http://editors.cis-india.org These are the search results for the query, showing results 51 to 59. http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-1-icanns-expenditures-on-travel-meetings <b>CIS sent ICANN a request under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, seeking details of expenditure by ICANN at its Meetings. CIS' request and ICANN's response are detailed below. </b> <h2 style="text-align: justify; "></h2> <h2 style="text-align: justify; "></h2> <h2 style="text-align: justify; ">CIS' Request</h2> <p style="text-align: justify; "><span>18 December 2014</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">To:</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Cherine Chalaby, Chair, Finance Committee of the Board</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Xavier Calvez, Chief Financial Officer</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Samiran Gupta, ICANN India</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">All other members of Staff involved in accounting and financial tasks</p> <p style="text-align: center; "><strong>Sub: Request for itemized details of expenditure by ICANN at its Meetings</strong></p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">We would like to thank Mr. Calvez and Mr. Gupta for providing information regarding ICANN’s domain name revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> We would like to request further information through the DIDP.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">In the Audited Financial Statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, the “statements of activities” provides Total Expenses (for ICANN and New gTLD) as USD 124,400,000.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, the Total Expenses (ICANN and New gTLD) noted is USD 150,362,000.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">According to the statement, this covers expenses for Personnel, Travel and meetings, Professional services and Administration. Quarterly Reports note that the head “Travel and meetings” includes community support requests.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> In addition to these heads, Quarterly Reports include “Bad debt expenses” and “Depreciation expenses”. The manner of accounting for these is explained in <span>Note 2</span> to the Notes to Financial Statements.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> Note 2 explains that the expenses statement is prepared by “functional allocation of expenses” to identifiable programs or support services, or otherwise by methods determined by the management.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">For the purposes of our research into normative and practised transparency and accountability in Internet governance, we request, to begin with, <i>current and historical</i> information regarding itemized, detailed expenses under the head “Travel and meetings”. We request this information from 1999 till 2014. We request that such information be categorized and sub-categorised as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">Total and Individual Expenses for each meeting (categorised by meeting and year):</p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><span>1. Total and individual expenses for ICANN staff (differentiated by department and name of each individual attending the event, including dates/duration of attendance);</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">-    Also broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">-    Each ICANN staff member who attended the event to be named.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">2. <span>Total and individual expenses for members of ICANN Board (listed by each Board member and dates/duration of attendance);</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">-    Broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">-    Each Board member to be named.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><span>3. Total and individual expenses for members of ICANN constituencies (ALAC, ATRT, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, etc.)</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">-    Broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">-    Each attendee for whom ICANN covered expenses to be named.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><span>4. Total and individual expenses for ICANN fellows</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">-    Broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">-    Each attendee for whom ICANN covered expenses to be named, including their region and stakeholder affiliation.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">5. <span>Total and individual expenses incurred for any other ICANN affiliate or liaison (ISOC, IETF, IAB, etc.)</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">-    Broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">-    Each attendee for whom ICANN covered expenses to be named, including their affiliation.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">6. <span>Total and individual expenses incurred for any other person, whether or not directly affiliated with ICANN</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">-    Broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">-    Each attendee for whom ICANN covered expenses to be named, including their affiliation.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Please note that we request the above-detailed information for ICANN meetings, and also other meetings for which ICANN may provide financial support (for instance, CWG-Stewardship or CWG-Accountability). We request, as a preliminary matter, a list of </span><i>all meetings</i><span> to which ICANN provides and has, in the past, provided financial support (1999-2014).</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">We note that some information of this nature is available in the Travel Support Reports.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> However, the Travel Support Reports are available only from 2008 (Cairo meeting), and are not available for ICANN48 to ICANN51. Further, the Travel Support Reports do not exhibit the level of granularity necessary for research and scrutiny. As explained above, we request granular information for all meetings.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">In our view, providing such information will not violate any individual or corporate rights of ICANN, its Staff, Board, Affiliates/Liaisons or any other individual. Public corporations and even private organisations performing public functions may be subjected to or accept an increased level of transparency and accountability. We believe this is of especial importance to ICANN, as it is involved in a process to enhance its accountability, intrinsically related to IANA Stewardship Transition. We expressed similar views in our initial comment to “Enhancing ICANN Accountability”.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> Increased transparency from ICANN may also address accountability concerns present across stakeholder-groups both within and outside ICANN.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">We await your favorable response and the requested information within the prescribed time limit. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any clarifications.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you very much.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Warm regards,</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">Centre for Internet &amp; Society</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">W: <a href="http://cis-india.org">http://cis-india.org</a></p> <p> </p> <h2>ICANN's Response</h2> <p>ICANN responded to the above request for information within the stipulated time of 30 days. <strong><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-17jan15-en.pdf">ICANN’s response is here</a></strong>. A short summary of CIS's request and ICANN's response can be found <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/table-of-cis-didp-requests/at_download/file"><strong>in this table (Request S. no. 1)</strong></a>.</p> <p> </p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /> <p><a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> See <i>ICANN reveals hitherto undisclosed details of domain names revenues</i>, <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014</a>.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> See <i>ICANN Financial Statements As of and For the years ended June 30, 2014 and 2013</i>, pages 7, 19-20, <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/financial-report-fye-30jun14-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/financial-report-fye-30jun14-en.pdf</a>.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> For instance, see <i>ICANN FY14 Financial Package: For the nine months ending March 2014</i>, pages 2-5, <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/package-fy14-31mar14-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/package-fy14-31mar14-en.pdf</a>.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> <i>Supra</i> note 1, page 14.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> See Community Travel Support, <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/travel-support-2012-02-25-en#reports">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/travel-support-2012-02-25-en#reports</a>.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> See CIS Comments on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability</a>.