisements if they are aimed at selling a product or service to prospective consumers for a price. If organic search results are to be treated as advertisements under §22, then it would amount to imposing an unnaturally high burden on search engines.

As intermediaries, search engines will be given the responsibility to scrutinise and curate the content that they display. Such a model is problematic on several levels. If intermediaries (search engines, in this case) were charged with the responsibility of policing their search results, a chilling effect will, in all likehood, befall online content – search engines, being profit-driven business institutions, will naturally choose to ‘err on the side of caution’, and would rather see some legitimate content taken down rather than risk the possibility of expensive, time-consuming litigation or penalties. In fact, when given the responsibility to take down data and curate organic search results, intermediaries are ham-handed.

Such an approach would necessitate the creation of large and complex structures, much like the means used by the DMCA in the US. Only large, reasonably high-revenue search engines will be able to put in place such mechanisms, so the law creates an undesriable entry barrier. Also, curating search results for content violative of §22 would be even more arduous than curating results for DMCA violations, since under DMCA, there is concrete private incentive for rights-holders to report DMCA violations to search engines. There exists no such incentive for individuals to petition search engines to remove §22 violations, and this affects its effectiveness. For these reasons, it is problematic to read organic search results within the ambit of §22.

Of course, the government can and should expect that online advertisements for sex selection services, inviting people to learn the sex of their foetus, are prohibited. It may do this for reasons of public health and safety, and in order to reduce female-selective abortions. But search results, unlike advertisements, contain medical information, links to anti-sex-selection campaigns and information about female foeticide. It would be unfortunate for the government to expect search providers to actively curate the content of a dynamic ecosystem such as the internet, while at the same time ensuring that legitimate content is preserved.

Sabu George and What Can Be Done

Lamentably, the Supreme Court does not appear to have entered this debate at all. In the latest arguments in Sabu George, the Solicitor General of India Mr. Ranjit Kumar offered the government’s hand in filtering and blocking sex-selection advertisements. Mr. Kumar stated that, “if the URL and the I.P. addresses are given along with other information by the respondents”, and also listing keywords, the Union of India can order website blocking under §69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended). The Union’s stance, it would seem, is that either the search engines should block offending ads by themselves, or block on the basis of directions issued by the government.

In its order of 28January 2015, the Supreme Court has directed that, as an interim measure, “Google, yahoo and Micro Soft [sic] shall not advertise or sponsor any advertisement which would violate Section 22 of the PCPNDT Act, 1994. If any advertise [sic] is there on any search engine, the same shall be withdrawn forthwith by the respondents”. The Court plans to hear arguments on the “total blocking of items that have been suggested by the Union of India” on the next hearing date, February 11, 2015.

Instead of hearing arguments on the feasibility of total blocking of offending online ads, the Supreme Court should ask whether organic search results constitute advertisements. These results are those that appear as the product of the search algorithm, and would take much time and expense to curate. It would also amount to time-consuming and disproportionate content inspection by the search engines. In any event, it seems that the major search engines do comply in large part with §22 of the PNDT Act. Where offending ads are found (like we did during our searches), the notice-and-takedown procedure under §79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 can be put to intelligent use.

The second option noted by the Court, filtering or blocking on the basis of URLs or IP addresses, also stand the danger of overbreadth or overblocking. Such overblocking is routine across filtering regimes in many jurisdictions; for ex., see the Open Net Initiative’s note on filtering (“Filtering’s Inherent Flaws”). It is a danger better averted. In any event, a filtering regime would not affect organic search results, and so the doubt as to the scope of §22 remains.

Pranesh Prakash provided invaluable feedback. Balaji Subramanian and Pranav Bidare performed the searches on different engines. Balaji Subramanian is at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, and is in his 2nd year of law. Pranav Bidare is in his 3rd year of law at the National Law School, Bangalore.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/search-engine-and-prenatal-sex-determination

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

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

FY14 Customer Payments summary

geetha — 2014-12-08T05:48:18Z

ICANN's FY14 domain name revenue summary

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/fy14-customer-payments-summary

FY14 Customer Payments final version

geetha — 2014-12-08T05:46:58Z

ICANN's detailed list of revenues from domain names

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/fy14-customer-payments-final-version

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

Good Intentions, Recalcitrant Text – II: What India’s ITU Proposal May Mean for Internet Governance

geetha — 2014-11-03T07:07:16Z

The UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is hosting its Plenipotentiary Conference (PP-14) this year in South Korea. At PP-14, India introduced a new draft resolution on ITU's Role in Realising Secure Information Society. The Draft Resolution has grave implications for human rights and Internet governance. Geetha Hariharan explores.

Disclaimer and update (2 November 2014): India's Draft Resolution was discussed during the meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Internet-related Resolutions at the ITU Plenipot on the evening of November 1, 2014 (KST). After the discussion, India revised the text of the resolution, seeking to address concerns raised by ITU member states. The revised resolution may be found here. However, this blog post was written with reference to the original text of India's Draft Resolution.

***

As I mentioned in my last post, India’s Draft Resolution on ‘ITU’s Role in Realising Secure Information Society’ raises security and equity concerns. The Draft Resolution has 3 security concerns: (i) security weaknesses in the network architecture that permit “camouflaging the identity of the originator of the communication” and make “tracing of communication difficult”; (ii) non-systematic, non-contiguous allocation of naming, numbering and addressing resources on the Internet, which makes it difficult to identify both the users and what states the IP addresses are located in; (iii) non-local routing and address resolution relating to traffic originating and terminating in the same country. Op. §§1, 3-7 seek to address these. It also identifies the present system of allocation of naming, numbering and addressing resources as inequitable, unfair, unjust and undemocratic (Op. §2 of the Draft Resolution offers a solution). I discussed some human rights implications of India’s Draft Resolution in my last post.

In this post, I explore the implications of the Draft Resolution for Internet governance and multi-stakeholder approaches (most notably, an equal footing model).[1] Given the uncertainties around defining multi-stakeholderism for Internet governance, this is rather ambitious. So I will try to point to concerns with certain textual interpretations of the Draft Resolution, map that against the positions India’s representatives have taken on Internet governance in the past, and the motivations/concerns that underlie the tabling of the Draft Resolution. This Resolution may not be the best way to allay India's concerns, for there are technical and rights implications. But the concerns it raises are worth discussion and knowledge, and at forums where concerns are heard, acknowledged and discussed collectively. The text of the Draft Resolution and its attendant implications are not, then, the sole subjects of this post.

The Draft Resolution and Internet governance:

The text of the Draft Resolution is problematic. Many of its clauses may be seen as taking positions against multi-stakeholder approaches to Internet governance. Introducing such a resolution at the ITU may itself bring back memories of the controversies surrounding Resolution 3 of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), 2012.[2] In 3 ways, the text of the Draft Resolution has indications for multi-stakeholder approaches.

First, the Draft Resolution frames issues primarily from the perspective security. In its preamble, the Draft Resolution makes several references to security threats posed by and on the Internet. For instance, it points to the ability of the network to “camouflage the identity of the originator of the communication” (Pream. §(e) [recognizing]), as well as national security concerns in the present-day system of routing Internet traffic through multiple countries (Pream. §§(f) and (g), [recognizing]). The apparent difficulty in tracing IP addresses, due to their random allocation, is another concern (Pream. §(h), [recognizing]). Among the “significant public policy issues” identified in telecom/ICT management, “security and safety of the Telecom/ICTs” is specifically noted (Pream. §(i) [considering]). In the Context note to the Draft Resolution and in several places in the Preamble, there are references to ITU Resolution 130 (‘Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the use of information and communication technologies’) and ITU’s Cyber-security Agenda. Given the (legitimate or otherwise) disproportionate involvement of governments and not other stakeholders in matters of cyber-security, the framing of issues from a security perspective may lend itself to worries for multi-stakeholderism. Specifically, the Draft Resolution notes: “ensuring security of ICT networks is sovereign right of Member States” (Pream. §(b) [recognizing]).

Second, the Draft Resolution emphasizes the sovereign right of states to regulate and control telecom/ICT. It says, for instance, “it is the sovereign right of each state to regulate its telecommunication” (Pream. §(b) [considering]). With regard to the Internet, the Context note to the Draft Resolution (page 1) considers the Internet to be synonymous with telecom/ICTs: “the Telecom/ICTs, which in common lexicon is used interchangeably many times as Internet…”. Public telecom networks managed by telecom service providers, interconnected with other networks, are necessary for “proper functioning of a telecom network resources namely, among others, naming, numbering and addressing” (Pream. §(k) [considering]). It is worth noting that the sovereign authority of states over Internet public policy issues is settled text from §35 of the Tunis Agenda, though expressing it as synonymous with telecom may lead to possibilities of licensing and registration, which Bulgaria, for instance, does not do.

Third, the Draft Resolution identifies issues of equity and fairness in the allocation of Internet resources such as naming, numbering and addressing (Pream. §(g) [consdering], Op. §2). It states that to correct this inequity, “facilitation and collaboration among international, inter-governmental organizations and individual member states to ensure planning, implementation, monitoring and cooperation in its policies” is required (Pream. §(g) [considering]). In operative paragaphs, our Draft Resolution calls for collaboration with “all the concerned stakeholders including International and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies for allocation, assignment and management of IP resources including naming, numbering and addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, just, democratic and transparent” (Op. §2). One may pay attention to the oversight over implementation and the necessity of inter-governmental involvement in planning and monitoring as problematic to iterations of multi-stakeholderism.

These concerns are valid and legitimate, and it is desirable that the text of the resolution be altered to address them. The text should also be altered to address the human rights concerns I point out in my previous post. But human rights enforcement or implementation is within the domain of states, though civil society may be a careful watchdog. The Draft Resolution's text, most certainly, will face certain oppositions: for instance, that it is outside the scope and mandate of the ITU. That the ITU does not deal with content regulation – and this issue touches upon content – will be mentioned. That Internet governance is already being discussed and performed in multiple other multi-stakeholder fora, such as ICANN, the NRO and RIRs, IGF and WSIS, will be emphasized. That the Draft Resolution implicates national security concerns will be mentioned as well. But as an aside, on national security: under international law, states always mention their prerogative over national security, and so as a matter of international custom, national security is outside the scope of agreements unless expressly surrendered.

At the same time, debates around the role of ITU in Internet governance are not new, and those familiar will remember the ITU’s views right before the creation of ICANN (also see Mueller, Ruling the Root 145-48 (2002)), Resolution 3 of the WCIT, and the constant tug-of-war since then. The new Secretary-General of the ITU, Mr. Houlin Zhao, wrote a note in October 2004, before the Tunis phase of the WSIS, justifying ITU’s involvement in Internet governance, advocating that IPv6 address blocks be allocated to countries. Mr. Zhao describes, with specific examples, ITU's role in the development and widespread growth of the Internet. He takes the examples of standards developed within the ITU and ITU's policy role in liberalisation and spread of telecommunications (such as Articles 4 & 9 of the 1988 ITRs).

Mr. Zhao’s concrete proposals are rendered inapplicable by the creation of the NRO and RIRs, and the growth and entrenchment of ICANN. But it may be argued that his principled justifications for ITU involvement remain. It is these that India hopes to highlight, I was told, along with the inequities in resource allocation (IPv4 was spoken of), and the disproportionate weight some states enjoy in Internet governance. Her concerns are, I am told, also shared by some other states. Given that the text exhibits a less-than-friendly approach to multi-stakeholderism, India's previous positions on the issue are of interest. While this would not correct the snags in the Draft Resolution's text, allaying these concerns may be ideal to craft an inclusive and transparent multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance.