</p> <p> For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-1-icanns-expenditures-on-travel-meetings'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-1-icanns-expenditures-on-travel-meetings</a> </p> No publisher geetha ICANN DIDP Transparency Accountability 2015-03-05T08:00:36Z Blog Entry http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-zero-draft-of-the-un-general-assembly2019s-overall-review-of-the-implementation-of-wsis-outcomes-wsis-10 <b>On 9 October 2015, the Zero Draft of the UN General Assembly's Overall Review of implementation of WSIS Outcomes was released. Comments were sought on the Zero Draft from diverse stakeholders. The Centre for Internet & Society's response to the call for comments is below.</b> <p style="text-align: justify; ">These comments were prepared by Geetha Hariharan with inputs from Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Pranesh Prakash, Sunil Abraham, Japreet Grewal and Nehaa Chaudhari. <b>Download the <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-zero-draft-of-un-general-assembly.pdf" class="internal-link">comments here</a></b>.</p> <hr /> <ol style="text-align: justify; "> <li>The Zero Draft of the UN General Assembly’s Overall Review of the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes (“Zero Draft”) is divided into three sections: (A) ICT for Development; (B) Internet Governance; (C) Implementation and Follow-up. CIS’ comments follow the same structure.</li> <li>The Zero Draft is a commendable document, covering crucial areas of growth and challenges surrounding the WSIS. The Zero Draft makes detailed references to development-related challenges, noting the persistent digital divide, the importance of universal access, innovation and investment, and of enabling legal and regulatory environments conducive to the same. It also takes note of financial mechanisms, without which principles would remain toothless. Issues surrounding Internet governance, particularly net neutrality, privacy and the continuation of the IGF are included in the Zero Draft.</li> <li>However, we believe that references to these issues are inadequate to make progress on existing challenges. Issues surrounding ICT for Development and Internet Governance have scarcely changed in the past ten years. Though we may laud the progress so far achieved, universal access and connectivity, the digital divide, insufficient funding, diverse and conflicting legal systems surrounding the Internet, the gender divide and online harassment persist. Moreover, the working of the IGF and the process of Enhanced Cooperation, both laid down with great anticipation in the Tunis Agenda, have been found wanting.</li> <li>These need to be addressed more clearly and strongly in the Zero Draft. In light of these shortcomings, we suggest the following changes to the Zero Draft, in the hope that they are accepted. <br />A. ICT for Development</li> <li>Paragraphs 16-21 elaborate upon the digital divide – both the progresses made and challenges. While the Zero Draft recognizes the disparities in access to the Internet among countries, between men and women, and of the languages of Internet content, it fails to attend to two issues.</li> <li><b><i>First</i>, accessibility for persons with disabilities continues to be an immense challenge</b>. Since the mandate of the WSIS involves universal access and the bridging of the digital divide, it is necessary that the Zero Draft take note of this continuing challenge.</li> <li>We suggest the insertion of <b>Para 20A</b> after Para 20:<br />“20A. We draw attention also to the digital divide adversely affecting the accessibility of persons with disabilities. We call on all stakeholders to take immediate measures to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities by 2020, and to enhance their capacity and access to ICTs.”</li> <li><b><i>Second</i>, while the digital divide among the consumers of ICTs has decreased since 2003-2005, the digital production divide goes unmentioned</b>. The developing world continues to have fewer producers of technology compared to their sheer concentration in the developed world – so much so that countries like India are currently pushing for foreign investment through missions like ‘Digital India’. Of course, the Zero Draft refers to the importance of private sector investment (Para 31). But it fails to point out that currently, such investment originates from corporations in the developed world. For this digital production divide to disappear, restrictions on innovation – restrictive patent or copyright regimes, for instance – should be removed, among other measures. <b>Equitable development is the key</b>.</li> <li><i>Ongoing negotiations of plurilateral agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) go unmentioned in the Zero Draft</i>. This is shocking. The TPP has been criticized for its excessive leeway and support for IP rightsholders, while incorporating non-binding commitments involving the rights of users (see Clause QQ.G.17 on copyright exceptions and limitations, QQ.H.4 on damages and QQ.C. 12 on ccTLD WHOIS, https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter-051015.pdf). Plaudits for progress make on the digital divide would be lip service if such agreements were not denounced.</li> <li>Therefore, we propose the addition of <b>Para 20B</b> after Para 20:<br />“20B. We draw attention also to the digital production divide among countries, recognizing that domestic innovation and production are instrumental in achieving universal connectivity. Taking note of recent negotiations surrounding restrictive and unbalanced plurilateral trade agreements, we call on stakeholders to adopt policies to ensure globally equitable development, removing restrictions on innovation and conducive to fostering domestic and local production.”</li> <li>Paragraph 22 of the Zero Draft acknowledges that “school curriculum requirements for ICT, open access to data and free flow of information, fostering of competition, access to finance”, etc. have “in many countries, facilitated significant gains in connectivity and sustainable development”.</li> <li>This is, of course, true. However, as Para 23 also recognises, access to knowledge, data and innovation have come with large costs, particularly for developing countries like India. These costs are heightened by a lack of promotion and adoption of open standards, open access, open educational resources, open data (including open government data), and other free and open source practices. These can help alleviate costs, reduce duplication of efforts, and provide an impetus to innovation and connectivity globally.</li> <li>Not only this, but <b>the implications of open access to data and knowledge (including open government data), and responsible collection and dissemination of data are much larger in light of the importance of ICTs in today’s world</b>. As Para 7 of the Zero Draft indicates, ICTs are now becoming an indicator of development itself, as well as being a key facilitator for achieving other developmental goals. As Para 56 of the Zero Draft recognizes, in order to measure the impact of ICTs on the ground – undoubtedly within the mandate of WSIS – it is necessary that there be an enabling environment to collect and analyse reliable data. Efforts towards the same have already been undertaken by the United Nations in the form of “Data Revolution for Sustainable Development”. In this light, the Zero Draft rightly calls for enhancement of regional, national and local capacity to collect and conduct analyses of development and ICT statistics (Para 56). Achieving the central goals of the WSIS process requires that such data is collected and disseminated under open standards and open licenses, leading to creation of global open data on the ICT indicators concerned.</li> <li>As such, we suggest that following clause be inserted as <b>Para 23A</b> to the Zero Draft: </li> </ol> <p style="text-align: justify; ">“23A. We recognize the importance of access to open, affordable, and reliable technologies and services, open access to knowledge, and open data, including open government data, and encourage all stakeholders to explore concrete options to facilitate the same.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">15. Paragraph 30 of the Zero Draft laments “the lack of progress on the Digital Solidarity Fund”, and calls “for a review of options for its future”.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">16. The Digital Solidarity Fund was established with the objective of “transforming the digital divide into digital opportunities for the developing world” through voluntary contributions [Para 28, Tunis Agenda]. It was an innovative financial mechanism to help bridge the digital divide between developed and developing countries. This divide continues to exist, as the Zero Draft itself recognizes in Paragraphs 16-21.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">17. <b>Given the persistent digital divide, a “call for review of options” as to the future of the Digital Solidarity Fund is inadequate to enable developing countries to achieve parity with developed countries</b>. A stronger and more definite commitment is required.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">18. As such, we suggest the following language in place of the current <b>Para 30</b>:</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">“30. We express concern at the lack of progress on the Digital Solidarity Fund, welcomed in Tunis as an innovative financial mechanism of a voluntary nature, and we <i>call for voluntary commitments from States to revive and sustain the Digital Solidarity Fund</i>.