India and Multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance:

India’s position on multi-stakeholder models for Internet governance is a matter of some obscurity. Statements at various forums exhibit a certain disagreement – or at the least, lack of engagement – among India’s ministries on our position on multi-stakeholder approaches, particularly the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY), both within the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT). While both the MEA and DOT have been cautious supporters of a diluted form of multi-stakeholderism (they have repeatedly emphasized §35 of the Tunis Agenda), DeitY has been more open in entertaining multi-stakeholder approaches for Internet governance.

At the 66^th session of UN General Assembly, Mr. Dushyant Singh, Member of India’s Parliament from the Bharatiya Janata Party, presented our proposal for a Committee on Internet-related Policies. The proposal sought the establishment of a UN committee comprising 50 member-states, with advisory groups including the private sector and civil society, to deal with Internet-related matters.[3] Though India was not opposed to multi-stakeholder advisories in its CIRP proposal, it was less than inviting in this regard.

At NETmundial (April 2014), the Indian government’s contribution document highlighted §35 of the Tunis Agenda, which delineates ‘roles and responsibilities’ of ‘respective stakeholders’ – i.e., governments (with whom reside “sovereign policy authority”), the private sector (technical and economic development of the Internet) and civil society (grassroots participation). At NETmundial, Mr. Vinay Kwatra of the MEA echoed this, also noting the lack of consensus on what multi-stakeholderism means for Internet governance (page 64).

Admittedly, this is a legitimate concern. Internet governance at various fora does not seem to have a clear answer on what multi-stakeholderism means. The debate was/is alive, for instance, at NETmundial 2014, the ICANN-convened IANA transition process, the World Economic Forum’s new NETmundial Initiative, and in the many calls and suggestions (pages 38-46) made over the years on strengthening the IGF (see also, Malcolm, Multi-stakeholder Governance and the IGF (2008), chapter 6). It is hardly surprising then, that India and other states raise this as a concern.

With regard to multi-stakeholderism, the DeitY in India has been the outlier. Speaking at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul, Mr. R.S. Sharma, Secretary (DeitY), expressed “no doubt that Internet Governance mechanism require the involvement of all the stakeholders, since the evolution of Internet has been a product of many different diverse groups working together in a loosely coordinated manner”, advocating strengthening of the IGF and pointing to India’s proposed India-IGF as an example of multi-stakeholderism at home. Most interestingly, Mr. Sharma did not focus on international Internet-related policies being the “sovereign policy authority of states”. Also in the transcripts of the four meetings of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation under the Committee for Science, Technology and Development (CSTD), I have been unable to find outright rejections of multi-stakeholder approaches, though India has not advocated multi-stakeholderism unequivocally either.

But this – the emphasis on “sovereign policy authority of states” in Internet governance – has been a consistent position for India, especially the MEA and DOT. Here at the ITU PP-14 as well, members of the Indian delegation also emphasized states’ sovereign monopoly over policy matters. “Why not take this to the ITU”, I was asked, as “many governments are uncomfortable” with the way Internet governance is being conducted at other fora. There are grave concerns, I was told, about the possibility of excessive control some governments have over both user and government data of other states (government-speak, of course, for the Snowden revelations).

These are, of course, concerns similar to those of authoritarian governments, or those reluctant to open up to multi-stakeholderism and looking for excuses to retain/increase government control. But it is equally possible that these concerns need not be limited only to such states. Perhaps for developing countries as well, these are real concerns. In conversation with members of the Indian delegation at the ITU Plenipot, I was able to discern 3 broad concerns. First, the definition of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. India has not shown herself comfortable with an all-out endorsement of multi-stakeholderism. This is troubling. Civil society and the private sector in India will attest to the difficulties in engaging with our government at all levels. For instance, seeking a place on India's delegation for the Plenipot proved a disheartening exercise for some members of India's civil society.

But there are also conflicting indications. India is in the process of instituting an India-IGF, and CIS' Executive Director, Sunil Abraham, is on the MAG. India expressed agreement, at least in informal conversation, to opening up ITU documents to the public on grounds of public interest. The Law Commission of India recently conducted a multi-stakeholder consultation on media laws in India, and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) regularly conducts consultations, though the private sector is more active there. What is lacking in India, however, is a set of clear procedures and processes for multi-stakeholder engagement, particularly on Internet issues. Clear, public, accessible, foreseeable and predictable set of rules or processes on participation from civil society, private sector and academia would make a world of difference to multi-stakeholderism within India. But this lack should not blind states or other stakeholders to the genuineness of privacy/security or equity concerns - for instance, of the protection of our information from mass surveillance or the feasibility and actual participation of developing countries at many Internet governance fora.

Second, members of the delegation expressed concern over inequalities in the allocation of naming, numbering and addressing resources. While I am uncertain how IPv6 allocation falls within this concern, the inequalities of IPv4 allocations are well documented. To gather a sense of this, it would be useful to read chapter 5 of Professor DeNardis’ Protocol Politics, and to glance at Figure 5.7 (page 173). Africa controls, for instance, a mere 1% of all available IPv4 addresses, while North America and Europe control about 63%. A study on engagement from the Asia-Pacific in Internet standards organisations shows, for instance, greater participation from Western countries and from some states like Japan.[4] India and other states from Asia and Africa have lesser participation. Even at ICANN, with efforts to increase participation, meaningful engagement is still from a majority of Western countries. Perhaps states and other stakeholders on the other side of the table can address these concerns through clear, inclusive, non-discriminatory commitments and implementation.