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">19. Paragraph 31 of the Zero Draft recognizes the importance of “legal and regulatory frameworks conducive to investment and innovation”. This is eminently laudable. However, a <b>broader vision is more compatible with paving the way for affordable and widespread access </b>to devices and technology necessary for universal connectivity.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">20. We suggest the following additions to <b>Para 31</b>:</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">“31. We recognise the critical importance of private sector investment in ICT access, content and services, <i>and of legal and regulatory frameworks conducive to local investment and expansive, permissionless innovation</i>.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">B. Internet Governance</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">21. Paragraph 32 of the Zero Draft recognizes the “general agreement that the governance of the Internet should be open, inclusive, and transparent”. Para 37 takes into account “the report of the CSTD Working Group on improvements to the IGF”. Para 37 also affirms the intention of the General Assembly to extend the life of the IGF by (at least) another 5 years, and acknowledges the “unique role of the IGF”.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">22. The IGF is, of course, unique and crucial to global Internet governance. In the last 10 years, major strides have been made among diverse stakeholders in beginning and sustaining conversations on issues critical to Internet governance. These include issues such as human rights, inclusiveness and diversity, universal access to connectivity, emerging issues such as net neutrality, the right to be forgotten, and several others. Through its many arms like the Dynamic Coalitions, the Best Practices Forums, Birds-of-a-Feather meetings and Workshops, the IGF has made it possible for stakeholders to connect. <br /> <br /> 23. However, the constitution and functioning of the IGF have not been without lament and controversy. Foremost among the laments was the IGF’s evident lack of outcome-orientation; this continues to be debatable. Second, the composition and functioning of the MAG, particularly its transparency, have come under the microscope several times. One of the suggestions of the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF concerned the structure and working methods of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). The Working Group recommended that the “process of selection of MAG members should be inclusive, predictable, transparent and fully documented” (Section II.2, Clause 21(a), Page 5 of the Report).</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">24. <b>Transparency in the structure and working methods of the MAG are critical to the credibility and impact of the IGF</b>. The functioning of the IGF depends, in a large part, on the MAG. The UN Secretary General established the MAG, and it advises the Secretary General on the programme and schedule of the IGF meetings each year (see &lt;http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/44-about-the-mag&gt;). Under its Terms of Reference, the MAG decides the main themes and sub-themes for each IGF, sets or modifies the rules of engagement, organizes the main plenary sessions, coordinates workshop panels and speakers, and crucially, evaluates the many submissions it receives to choose from amongst them the workshops for each IGF meeting. The content of each IGF, then, is in the hands of the MAG.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">25. <i>But the MAG is not inclusive or transparent</i>. The MAG itself has lamented its opaque ‘black box approach’ to nomination and selection. Also, CIS’ research has shown that the process of nomination and selection of the MAG continues to be opaque. When CIS sought information on the nominators of the MAG, the IGF Secretariat responded that this information would not be made public (see &lt;http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mag-analysis&gt;).</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">26. Further, our analysis of MAG membership shows that since 2006, 26 persons have served for 6 years or more on the MAG. This is astounding, since under the MAG Terms of Reference, MAG members are nominated for a term of 1 year. This 1-year-term is “automatically renewable for 2 more consecutive years”, but such renewal is contingent on an evaluation of the engagement of MAG members in their activities (see &lt;http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/175-igf-2015/2041-mag-terms-of-reference&gt;). MAG members ought not serve for over 3 consecutive years, in accordance with their Terms of Reference. But out of 182 MAG members, around 62 members have served more than the 3-year terms designated by their Terms of Reference (see &lt;http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mag-analysis&gt;). <br /> <br /> 27. Not only this, but our research showed 36% of all MAG members since 2006 have hailed from the Western European and Others Group (see &lt;http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mag-analysis&gt;). This indicates a lack of inclusiveness, though the MAG is certainly more inclusive than the composition and functioning of other I-Star organisations such as ICANN.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">28. Tackling these infirmities within the MAG would go a long way in ensuring that the IGF lives up to its purpose. Therefore, we suggest the following additions to <b>Para 37</b>:</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">“37. We acknowledge the unique role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multistakeholder platform for discussion of Internet governance issues, <i>and take note of </i>the report and recommendations of the CSTD Working Group on improvements to the IGF, which was approved by the General Assembly in its resolution, and ongoing work to implement the findings of that report. <i>We reaffirm the principles of openness, inclusiveness and transparency in the constitution, organisation and functioning of the IGF, and in particular, in the nomination and selection of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG)</i>. We extend the IGF mandate for another five years with its current mandate as set out in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. We recognize that, at the end of this period, progress must be made on Forum outcomes and participation of relevant stakeholders from developing countries.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">29. Paragraphs 32-37 of the Zero Draft make mention of “open, inclusive, and transparent” governance of the Internet. <b>It fails to take note of the lack of inclusiveness and diversity in Internet governance organisations – extending across representation, participation and operations of these organisations</b>. In many cases, mention of inclusiveness and diversity becomes tokenism or formal (but not operational) principle. In substantive terms, the developing world is pitifully represented in standards organisations and in ICANN, and policy discussions in organisations like ISOC occur largely in cities like Geneva and New York. For example, the ‘diversity’ mailing list of IETF has very low traffic. Within ICANN, 307 out of 672 registries listed in ICANN’s registry directory are based in the United States, while 624 of the 1010 ICANN-accredited registrars are US-based. Not only this, but 80% of the responses received by ICANN during the ICG’s call for proposals were male. A truly global and open, inclusive and transparent governance of the Internet must not be so skewed.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">30. We propose, therefore, the addition of a <b>Para 37A</b> after Para 37:</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">“37A. We draw attention to the challenges surrounding diversity and inclusiveness in organisations involved in Internet governance, and call upon these organisations to take immediate measures to ensure diversity and inclusiveness in a substantive manner.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">31. Paragraphs 36 of the Zero Draft notes that “a number of member states have called for an international legal framework for Internet governance.” <b>But it makes no reference to ICANN or the importance of the ongoing IANA transition to global Internet governance</b>. ICANN and its monopoly over several critical Internet resources was one of the key drivers of the WSIS in 2003-2005. Unfortunately, this focus seems to have shifted entirely. Open, inclusive, transparent and <i>global</i> Internet are misnomer-principles when ICANN – and in effect, the United States – continues to have monopoly over critical Internet resources. The allocation and administration of these resources should be decentralized and distributed, and should not be within the disproportionate control of any one jurisdiction.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">32. Therefore, we suggest the following <b>Para 37A</b> after Para 37:</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">“37A. We affirm that the allocation, administration and policy involving critical Internet resources must be inclusive and decentralized, and call upon all stakeholders and in particular, states and organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet, to take immediate measures to create an environment that facilitates this development.