Third, India emphasized how the Draft Resolution does not propose that ITU be involved in content management or resources control, but only seeks to systematize allocation by asking the ITU Secretary General to collaborate and coordinate with other Internet governance organisations to create a set of principles for fair, equitable, transparent and democratic - as well as secure - allocation of resources. ITU Resolution 101 already instructs the Secretary General to collaborate with relevant Internet governance organisations, and the Draft Resolution merely seeks to spell out his tasks. However, as I pointed out in my previous post, the text of the Draft Resolution is at odds with this intention of India's. By dint of its drafting, it gravely implicates human rights, as well as touching upon resource allocation oversight ("needs to be adhere to" in Op. §2). To reflect the above stated intention, the Draft Resolution would need to be redrafted.

Finally, the text of the Draft Resolution exhibits, unfortunately, a certain disregard for existing network architecture and efficiency within the Internet, and to the principles of a free, open and inter-operable and unified Internet, when it seeks to develop a network architecture that facilitates (domestic) localization of traffic-routing, address resolution and allocation of naming, numbering and addressing. An argument may, of course, be made in favour of efficiency and costs, including reduced latency. But it is clear that this has the potential to increase domestic surveillance capabilities and government censorship of content. In any case, traffic localization (if not local address resolution) can be achieved without ITU coordination: through Internet Exchange Points, and through more efficient and better-negotiated peering and transit arrangements (pages 14-17). Internationally coordinated rules for localized traffic routing is not necessary; you just need to have a more efficient Internet Exchange Point. How to get more ISPs to interconnect through India’s National Internet Exchange (NIXI) is one of the very questions that India’s Telecom Regulatory Authority has taken up in its recent consultation on expanding broadband access (page 49). So it is possible that India's concerns could be addressed without ITU involvement, though I am unsure of its impact on the global Internet.

The Draft Resolution will be discussed at the ITU Plenipot today. The discussion will allow India and sympathetic countries to raise several of their concerns relating to the present system of Internet governance, and the direction of its progress. I will report on these discussions upon their completion.

A Note on Limitations:

The aim of this post is to clarify. I would caution against its being the last word on anything, much less India’s positions on Internet governance. An issue as important as this needs far greater access to and confirmation from India’s government – and a more in-depth understanding of the politics – than I do, at the moment.

At the same time, India has not been a model for civil society engagement, as illustratively, the Narmada Bachao Andolan and/or P. Sainath’s evaluation of government policies in Everybody Loves a Good Drought reveal. It has been harder to effectively engage with India’s government than in many states in North America, Latin America and Europe. But I believe the complex dynamics of that is not unique to India. The NSA and GCHQ revelations (as an example of governmental trust deficit of unmatched proportions) have shown that where governments want to keep everyone out and oblivious, they do it well.

I am not in favour of a purely multilateral approach to Internet governance. But at the same time, I share concerns over definition and the evolution of processes as well, as I am sure others in civil society also do. Particularly on the issue of Internet governance and multi-stakeholderism, evidence reveals inconsistency among India’s various ministries. Until this is addressed by our government (hopefully in consultation with all concerned stakeholders), an open mind would probably be the best thing we - including states - could keep.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Sunil Abraham, Pranesh Prakash, Rishabh Dara, Arun Sukumar, Anja Kovacs and Parminder Jeet Singh for the freedom to bounce ideas, feedback and the many discussions about multi-stakeholder approaches and Internet governance. I also wish to acknowledge Samir Saran’s article in CFR, which offers an interesting perspective on India’s Draft Resolution.

[1] For this post, I will use ‘multi-stakeholder approaches’ as an umbrella term, but would urge readers to keep in mind the many uncertainties and disagreements about defining multi-stakeholderism for Internet governance. These disagreements exist among and within all stakeholders, including government and civil society. In addition to various iterations of the ‘equal footing model’, the model proposed in §35 of the Tunis Agenda is also multi-stakeholder, albeit in a different – and for many in civil society, less desirable – sense.

[2] For those unacquainted with WCIT, see Mueller, ITU Phobia: Why WCIT was derailed, Internet Governance Blog (18 December 2012), http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/18/itu-phobia-why-wcit-was-derailed/; Kleinwächter, WCIT and Internet governance: Harmless resolution or Trojan horse?, CircleID Blog (17 December 2012), http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121217_wcit_and_internet_governance_harmless_resolution_or_trojan_horse/.

[3] For a commentary, see Mueller, A United Nations Committee for Internet-related Policies? A Fair Assessment, Internet Governance Blog (29 October 2011), http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/10/29/a-united-nations-committee-for-internet-related-policies-a-fair-assessment/.

[4] Contreras, Divergent Patterns of Engagement in Internet Standardization: Japan, Korea and China. I am unable to find this paper online. Please email me for information.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/good-intentions-recalcitrant-text-2013-ii-what-india2019s-itu-proposal-may-mean-for-internet-governance

Good Intentions, Recalcitrant Text - I: Why India’s Proposal at the ITU is Troubling for Internet Freedoms

geetha — 2014-11-02T15:13:45Z

At the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference (‘PP-14’ or ‘Plenipot’) of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), India has tabled a draft proposal on “ITU’s Role in Realising Secure Information Society” [Document 98, dated 20 October 2014] (“Draft Resolution”). India’s proposal has incited a great deal of concern and discussion among Plenipot attendees, governments and civil society alike. Before offering my concerns and comments on the Draft Resolution, let us understand the proposal.

Our Draft Resolution identifies 3 security concerns with exchange of information and resource allocation on the Internet:

First, it is troubling for India that present network architecture has “security weaknesses” such as “camouflaging the identity of the originator of the communication”;[1] random IP address distribution also makes “tracing of communication difficult”;[2]
Second, India is concerned that under the present allocation system of naming, numbering and addressing resources on the Internet, it is impossible or at the very least, cumbersome to identify the countries to which IP address are allocated;[3]
Third, India finds it insecure from the point of view of national security that traffic originating and terminating in the same country (domestic traffic) often routes through networks overseas;[4] similarly, local address resolution also routes through IP addresses outside the country or region, which India finds troubling.[5]

In an effort to address these concerns, the Draft Resolution seeks to instruct the ITU Secretary General:

First, to develop and recommend a ‘traffic routing plan’ that can “effectively ensure the traceability of communication”;[6]
Second, to collaborate with relevant international and intergovernmental organisations to develop an “IP address plan” which facilitates identification of locations/countries to which IP addresses are allocated and coordinates allocation accordingly;[7]
Third, to develop and recommend “a public telecom network architecture” that localizes both routing[8] as well as address resolution[9] for local/domestic traffic to “within the country”.