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">33. Paragraph 43 of the Zero Draft encourages “all stakeholders to ensure respect for privacy and the protection of personal information and data”. <b>But the Zero Draft inadvertently leaves out the report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on digital privacy, ‘The right to privacy in the digital age’ (A/HRC/27/37)</b>. This report, adopted by the Human Rights Council in June 2014, affirms the importance of the right to privacy in our increasingly digital age, and offers crucial insight into recent erosions of privacy. It is both fitting and necessary that the General Assembly take note of and affirm the said report in the context of digital privacy.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">34. We offer the following suggestion as an addition to <b>Para 43</b>:</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">“43. We emphasise that no person shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home, or correspondence, consistent with countries’ applicable obligations under international human rights law. <i>In this regard, we acknowledge the report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘The right to privacy in the digital age’ (A/HRC/27/37, 30 June 2014), and take note of its findings</i>. We encourage all stakeholders to ensure respect for privacy and the protection of personal information and data.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">35. Paragraphs 40-44 of the Zero Draft state that communication is a fundamental human need, reaffirming Article 19 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with its attendant narrow limitations. The Zero Draft also underscores the need to respect the independence of the press. Particularly, it reaffirms the principle that the same rights that people enjoy offline must also be protected online.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">36. Further, in Para 31, the Zero Draft recognizes the “critical importance of private sector investment in ICT access, content, and services”. This is true, of course, but corporations also play a crucial role in facilitating the freedom of speech and expression (and all other related rights) on the Internet. As the Internet is led largely by the private sector in the development and distribution of devices, protocols and content-platforms, corporations play a major role in facilitating – and sometimes, in restricting – human rights online. They are, in sum, intermediaries without whom the Internet cannot function.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">37. <b>Given this, it is essential that the outcome document of the WSIS+10 Overall Review recognize and affirm the role of the private sector, and crucially, its responsibilities to respect and protect human rights online</b>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">38. We suggest, therefore, the insertion of the following paragraph <b>Para 42A</b>, after Para 42:</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">“42A. We recognize the critical role played by corporations and the private sector in facilitating human rights online. We affirm, in this regard, the responsibilities of the private sector set out in the Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, A/HRC/17/31 (21 March 2011), and encourage policies and commitments towards respect and remedies for human rights.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">C. Implementation and Follow-up</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">39. Para 57 of the Zero Draft calls for a review of the WSIS Outcomes, and leaves a black space inviting suggestions for the year of the review. How often, then, should the review of implementation of WSIS+10 Outcomes take place?</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">40. It is true, of course, that reviews of the implementation of WSIS Outcomes are necessary to take stock of progress and challenges. However, we caution against annual, biennal or other such closely-spaced reviews due to concerns surrounding budgetary allocations.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">41. Reviews of implementation of outcomes (typically followed by an Outcome Document) come at considerable cost, which are budgeted and achieved through contributions (sometimes voluntary) from states. Were Reviews to be too closely spaced, budgets that ideally ought to be utilized to bridge digital divides and ensure universal connectivity, particularly for developing states, would be misspent in reviews. Moreover, closely-spaced reviews would only provide superficial quantitative assessments of progress, but would not throw light on longer term or qualitative impacts.</p> <p> For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-zero-draft-of-the-un-general-assembly2019s-overall-review-of-the-implementation-of-wsis-outcomes-wsis-10'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-zero-draft-of-the-un-general-assembly2019s-overall-review-of-the-implementation-of-wsis-outcomes-wsis-10</a> </p> No publisher geetha WSIS+10 Internet Governance 2015-10-16T02:44:16Z Blog Entry http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-draft-outcome-document-of-the-un-general-assembly2019s-overall-review-of-the-implementation-of-wsis-outcomes-wsis-10 <b>Following the comment-period on the Zero Draft, the Draft Outcome Document of the UN General Assembly's Overall Review of implementation of WSIS Outcomes was released on 4 November 2015. Comments were sought on the Draft Outcome Document from diverse stakeholders. The Centre for Internet & Society's response to the call for comments is below.</b> <p class="Normal1" style="text-align: justify; "> </p> <p class="Normal1" style="text-align: justify; ">The WSIS+10 Overall Review of the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes, scheduled for December 2015, comes as a review of the WSIS process initiated in 2003-05. At the December summit of the UN General Assembly, the WSIS vision and mandate of the IGF are to be discussed. The Draft Outcome Document, released on 4 November 2015, is towards an outcome document for the summit. Comments were sought on the Draft Outcome Document. Our comments are below.</p> <ol style="text-align: justify; "> <li>The Draft Outcome Document of the UN General Assembly’s Overall Review of the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes (“<i>the current Draft</i>”) stands considerably altered from the Zero Draft. With references to development-related challenges, the Zero Draft covered areas of growth and challenges of the WSIS. It noted the persisting digital divide, the importance of innovation and investment, and of conducive legal and regulatory environments, and the inadequacy of financial mechanisms. Issues crucial to Internet governance such as net neutrality, privacy and the mandate of the IGF found mention in the Zero Draft.</li> <li>The current Draft retains these, and adds to them. Some previously-omitted issues such as surveillance, the centrality of human rights and the intricate relationship of ICTs to the Sustainable Development Goals, now stand incorporated in the current Draft. This is most commendable. However, the current Draft still lacks teeth with regard to some of these issues, and fails to address several others. </li> <li>In our comments to the Zero Draft, CIS had called for these issues to be addressed. We reiterate our call in the following paragraphs.</li> </ol> <h2 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>(1) </strong><strong>ICT for Development</strong></h2> <ol style="text-align: justify; "> <li>In the current Draft, paragraphs 14-36 deal with ICTs for development. While the draft contains rubrics like ‘Bridging the digital divide’, ‘Enabling environment’, and ‘Financial mechanisms’, the following issues are unaddressed:</li> <li>Equitable development for all;</li> <li>Accessibility to ICTs for persons with disabilities;</li> <li>Access to knowledge and open data.</li> </ol> <h3><i><span>Equitable development</span></i></h3> <ol style="text-align: justify; "> <li>In the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html">Geneva Declaration of Principles</a> (2003), two goals are set forth as the Declaration’s “ambitious goal”: (a) the bridging of the digital divide; and (b) equitable development for all (¶ 17). The current Draft speaks in detail about the bridging of the digital divide, but the goal of equitable development is conspicuously absent. At WSIS+10, when the WSIS vision evolves to the creation of inclusive ‘knowledge societies’, equitable development should be both a key principle and a goal to stand by.</li> <li>Indeed, inequitable development underscores the persistence of the digital divide. The current Draft itself refers to several instances of inequitable development; for ex., the uneven production capabilities and deployment of ICT infrastructure and technology in developing countries, landlocked countries, small island developing states, countries under occupation or suffering natural disasters, and other vulnerable states; lack of adequate financial mechanisms in vulnerable parts of the world; variably affordable (or in many cases, unaffordable) spread of ICT devices, technology and connectivity, etc. </li> <li>What underscores these challenges is the inequitable and uneven spread of ICTs across states and communities, including in their production, capacity-building, technology transfers, gender-concentrated adoption of technology, and inclusiveness. </li> <li>As such, it is essential that the WSIS+10 Draft Outcome Document reaffirm our commitment to equitable development for all peoples, communities and states.</li> <li>We suggest the following inclusion to <strong>paragraph 5 of the current Draft</strong>:</li> </ol> <table class="plain"> <tbody> <tr> <th style="text-align: justify; "><span><span style="text-align: justify; ">“5. We reaffirm our common desire and commitment to the WSIS vision to build </span><i style="text-align: justify; "><span>an equitable,</span></i><span style="text-align: justify; "> people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented Information Society…”</span></span></th> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h3><i><span>Accessibility for persons with disabilities</span></i></h3> <p style="text-align: justify; ">10. Paragraph 13 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles (2003) pledges to “pay particular attention to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society” in the forging of an Information Society. Particularly, ¶ 13 recognises the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">11. Moreover, ¶ 31 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles calls for the special needs of persons with disabilities, and also of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, to be taken into account while promoting the use of ICTs for capacity-building. Accessibility for persons with disabilities is thus core to bridging the digital divide – as important as bridging the gender divide in access to ICTs.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">12. Not only this, but the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/inc/doc/outcome/362828V2E.pdf">WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes</a> (June 2014) also reaffirms the commitment to “provide equitable access to information and knowledge for all… including… people with disabilities”, recognizing that it is “crucial to increase the participation of vulnerable people in the building process of Information Society…” (¶8).</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">13. In our previous submission, CIS had suggested language drawing attention to this. Now, the current Draft only acknowledges that “particular attention should be paid to the specific ICT challenges facing… persons with disabilities…” (paragraph 11). It acknowledges also that now, accessibility for persons with disabilities constitutes one of the core elements of quality (paragraph 22). However, there is a glaring omission of a call to action, or a reaffirmation of our commitment to bridging the divide experienced by persons with disabilities.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">14. We suggest, therefore, the addition of the following language the addition of <strong>paragraph 24A to the current Draft</strong>. Sections of this suggestion are drawn from ¶8, WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes.</p> <table class="plain"> <tbody> <tr> <th style="text-align: justify; "><span>"24A. <span style="text-align: justify; ">Recalling the UN Convention on the rights of people with disabilities, the Geneva principles paragraph 11, 13, 14 and 15, Tunis Commitment paras 20, 22 and 24, and reaffirming the commitment to providing equitable access to information and knowledge for all, building ICT capacity for all and confidence in the use of ICTs by all, including youth, older persons, women, indigenous and nomadic peoples, people with disabilities, the unemployed, the poor, migrants, refugees and internally displaced people and remote and rural communities, it is crucial to increase the participation of vulnerable people in the building process of information Society and to make their voice heard by stakeholders and policy-makers at different levels. It can allow the most fragile groups of citizens worldwide to become an integrated part of their economies and also raise awareness of the target actors on the existing ICTs solution (such as tolls as e- participation, e-government, e-learning applications, etc.) designed to make their everyday life better. We recognise need for continued extension of access for people with disabilities and vulnerable people to ICTs, especially in developing countries and among marginalized communities, and reaffirm our commitment to promoting and ensuring accessibility for persons with disabilities. In particular, we call upon all stakeholders to honour and meet the targets set out in Target 2.5.B of the Connect 2020 Agenda that enabling environments ensuring accessible telecommunication/ICT for persons with disabilities should be established in all countries by 2020.”</span></span></th> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h3><i><span>Access to knowledge and open data</span></i></h3> <p style="text-align: justify; ">15. The Geneva Declaration of Principles dedicates a section to access to information and knowledge (B.3). It notes, in ¶26, that a “rich public domain” is essential to the growth of Information Society. It urges that public institutions be strengthened to ensure free and equitable access to information (¶26), and also that assistive technologies and universal design can remove barriers to access to information and knowledge (¶25). Particularly, the Geneva Declaration advocates the use of free and open source software, in addition to proprietary software, to meet these ends (¶27).</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">16. It was also recognized in the WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes (‘Challenges-during implementation of Action Lines and new challenges that have emerged’) that there is a need to promote access to all information and knowledge, and to encourage open access to publications and information (C, ¶¶9 and 12).</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">17. In our previous submission, CIS had highlighted the importance of open access to knowledge thus: “…the implications of open access to data and knowledge (including open government data), and responsible collection and dissemination of data are much larger in light of the importance of ICTs in today’s world. As Para 7 of the Zero Draft indicates, ICTs are now becoming an indicator of development itself, as well as being a key facilitator for achieving other developmental goals. As Para 56 of the Zero Draft recognizes, in order to measure the impact of ICTs on the ground – undoubtedly within the mandate of WSIS – it is necessary that there be an enabling environment to collect and analyse reliable data. Efforts towards the same have already been undertaken by the United Nations in the form of ‘Data Revolution for Sustainable Development’. In this light, the Zero Draft rightly calls for enhancement of regional, national and local capacity to collect and conduct analyses of development and ICT statistics (Para 56). Achieving the central goals of the WSIS process requires that such data is collected and disseminated under open standards and open licenses, leading to creation of global open data on the ICT indicators concerned.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">18. This crucial element is missing from the current Draft of the WSIS+10 Outcome Document. Of course, the current Draft notes the importance of access to information and free flow of data. But it stops short of endorsing and advocating the importance of access to knowledge and free and open source software, which are essential to fostering competition and innovation, diversity of consumer/ user choice and ensuring universal access.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">19. We suggest the following addition – of <strong>paragraph 23A to the current Draft</strong>:</p> <table class="plain"> <tbody> <tr> <th style="text-align: justify; "><span>"23A. <span style="text-align: justify; ">We recognize the need to promote access for all to information and knowledge, open data, and open, affordable, and reliable technologies and services, while respecting individual privacy, and to encourage open access to publications and information, including scientific information and in the research sector, and particularly in developing and least developed countries.”</span></span></th> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h2 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>(2) </strong><strong>Human Rights in Information Society</strong></h2> <p style="text-align: justify; ">20. The current Draft recognizes that human rights have been central to the WSIS vision, and reaffirms that rights offline must be protected online as well. However, the current Draft omits to recognise the role played by corporations and intermediaries in facilitating access to and use of the Internet.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">21. In our previous submission, CIS had noted that “the Internet is led largely by the private sector in the development and distribution of devices, protocols and content-platforms, corporations play a major role in facilitating – and sometimes, in restricting – human rights online”.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">22. We reiterate our suggestion for the inclusion of <strong>paragraph 43A to the current Draft</strong>:</p> <table class="plain"> <tbody> <tr> <th style="text-align: justify; "><span>"43A. <span style="text-align: justify; ">We recognize the critical role played by corporations and the private sector in facilitating human rights online. We affirm, in this regard, the responsibilities of the private sector set out in the Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, A/HRC/17/31 (21 March 2011), and encourage policies and commitments towards respect and remedies for human rights.”