Admittedly, our Draft Resolution is intended to pave a way for “systematic, fair and equitable allocation” of, inter alia, naming, numbering and addressing resources,[10] keeping in mind security and human rights concerns.[11] In an informal conversation, members of the Indian delegation echoed these sentiments. Our resolution does not, I was told, raise issues about the “concentration of control over Internet resources”, though “certain governments” have historically exercised more control. It also does not, he clarified, wish to make privacy or human rights a matter for discussion at the ITU. All that the Draft Resolution seeks to do is to equip the ITU with the mandate to prepare and recommend a “roadmap for the systematization” of allocation of naming, numbering and addressing resources, and for local routing of domestic traffic and address resolution. The framework for such mandate is that of security, given the ITU’s role in ‘building confidence and security in the use of ICTs’ under Action Line C5 of the Geneva Plan of Action, 2003.

Unfortunately, the text of our Draft Resolution, by dint of imprecision or lack of clarity, undermines India’s intentions. On three issues of utmost importance to the Internet, the Draft Resolution has unintended or unanticipated impacts. First, its text on tracing communication and identity of originators, and systematic allocation of identifiable IP address blocks to particular countries, has impacts on privacy and freedom of expression. Given Edward Snowden’s NSA files and the absence of adequate protections against government incursions or excesses into privacy,[12] either in international human rights law or domestic law, such text is troublesome. Second, it has the potential to undermine multi-stakeholder approaches to Internet governance by proposing text that refers almost exclusively to sovereign monopolies over Internet resource allocation, and finally, displays a certain disregard for network architecture and efficiency, and to principles of a free, open and unified Internet, when it seeks to develop global architecture that facilitates (domestic) localization of traffic-routing, address resolution and allocation of naming, numbering and addressing.

In this post, I will address the first concern of human rights implications of our Draft Resolution.

Unintended Implications for Privacy and Freedom of Expression:

India’s Draft Resolution has implications for individual privacy. At two different parts of the preamble, India expresses concerns with the impossibility of locating the user at the end of an IP address:

Pream. §(e): “recognizing… that the modern day packet networks, which at present have many security weaknesses, inter alia, camouflaging the identity of originator of the communication”;
Pream. §(h): “recognizing… that IP addresses are distributed randomly, that makes the tracing of communication difficult”.

The concerns here surround difficulties in tracking IP addresses due to the widespread use of NATs, as also the existence of IP anonymisers like Tor. Anonymisers like Tor permit individuals to cover their online tracks; they conceal user location and Internet activity from persons or governments conducting network surveillance or traffic analysis. For this reason, Tor has caused much discomfort to governments. Snowden used Tor while communicating with Laura Poitras. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning of Wikileaks fame is reported to have used Tor (page 24). Crypto is increasingly the safest – perhaps the only safe – avenue for political dissidents across the world; even Internet companies were coerced into governmental compliance. No wonder, then, that governments are doing all they can to dismantle IP anonymisers: the NSA and GCHQ have tried to break Tor; the Russian government has offered a reward to anyone who can.

Far be it from me to defend Tor blindly. There are reports suggesting that Tor is being used by offenders, and not merely those of the Snowden variety. But governments must recognize the very obvious trust deficit they face, especially after Snowden’s revelations, and consider the implications of seeking traceability and identity/geolocation for every IP address, in a systematic manner. The implications are for privacy, a right guaranteed by Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Privacy has been recognized by the UN General Assembly as applicable in cases of surveillance, interception and data collection, in Pream. §4 of its resolution The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age. But many states do not have robust privacy protections for individuals and data. And while governments may state the necessity to create international policy to further effective criminal investigations, such an aim cannot be used to nullify or destroy the rights of privacy and free speech guaranteed to individuals. Article 5(1), ICCPR, codifies this principle, when it states that States, groups or persons may not “engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein…”.

Erosion of privacy has a chilling effect on free speech [New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254], so free speech suffers too. Particularly with regard to Tor and identification of IP address location and users, anonymity in Internet communications is at issue. At the moment, most states already have anonymity-restrictions, in the form of identification and registration for cybercafés, SIM cards and broadband connections. For instance, Rule 4 of India’s Information Technology (Guidelines for Cyber Cafe) Rules, 2011, mandates that we cannot not use computers in a cybercafé without establishing our identities. But our ITU Draft Resolution seeks to dismantle the ability of Internet users to operate anonymously, be they political dissidents, criminals or those merely acting on their expectations of privacy. Such dismantling would be both violative of international human rights law, as well as dangerous for freedom of expression and privacy in principle. Anonymity is integral to democratic discourse, held the US Supreme Court in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission [514 U.S. 334 (1995)].[13] Restrictions on Internet anonymity facilitate communications surveillance and have a chilling effect on the free expression of opinions and ideas, wrote Mr. Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (¶¶ 48-49).

So a law or international policy for blanket identification and traceability of IP addresses has grave consequences for and prima facie violates privacy, anonymity and freedom of speech. But these rights are not absolute, and can be validly restricted. And because these human rights are implicated, the ITU with its lack of expertise in the area may not be the adequate forum for discussion or study.