</span></span></th> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h2 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>(3) </strong><strong>Internet</strong> <strong>Governance</strong></h2> <h3><i><span>The support for multilateral governance of the Internet</span></i></h3> <p style="text-align: justify; ">23. While the section on Internet governance is not considerably altered from the zero draft, there is a large substantive change in the current Draft. The current Draft states that the governance of the Internet should be “multilateral, transparent and democratic, with full involvement of all stakeholders” (¶50). Previously, the zero draft recognized the “the general agreement that the governance of the Internet should be open, inclusive, and transparent”.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">24. A return to purely ‘multilateral’ Internet governance would be regressive. Governments are, without doubt, crucial in Internet governance. As scholarship and experience have both shown, governments have played a substantial role in shaping the Internet as it is today: whether this concerns the availability of content, spread of infrastructure, licensing and regulation, etc. However, these were and continue to remain contentious spaces.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">25. As such, it is essential to recognize that a plurality of governance models serve the Internet, in which the private sector, civil society, the technical community and academia play important roles. <strong>We recommend returning to the language of the zero draft in ¶32: “open, inclusive and transparent governance of the Internet”.</strong></p> <h3><i><span>Governance of Critical Internet Resources</span></i></h3> <p style="text-align: justify; ">26. It is curious that the section on Internet governance<strong> </strong>in both the zero and the current Draft makes no reference to ICANN, and in particular, to the ongoing transition of IANA stewardship and the discussions surrounding the accountability of ICANN and the IANA operator. The stewardship of critical Internet resources, such as the root, is crucial to the evolution and functioning of the Internet. Today, ICANN and a few other institutions have a monopoly over the management and policy-formulation of several critical Internet resources.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">27. While the WSIS in 2003-05 considered this a troubling issue, this focus seems to have shifted entirely. Open, inclusive, transparent and <i>global</i> Internet are misnomer-principles when ICANN – and in effect, the United States – continues to have monopoly over critical Internet resources. The allocation and administration of these resources should be decentralized and distributed, and should not be within the disproportionate control of any one jurisdiction.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">28. Therefore, we reiterate our suggestion to add <strong><span>paragraph 53A</span></strong> after Para 53:</p> <table class="plain"> <tbody> <tr> <th style="text-align: justify; "><span>"53A. <span style="text-align: justify; ">We affirm that the allocation, administration and policy involving critical Internet resources must be inclusive and decentralized, and call upon all stakeholders and in particular, states and organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet, to take immediate measures to create an environment that facilitates this development.”</span></span></th> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h3><i><span>Inclusiveness and Diversity in Internet Governance</span></i></h3> <p style="text-align: justify; ">29. The current Draft, in ¶52, recognizes that there is a need to “promote greater participation and engagement in Internet governance of all stakeholders…”, and calls for “stable, transparent and voluntary funding mechanisms to this end.” This is most commendable.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">30. The issue of inclusiveness and diversity in Internet governance is crucial: today, Internet governance organisations and platforms suffer from a lack of inclusiveness and diversity, extending across representation, participation and operations of these organisations. As CIS submitted previously, the mention of inclusiveness and diversity becomes tokenism or formal (but not operational) principle in many cases.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">31. As we submitted before, the developing world is pitifully represented in standards organisations and in ICANN, and policy discussions in organisations like ISOC occur largely in cities like Geneva and New York. For ex., 307 out of 672 registries listed in ICANN’s registry directory are based in the United States, while 624 of the 1010 ICANN-accredited registrars are US-based.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">32. Not only this, but 80% of the responses received by ICANN during the ICG’s call for proposals were male. A truly global and open, inclusive and transparent governance of the Internet must not be so skewed. Representation must include not only those from developing countries, but must also extend across gender and communities.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">33. We propose, therefore, the addition of a <strong><span>paragraph 51A</span></strong> after Para 51:</p> <table class="plain"> <tbody> <tr> <th style="text-align: justify; "><span>"51A. <span style="text-align: justify; ">We draw attention to the challenges surrounding diversity and inclusiveness in organisations involved in Internet governance, including in their representation, participation and operations. We note with concern that the representation of developing countries, of women, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, is far from equitable and adequate. We call upon organisations involved in Internet governance to take immediate measures to ensure diversity and inclusiveness in a substantive manner.”</span></span></th> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p style="text-align: justify; "> </p> <hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" /> <p style="text-align: justify; ">Prepared by Geetha Hariharan, with inputs from Sunil Abraham and Japreet Grewal. All comments submitted towards the Draft Outcome Document may be found <a class="external-link" href="http://unpan3.un.org/wsis10/Preparatory-Process-Roadmap/Comments-on-Draft-Outcome-Document">at this link</a>.</p> <p> For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-draft-outcome-document-of-the-un-general-assembly2019s-overall-review-of-the-implementation-of-wsis-outcomes-wsis-10'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-draft-outcome-document-of-the-un-general-assembly2019s-overall-review-of-the-implementation-of-wsis-outcomes-wsis-10</a> </p> No publisher geetha ICT4D Call for Comments WSIS+10 Access to Knowledge Accessibility Human Rights Online Internet Governance ICANN IANA Transition Open Source Open Access 2015-11-18T06:33:13Z Blog Entry http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-at-igf-2014 <b>The ninth Internet Governance Forum (“IGF2014”) was hosted by Turkey in Istanbul from September 2 to 5, 2014.</b> <p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p> <h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Workshops and Panel Discussions</h3> <p style="text-align: justify; "><b>WS206: An evidence-based framework for intermediary liability</b><br />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 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpBYbwBBHBQ">video</a>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><b>WS112: Implications of post-Snowden Internet localization proposals</b><br />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 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu3GycFBLoo">video</a>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><b>WS63: Preserving a universal Internet: Costs of fragmentation<br /></b>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.<b></b></p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><b>WS2: Mobile, trust and privacy</b><br />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 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwtQ18KzeiY">video</a>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><b>WS188: Transparency reporting as a tool for Internet governance</b><br />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 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us4BW1Sw4Vo">video</a>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><b>WS149: Aligning ICANN policy with the privacy rights of users<br /></b>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.<b></b></p> <h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Other Participation</h3> <p><b>Launch of the GISWatch Report<br /></b></p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries (Hivos) released the Global Information Society Watch Report (<i>GISWatch</i>) on national and global mass surveillance. The report “<i>explores the surveillance of citizens in today's digital age by governments with the complicity of institutions and corporations</i>”. Elonnai Hickok of CIS contributed a thematic chapter on Intermediary Liability and Surveillance to this report.</p> <p> For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-at-igf-2014'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-at-igf-2014</a> </p> No publisher geetha Internet Governance Forum Internet Governance 2014-10-08T10:31:47Z Blog Entry http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-policy-brief-iana-transition-fundamentals-and-suggestions-for-process-design <b>In March 2014, the US government announced that it would transfer oversight of IANA functions to an as-yet-indeterminate global multi-stakeholder body. This policy brief, written by Smarika Kumar and Geetha Hariharan, explains the process concisely.</b> <h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Short Introduction:</h3> <p style="text-align: justify; ">In March 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions">announced its intention</a> to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community. Currently, the NTIA oversees coordination and implementation of IANA functions through contractual arrangements with ICANN and Verisign, Inc.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">The NTIA will not accept a government-led or inter-governmental organization to steward IANA functions. It requires the IANA transition proposal to have broad community support, and to be in line with the following principles: <span>(1) support and enhance the multi-stakeholder model; (2) maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS; (3) meet the needs and expectation of the global customers &amp; partners of IANA services; (4) maintain the openness of the Internet.</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN was charged with developing a proposal for IANA transition. It initiated a <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/draft-proposal-2014-04-08-en">call for public input</a> in April 2014. Lamentably, the <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-scoping-08apr14-en.pdf">scoping document</a> for the transition did not include questions of ICANN’s own accountability and interests in IANA stewardship, <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/04/16/icann-anything-that-doesnt-give-iana-to-me-is-out-of-scope/">including</a> whether it should continue to coordinate the IANA functions. Public Input received in May 2014 revolved around the composition of a Coordination Group, which would oversee IANA transition. <span>Now, ICANN will hold an open session on June 26, 2014 at ICANN-50 to gather community feedback on issues relating to IANA transition, including composition of the Coordination Group. </span></p> <h3><span>CIS Policy Brief:</span></h3> <p style="text-align: justify; "><span>CIS' Brief on IANA Transition Fundamentals explains the process further, and throws light on the Indian government's views. To read the brief, <b><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/iana-transition-descriptive-brief" class="internal-link">please go here</a></b>. </span></p> <h2><span>Suggestions for Process Design </span></h2> <p style="text-align: justify; "><span>As convenor of the IANA stewardship transition, ICANN has sought public comments on issues relating to the transition process. We suggest certain principles for open, inclusive and transparent process-design:</span></p> <h3><span>Short Introduction:</span></h3> <p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In March 2014, the US government through National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions">announced its intention</a> to transition key Internet domain name functions (IANA) to the global multi-stakeholder community. The NTIA announcement states that it will not accept a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution to replace its own oversight of IANA functions. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was charged with developing a Proposal for the transition.</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><span>At ICANN-49 in Singapore (March 2014), ICANN rapidly gathered inputs from its community to develop a draft proposal for IANA transition. It then <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/draft-proposal-2014-04-08-en">issued</a> a call for public input on the Draft Proposal in April 2014. Some responses were incorporated to create a <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en">Revised Proposal</a>, published on June 6, 2014.</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Responses had called for transparent composition of an IANA transition Coordination Group, a group comprising representatives of ICANN’s Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations, as well as Internet governance organizations such as the IAB, IETF and ISOC. Also, ICANN was asked to have a neutral, facilitative role in IANA transition. This is because, as the current IANA functions operator, it has a vested interest in the transition. Tellingly, ICANN’s <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-%20scoping-08apr14-en.pdf">scoping document</a> for IANA transition did not include questions of its own role as IANA functions operator.</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><span>ICANN is currently deliberating the process to develop a Proposal for IANA transition. At ICANN-50, ICANN will hold a governmental high-level meeting and a public discussion on IANA transition, where comments and concerns can be voiced. In addition, discussion in other Internet governance fora is encouraged.</span></p> <h3 class="column">CIS Policy Brief:</h3> <div class="column"><span style="text-align: justify; ">CIS' Brief on IANA Transition Principles explains our recommendations for transition process-design. To read the brief, <b><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-policy-brief-ii-iana-transition-suggestions-for-process-design" class="internal-link">please go here</a></b>.</span></div> <p> For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-policy-brief-iana-transition-fundamentals-and-suggestions-for-process-design'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-policy-brief-iana-transition-fundamentals-and-suggestions-for-process-design</a> </p> No publisher geetha ICANN IANA Transition Internet Governance 2014-07-08T08:39:41Z Blog Entry http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability <b>On May 6, 2014, ICANN published a call for public comments on "Enhancing ICANN Accountability". This comes in the wake of the IANA stewardship transition spearheaded by ICANN and related concerns of ICANN's external and internal accountability mechanisms. Centre for Internet and Society contributed to the call for comments.</b> <h3><strong>Introduction:</strong></h3> <p style="text-align: justify; ">On March 14, 2014, the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions">announced its intent</a> to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder Internet governance community. ICANN was tasked with the development of a proposal for transition of IANA stewardship, for which ICANN subsequently <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/draft-proposal-2014-04-08-en">called for public comments</a>. At NETmundial, ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé acknowledged that the IANA stewardship transition and improved ICANN accountability were <a href="http://www.internetcommerce.org/issuance-of-netmundial-multistakeholder-statement-concludes-act-one-of-2014-internet-governance-trifecta/">inter-related issues</a>, and <a href="http://blog.icann.org/2014/05/icanns-accountability-in-the-wake-of-the-iana-functions-stewardship-transition/">announced</a> the impending launch of a process to strengthen and enhance ICANN accountability in the absence of US government oversight. The subsequent call for public comments on “Enhancing ICANN Accountability” may be found <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en">here</a>.</p> <h3><strong>Suggestions for improved accountability:</strong></h3> <p style="text-align: justify; ">In the event, Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) wishes to limit its suggestions for improved ICANN accountability to matters of reactive or responsive transparency on the part of ICANN to the global multi-stakeholder community. We propose the creation and implementation of a robust “freedom or right to information” process from ICANN, accompanied by an independent review mechanism.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">Article III of ICANN Bye-laws note that “<i>ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness</i>”. As part of this, Article III(2) note that ICANN shall make publicly available information on, <i>inter alia</i>, ICANN’s budget, annual audit, financial contributors and the amount of their contributions, as well as information on accountability mechanisms and the outcome of specific requests and complaints regarding the same. Such accountability mechanisms include reconsideration (Article IV(2)), independent review of Board actions (Article IV(3)), periodic reviews (Article IV(4)) and the Ombudsman (Article V).</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">Further, ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (“DIDP”) sets forth a process by which members of the public may request information “<i>not already publicly available</i>”. ICANN <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en">may respond</a> (either affirmatively or in denial) to such requests within 30 days. Appeals to denials under the DIDP are available under the reconsideration or independent review procedures, to the extent applicable.