To be valid and justified interference, any law, policy or order interfering with privacy and free speech must meet the standards of reasonableness and proportionality, even if national security were the government’s legitimate aim, laid down in Articles 19(3) and 17 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) [Toonen v. Australia, Communication No. 488/1992, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (1994), ¶6.4]. And as the European Court of Human Rights found in Weber & Saravia v. Germany [Application no. 54934/00, 29 June 2006 (ECHR), ¶95], law or executive procedure that enables surveillance without sufficient safeguards is prima facie unreasonable and disproportionate. Re: anonymity, in Delfi AS v. Estonia [Application no. 64569/09, 17 February 2014, ¶83], while considering the liability of an Internet portal for offensive anonymous comments, the ECHR has emphasized the importance of balancing freedom of expression and privacy. It relied on certain principles such as “contribution to a debate of general interest, subject of the report, the content, form and consequences of the publication” to test the validity of government’s restrictions.

The implications of the suggested text of India’s Draft Resolution should then be carefully thought out. And this is a good thing. For one must wonder why governments need perfect traceability, geolocation and user identification for all IP addresses. Is such a demand really different from mass or blanket surveillance, in scale and government tracking ability? Would this not tilt the balance of power strongly in favour of governments against individuals (citizens or non-citizens)? This fear must especially arise in the absence of domestic legal protections, both in human rights, and criminal law and procedure. For instance, India’s Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) has Section 66A, which criminalizes offensive speech, as well as speech that causes annoyance or inconvenience. Arguably, arrests under Section 66A have been arbitrary, and traceability may give rise to a host of new worries.

In any event, IP addresses and users can be discerned under existing domestic law frameworks. Regional Internet Registries (RIR) such as APNIC allocate blocks of IP addresses to either National Internet Registries (NIR – such as IRINN for India) or to ISPs directly. The ISPs then allocate IP addresses dynamically to users like you and me. Identifying information for these ISPs is maintained in the form of WHOIS records and registries with RIRs or NIRs, and this information is public. ISPs of most countries require identifying information from users before Internet connection is given, i.e., IP addresses allocated (mostly by dynamic allocation, for that is more efficient). ISPs of some states are also regulated; in India, for instance, ISPs require a licence to operate and offer services.

If any government wished, on the basis of some reasonable cause, to identify a particular IP address or its user, then the government could first utilize WHOIS to obtain information about the ISP. Then ISPs may be ordered to release specific IP address locations and user information under executive or judicial order. There are also technical solutions, such as traceroute or IP look-up that assist in tracing or identifying IP addresses. Coders, governments and law enforcement must surely be aware of better technology than I.

If we take into account this possibility of geolocation of IP addresses, then the Draft Resolution’s motivation to ‘systematize’ IP address allocations on the basis of states is unclear. I will discuss the implication of this proposal, and that of traffic and address localization, in my next post.

[1] Pream. §(e), Draft Resolution: “recognizing… that the modern day packet networks, which at present have many security weaknesses, inter alia, camouflaging the identity of originator of the communication”.

[2] Pream. §(h), Draft Resolution: “recognizing… that IP addresses are distributed randomly, that makes the tracing of communication difficult”.

[3] Op. §1, Draft Resolution: “instructs the Secretary General… to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management to develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different countries are easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution of IP addresses accordingly”.

[4] Pream. §(g), Draft Resolution: “recognizing… that communication traffic originating and terminating in a country also many times flows outside the boundary of a country making such communication costly and to some extent insecure from national security point of view”.

[5] Pream. §(f), Draft Resolution: “recognizing… that even for local address resolution at times, system has to use resources outside the country which makes such address resolution costly and to some extent insecure from national security perspective”.

[6] Op. §6, Draft Resolution: “instructs the Secretary General… to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing the network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability of communication”.

[7] Op. §1, Draft Resolution; see note 3.

[8] Op. §5, Draft Resolution: “instructs the Secretary General… to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which ensures that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country remains within the country”.

[9] Op. §4, Draft Resolution: “instructs the Secretary General… to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which ensures effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country/region takes place within the country”.

[10] Context Note to Draft Resolution, ¶3: “Planning and distribution of numbering and naming resources in a systematic, equitable, fair and just manner amongst the Member States…”

[11] Context Note to Draft Resolution, ¶2: “…there are certain areas that require critical attention to move in the direction of building the necessary “Trust Framework” for the safe “Information Society”, where privacy, safety are ensured”.

[12] See, for instance, Report of the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights (“OHCHR”), Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, A/HRC/27/37 (30 June 2014), ¶34-35, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A.HRC.27.37_en.pdf. See esp. note 30 of the Report, ¶35.

[13] Many thorny political differences exist between the US and many states (including India and Kenya, who I am told has expressed preliminary support for the Draft Resolution) with regard to Internet governance. Irrespective of this, the US Constitution’s First Amendment and judicial protections to freedom of expression remain a yardstick for many states, including India. India, for instance, has positively referred to the US Supreme Court’s free speech protections in many of its decisions; ex. see Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1963 Cri. L.J. 329; R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/good-intentions-going-awry-i-why-india2019s-proposal-at-the-itu-is-troubling-for-internet-freedoms

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

CIS@IGF 2014

geetha — 2014-10-08T10:31:47Z

The ninth Internet Governance Forum (“IGF2014”) was hosted by Turkey in Istanbul from September 2 to 5, 2014.

A BestBits pre-event, which saw robust discussions on renewal of the IGF mandate, the NETmundial Initiative and other live Internet governance processes, flagged off a week of many meetings and sessions. At IGF2014, the ICANN-led processes of IANA transition and ICANN accountability found strong presence. Human rights online, access and net neutrality were also widely discussed. Centre for Internet and Society, India participated in multiple workshops and panels.