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">While ICANN has historically been prompt in its response to DIDP Requests, CIS is of the view that absent the commitments in the AoC following IANA stewardship transition, it would be desirable to amend and strengthen Response and Appeal procedures for DIDP and other, broader disclosures. Our concerns stem from the fact that, <i>first</i>, the substantive scope of appeal under the DIDP, on the basis of documents requested, is unclear (say, contracts or financial documents regarding payments to Registries or Registrars, or a detailed, granular break-up of ICANN’s revenue and expenditures); and <i>second</i>, that grievances with decisions of the Board Governance Committee or the Independent Review Panel cannot be appealed.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">Therefore, CIS proposes a mechanism based on “right to information” best practices, which results in transparent and accountable governance at governmental levels.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><i>First</i>, we propose that designated members of ICANN staff shoulder responsibility to respond to information requests. The identity of such members (information officers, say) ought to be made public, including in the response document.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Second</i>, an independent, third party body should be constituted to sit in appeal over information officers’ decisions to provide or decline to provide information. Such body may be composed of nominated members from the global multi-stakeholder community, with adequate stakeholder-, regional- and gender-representation. However, such members should not have held prior positions in ICANN or its related organizations. During the appointed term of the body, the terms and conditions of service ought to remain beyond the purview of ICANN, similar to globally accepted principles of an independent judiciary. For instance, the Constitution of India forbids any disadvantageous alteration of privileges and allowances of judges of the <a href="http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p05125.html">Supreme Court</a> and <a href="http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p06221.html">High Courts</a> during tenure.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Third</i>, and importantly, punitive measures ought to follow unreasonable, unexplained or illegitimate denials of requests by ICANN information officers. In order to ensure compliance, penalties should be made continuing (a certain prescribed fine for each day of information-denial) on concerned officers. Such punitive measures are accepted, for instance, in Section 20 of India’s Right to Information Act, 2005, where the review body may impose continuing penalties on any defaulting officer.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Finally</i>, exceptions to disclosure should be finite and time-bound. Any and all information exempted from disclosure should be clearly set out (and not merely as categories of exempted information). Further, all exempted information should be made public after a prescribed period of time (say, 1 year), after which any member of the public may request for the same if it continues to be unavailable.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS hopes that ICANN shall deliver on its promise to ensure and enhance its accountability and transparency to the global multi-stakeholder community. To that end, we hope our suggestions may be positively considered.</p> <h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Comment repository</strong>:</h3> <p style="text-align: justify; ">All comments received by ICANN during the comment period (May 6, 2014 to June 6, 2014) may be found <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14/">at this link</a>.</p> <p> For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability</a> </p> No publisher geetha IANA Internet Governance NETmundial ICANN Accountability 2014-06-10T13:03:57Z Blog Entry http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/brazil-passes-marco-civil-us-fcc-alters-stance-on-net-neutrality <b>Hopes for the Internet rise and fall rapidly. Yesterday, on April 23, 2014, Marco Civil da Internet, the Brazilian Bill of Internet rights, was passed by the Brazilian Senate into law. </b> <p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Marco Civil</i>, on which we <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/marco-civil-da-internet">blogged</a> previously, includes provisions for the protection of privacy and freedom of expression of all users, rules mandating net neutrality, etc. Brazil celebrated the beginning of NETmundial, a momentous first day about which Achal Prabhala <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-0">blogs</a>, with President Rousseff’s approval of the<i> Marco Civil</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">At about the same time, news <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/568be7f6-cb2f-11e3-ba95-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zmtOMMj0">broke</a> that the US Federal Communications Commission is set to propose new net neutrality rules. In the wake of the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/14/net-neutrality-internet-fcc-verizon-court">Verizon net neutrality decision</a> in January, the proposed new rules will <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/2147520/report-us-fcc-to-allow-payments-for-speedier-traffic.html">prohibit</a> Internet service providers such as Comcast from slowing down or blocking traffic to certain websites, but permit fast lane traffic for content providers who are willing to pay for it. This fast lane would prioritise traffic from content providers like Netflix and Youtube on commercially reasonable terms, and result in availability of video and other content at higher speeds or quality. An interesting turn-around, as <i>Marco Civil</i> expressly mandates net neutrality for all traffic.</p> <p> For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/brazil-passes-marco-civil-us-fcc-alters-stance-on-net-neutrality'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/brazil-passes-marco-civil-us-fcc-alters-stance-on-net-neutrality</a> </p> No publisher geetha IANA Internet Governance NETmundial ICANN Marco Civil 2014-04-24T10:05:32Z Blog Entry http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/accountability-of-icann-1 <b>Smarika Kumar's post on submissions to NETmundial</b> <p> For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/accountability-of-icann-1'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/accountability-of-icann-1</a> </p> No publisher geetha 2014-05-28T10:45:54Z File http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/otts-eating-into-our-revenue-telcos-in-india <b>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.</b> <p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">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 <a href="http://www.icrier.org/">ICRIER</a> 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 <i>deregulation</i>, as Suhaan Mukerji of <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/plr-chambers">PLR Chambers</a> and Subho Ray of <a href="http://www.iamai.in/">IAMAI</a> 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.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">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 <i>Vodafone</i> 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 <i>Reliance</i> was spot on when he said that telcos are afraid that what’s worked for them so far may not work in the future.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">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&amp;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.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">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 <i>are</i> important. Increasing supply side costs, with the government seeking to maximize revenue from spectrum allocation and demands of lower consumer prices, <i>might</i> 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.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">That’s in two ways. <i>First</i>, 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. <i>Second</i>, India’s current telecom regulatory model is unfit for a data/Internet content model. There’s a need, Suhaan Mukerji and Mahesh Uppal of <a href="http://in.linkedin.com/pub/com-first-india-pvt-ltd/76/268/186">ComFirst</a> pointed out, to rethink our strict telecom licensing regime. We should begin to think, at least, of a vertically integrated <i>layered</i> model of telecom regulation that regulates on the basis of <i>function</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">That’s my sense of the Seminar. Profitability and incentives are crucial. But they are crucial <i>insofar</i> 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 <i>sufficient</i> 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.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">Underlying infrastructure has an impact on our fundamental freedoms such as speech – the Supreme Court’s decisions in <i>Sakal Papers </i>and <i>Express Newspapers</i> 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.</p> <p style="text-align: justify; ">For more, read <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2014/08/223-siddhartha-roy-hungama-net-neutrality-ott-telecom/">Nikhil Pahwa’s report</a> over at MediaNama.</p> <p> For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/otts-eating-into-our-revenue-telcos-in-india'>http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/otts-eating-into-our-revenue-telcos-in-india</a> </p> No publisher geetha Telecom TRAI, OTT 2014-09-10T05:36:37Z Blog Entry