Workshops and Panel Discussions

WS206: An evidence-based framework for intermediary liability
CIS organized a workshop on developing an evidence-based framework for intermediary liability in collaboration with the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. By connecting information producers and consumers, intermediaries serve as valuable tool for growth and innovation, and also a medium for realisation of human rights. The workshop looked to a concerted approach to understanding intermediaries’ impact on human rights demands our urgent attention. Jyoti Panday of CIS was contributed to the workshop’s background paper and organisation. Elonnai Hickok of CIS was a speaker. At this workshop, a zero-draft of international principles for intermediary liability was released. The zero-draft is the interim outcome of an ongoing, global intermediary liability project, undertaken by CIS in collaboration with Article 19 and Electronic Frontier Foundation. See the video.

WS112: Implications of post-Snowden Internet localization proposals
Organised by ISOC and Center for Democracy and Technology, this panel questioned the distinctions between Internet-harmful and Internet-beneficial Internet and data localization. As a speaker at this workshop, Sunil Abraham of CIS identified state imperatives for Internet localization, such as taxation, network efficiency and security. See video.

WS63: Preserving a universal Internet: Costs of fragmentation
Internet and Jurisdiction Project organized this workshop to explore potential harms to Internet architecture, universality and openness as a result of Internet balkanisation. Sunil Abraham was one of the speakers.

WS2: Mobile, trust and privacy
Organised by GSMA, this panel discussed methods, benefits and harms of use of mobile transaction generated information and data. Sunil Abraham was a speaker. See video.

WS188: Transparency reporting as a tool for Internet governance
This GNI workshop examined transparency reporting by Internet intermediaries and companies, and sought to identify its strengths and shortcomings as a tool for Internet governance. Pranesh Prakash of CIS was a speaker. See video.

WS149: Aligning ICANN policy with the privacy rights of users
This Yale ISP panel examined ICANN’s obligations for data protection, in light of international standards and best practices. This discussion is particularly relevant as ICANN’s WHOIS policy, Registrar Accreditation Agreement, and other policies have attained the status of a global standard for the handling of personal data. Pranesh Prakash moderated this panel.

Other Participation

Launch of the GISWatch Report

Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries (Hivos) released the Global Information Society Watch Report (GISWatch) on national and global mass surveillance. The report “explores the surveillance of citizens in today's digital age by governments with the complicity of institutions and corporations”. Elonnai Hickok of CIS contributed a thematic chapter on Intermediary Liability and Surveillance to this report.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-at-igf-2014

“OTTs Eating Into Our Revenue”: Telcos in India

geetha — 2014-09-10T05:36:37Z

On August 5, 2014, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India organised a seminar on a regulatory framework for Over-The-Top services. This is a lay discussion of the Seminar and its focus on matters crucial to telecom, the Internet and the existing regulatory framework.

On Tuesday, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) held a seminar to initiate discussion on potential regulation of “over the top” services (OTTs) in India. TRAI organized the seminar to “understand perspectives of all stakeholders involved”, following grievances of telcos that OTTs are eating into their revenues and free-riding on their networks. In fact, a letter from the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) to TRAI outlines these concerns excellently. The letter, which I had the opportunity to see in print, objects that telcos take the trouble of laying and maintaining networks, while rapidly mushrooming OTTs eat into their revenue. Whatsapp, Skype and alternatives to paid text-and-call find particular mention in the COAI’s letter, and the COAI President Vikram Tiwathia was vociferous in his iteration of operators’ concerns. With VOIP and other OTTs replacing telco services, telcos are rapidly losing large parts of their revenue, he said.

I don’t mean to brush their concerns aside, of course. However, there is a need to consider in depth certain questions with statistical, regulatory and principled exploration. As Dr. Rajat Kathuria of ICRIER said at the Seminar’s first session, we need to evaluate whether there’s a need for regulation in the first place. This includes exploring whether the answer lies in deregulation, as Suhaan Mukerji of PLR Chambers and Subho Ray of IAMAI emphasized separately. Our solution, as Mr. Ray said, should not be to chain the free OTTs just because we are in chains ourselves. Unchaining telcos from their stringent licensing and other regulations may be more appropriate.

The Seminar was attended by telcos, OTTs, civil society and other stakeholders, and the frank exchange of views at the PHD Chamber of Commerce was heartening. While telcos in the room were broadly open to OTT innovation upon their networks (Mr. T.V. Ramachandran of Vodafone was particularly vocal on this), there exists a broadly reactionary loss-of-footing and apprehension over their current and projected revenue loss. Mr. C.S. Rao of Reliance was spot on when he said that telcos are afraid that what’s worked for them so far may not work in the future.

We’ve seen examples of such fear of incumbent operators before. In the early 1990s, the invention and spread of the Internet displaced appliancized, bundled models of telco services, and telcos were similarly unwelcoming. Indeed, AT&T went to court to fight the introduction of the Carterfone. In India, the falling demand for VAS today, and OTT-response to consumer demand, fosters such fear.

But accounting for OTTs’ lack of consumer servicing or responsibility for monetization models, what was of chief concern at the TRAI Seminar was the predominant focus on revenue. Telco profitability and their incentives for investment are important. Increasing supply side costs, with the government seeking to maximize revenue from spectrum allocation and demands of lower consumer prices, might be throttling current telco business models. We’d need to analyse data usage charges and projected mobile broadband penetration, in comparison with voice penetration, to be clear about the extent of such strangulation. But if the answer to failing telco business lies in further regulation and potential strangling of innovation, that’s a concern.

That’s in two ways. First, it isn’t merely the NetFlix or Google or Apple that populate the app economy. Raman Chima (ironically of Google) offered the example of Slideshare in Okhla, Delhi as one of the many successful Indian micro-multinationals. There are many others across India. Second, India’s current telecom regulatory model is unfit for a data/Internet content model. There’s a need, Suhaan Mukerji and Mahesh Uppal of ComFirst pointed out, to rethink our strict telecom licensing regime. We should begin to think, at least, of a vertically integrated layered model of telecom regulation that regulates on the basis of function.

These layers are integral to Internet architecture: network, transport, application. OTTs lie at the application layer, while telcos operate at the network and transport layers. It may be inefficient to utilize failures at one layer to regulate or share revenue of companies at other layers – that would stunt competition and innovation. A reconfigured licensing regime, permitting telcos to innovate more (someone at the Seminar said security clearances take years, while OTTs need no such clearance) might be more efficient and beneficial for all stakeholders involved – not least the disempowered individual consumers.

That’s my sense of the Seminar. Profitability and incentives are crucial. But they are crucial insofar as they benefit consumers – with access, choice, freedom of speech, security and privacy. Revenue sharing or partnership models, which were mentioned far too many times by multiple speakers without sufficient justification or elaboration, may not be ideal for any of us in the long term. But these are issues we – and TRAI – should consider while debating a regulatory framework.

Underlying infrastructure has an impact on our fundamental freedoms such as speech – the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sakal Papers and Express Newspapers makes that clear. Fast-paced innovation and the boundary-less benefits of a single, interoperable Internet have pushed us to favour security against freedoms. But every model we consider today – ad-based monetization, big data analytics – have implications that the NSA’s mass, cross-border surveillance has highlighted. Since TRAI is rethinking our regulatory framework for telecom and the Internet – and I envisage this going into a constructive consultation in the near future – these issues must inform its analysis and conclusions.

For more, read Nikhil Pahwa’s report over at MediaNama.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/otts-eating-into-our-revenue-telcos-in-india

FOEX Live

geetha — 2014-07-07T12:36:49Z

Selections of news on online freedom of expression and digital technology from across India (and some parts of the world)

For feedback, comments and any incidents of online free speech violation you are troubled or intrigued by, please email Geetha at geetha[at]cis-india.org or on Twitter at @covertlight.

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

FOEX Live: June 16-23, 2014

geetha — 2014-06-24T10:23:18Z

A weekly selection of news on online freedom of expression and digital technology from across India (and some parts of the world).

A quick and non-exhaustive perusal of this week’s content shows that many people are worried about the state of India’s free speech following police action on account of posts derogatory to or critical of the Prime Minister. Lawyers, journalists, former civil servants and other experts have joined in expressing this worry.

While a crackdown on freedom of expression would indeed be catastrophic and possibly unconstitutional, fears are so far based on police action in only 4 recent cases: Syed Waqar in Karnataka, Devu Chodankar in Goa and two cases in Kerala where college students and principals were arrested for derogatory references to Modi. Violence in Pune, such as the murder of a young Muslim man on his way home from prayer, or the creation of a Social Peace Force of citizens to police offensive Facebook content, are all related, but perhaps ought to be more carefully and deeply explored.

Kerala:

In the Assembly, State Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala said that the State government did not approve of the registration of cases against students on grounds of anti-Modi publications. The Minister denunciation of political opponents through cartoons and write-ups was common practice in Kerala, and “booking the authors for this was not the state government’s policy”.

Maharashtra:

Nearly 20,000 people have joined the Social Peace Force, a Facebook group that aims to police offensive content on the social networking site. The group owner’s stated aim is to target religious posts that may provoke riots, not political ones. Subjective determinations of what qualifies as ‘offensive content’ remain a troubling issue.

Tamil Nadu:

In Chennai, 101 people, including filmmakers, writers, civil servants and activists, have signed a petition requesting Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa to permit safe screening of the Indo-Sri Lankan film “With You, Without You”. The petition comes after theatres cancelled shows of the film following threatening calls from some Tamil groups.

Telangana:

The K. Chandrasekhar Rao government has blocked two Telugu news channels for airing content that was “derogatory, highly objectionable and in bad taste”.

The Telagana government’s decision to block news channels has its supporters. Padmaja Shaw considers the mainstream Andhra media contemptuous and disrespectful of “all things Telangana”, while Madabushi Sridhar concludes that Telugu channel TV9’s coverage violates the dignity of the legislature.

West Bengal:

Seemingly anti-Modi arrests have led to worry among citizens about speaking freely on the Internet. Section 66A poses a particular threat.

News & Opinion:

The Department of Telecom is preparing a draft of the National Telecom Policy, in which it plans to treat broadband Internet as a basic right. The Policy, which will include deliberations on affordable broadband access for end users, will be finalised in 100 days.

While addressing a CII CEO’s Roundtable on Media and Industry, Information and Broadcasting Minister Prakash Javadekar promised a transparent and stable policy regime, operating on a time-bound basis. He promised that efforts would be streamlined to ensure speedy and transparent clearances.

A perceived increase in police action against anti-Modi publications or statements has many people worried. But the Prime Minister himself was once a fierce proponent of dissent; in protest against the then-UPA government’s blocking of webpages, Modi changed his display pic to black.

Medianama wonders whether the Mumbai police’s Cyber Lab and helpline to monitor offensive content on the Internet is actually a good idea.

G. Sampath wonders why critics of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi can’t voluntarily refrain from exercising their freedom of speech, and allow India to be an all-agreeable development haven. Readers may find his sarcasm subtle and hard to catch.

Experts in India mull over whether Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, carries a loophole enabling users to exercise a ‘right to be forgotten’. Some say Section 79 does not prohibit user requests to be forgotten, while others find it unsettling to provide private intermediaries such powers of censorship.

Some parts of the world:

Sri Lanka has banned public meetings or rallies intended to promote religious hatred.

In Pakistan, Twitter has restored accounts and tweets that were taken down last month on allegations of being blasphemous or ‘unethical’.

In Myanmar, an anti-hate speech network has been proposed throughout the country to raise awareness and opposition to hate speech and violence.

For feedback, comments and any incidents of online free speech violation you are troubled or intrigued by, please email Geetha at geetha[at]cis-india.org or on Twitter at @covertlight.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-june-16-23-2014

IANA Transition Recommendatory Brief

geetha — 2014-06-22T09:21:57Z

Policy brief with recommendations for process-design principles for IANA transition

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-policy-brief-ii-iana-transition-suggestions-for-process-design