Centre for Internet and Society

WSIS+10 High Level Event: A Bird's Eye Report

geetha — 2014-06-20T15:57:32Z

The WSIS+10 High Level was organised by the ITU and collaborative UN entities on June 9-13, 2014. It aimed to evaluate the progress on implementation of WSIS Outcomes from Geneva 2003 and Tunis 2005, and to envision a post-2015 Development Agenda. Geetha Hariharan attended the event on CIS' behalf.

The World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) +10 High Level Event (HLE) was hosted at the ITU Headquarters in Geneva, from June 9-13, 2014. The HLE aimed to review the implementation and progress made on information and communication technology (ICT) across the globe, in light of WSIS outcomes (Geneva 2003 and Tunis 2005). Organised in three parallel tracks, the HLE sought to take stock of progress in ICTs in the last decade (High Level track), initiate High Level Dialogues to formulate the post-2015 development agenda, as well as host thematic workshops for participants (Forum track).

The High Level Track:

Opening Ceremony, WSIS+10 High Level Event (Source)

The High Level track opened officially on June 10, 2014, and culminated with the endorsement by acclamation (as is ITU tradition) of two Outcome Documents. These were: (1) WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes, taking stock of ICT developments since the WSIS summits, (2) WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015, aiming to develop a vision for the post-2015 global information society. These documents were the result of the WSIS+10 Multi-stakeholder Preparatory Platform (MPP), which involved WSIS stakeholders (governments, private sector, civil society, international organizations and relevant regional organizations).

The MPP met in six phases, convened as an open, inclusive consultation among WSIS stakeholders. It was not without its misadventures. While ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun I. Touré consistently lauded the multi-stakeholder process, and Ambassador Janis Karklins urged all parties, especially governments, to “let the UN General Assembly know that the multi-stakeholder model works for Internet governance at all levels”, participants in the process shared stories of discomfort, disagreement and discord amongst stakeholders on various IG issues, not least human rights on the Internet, surveillance and privacy, and multi-stakeholderism. Richard Hill of the Association for Proper Internet Governance (APIG) and the Just Net Coalition writes that like NETmundial, the MPP was rich in a diversity of views and knowledge exchange, but stakeholders failed to reach consensus on crucial issues. Indeed, Prof. Vlamidir Minkin, Chairman of the MPP, expressed his dismay at the lack of consensus over action line C9. A compromise was agreed upon in relation to C9 later.

Some members of civil society expressed their satisfaction with the extensive references to human rights and rights-centred development in the Outcome Documents. While governmental opposition was seen as frustrating, they felt that the MPP had sought and achieved a common understanding, a sentiment echoed by the ITU Secretary General. Indeed, even Iran, a state that had expressed major reservations during the MPP and felt itself unable to agree with the text, agreed that the MPP had worked hard to draft a document beneficial to all.

Concerns around the MPP did not affect the review of ICT developments over the last decade. High Level Panels with Ministers of ICT from states such as Uganda, Bangladesh, Sweden, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and others, heads of the UN Development Programme, UNCTAD, Food and Agriculture Organisation, UN-WOMEN and others spoke at length of rapid advances in ICTs. The focus was largely on ICT access and affordability in developing states. John E. Davies of Intel repeatedly drew attention to innovative uses of ICTs in Africa and Asia, which have helped bridge divides of affordability, gender, education and capacity-building. Public-private partnerships were the best solution, he said, to affordability and access. At a ceremony evaluating implementation of WSIS action-lines, the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), India, won an award for its e-health application MOTHER.

The Outcome Documents themselves shall be analysed in a separate post. But in sum, the dialogue around Internet governance at the HLE centred around the success of the MPP. Most participants on panels and in the audience felt this was a crucial achievement within the realm of the UN, where the Tunis Summit had delineated strict roles for stakeholders in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda. Indeed, there was palpable relief in Conference Room 1 at the CICG, Geneva, when on June 11, Dr. Touré announced that the Outcome Documents would be adopted without a vote, in keeping with ITU tradition, even if consensus was achieved by compromise.

The High Level Dialogues:

Prof. Vladimir Minkin delivers a statement. (Source)

The High Level Dialogues on developing a post-2015 Development Agenda, based on WSIS action lines, were active on June 12. Introducing the Dialogue, Dr. Touré lamented the Millennium Development Goals as a “lost opportunity”, emphasizing the need to alert the UN General Assembly and its committees as to the importance of ICTs for development.

As on previous panels, there was intense focus on access, affordability and reach in developing countries, with Rwanda and Bangladesh expounding upon their successes in implementing ICT innovations domestically. The world is more connected than it was in 2005, and the ITU in 2014 is no longer what it was in 2003, said speakers. But we lack data on ICT deployment across the globe, said Minister Knutssen of Sweden, recalling the gathering to the need to engage all stakeholders in this task. Speakers on multiple panels, including the Rwandan Minister for CIT, Marilyn Cade of ICANN and Petra Lantz of the UNDP, emphasized the need for ‘smart engagement’ and capacity-building for ICT development and deployment.

A crucial session on cybersecurity saw Dr. Touré envision a global peace treaty accommodating multiple stakeholders. On the panel were Minister Omobola Johnson of Nigeria, Prof. Udo Helmbrecht of the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA), Prof. A.A. Wahab of Cybersecurity Malaysia and Simon Muller of Facebook. The focus was primarily on building laws and regulations for secure communication and business, while child protection was equally considered.

The lack of laws/regulations for cybersecurity (child pornography and jurisdictional issues, for instance), or other legal protections (privacy, data protection, freedom of speech) in rapidly connecting developing states was noted. But the question of cross-border surveillance and wanton violations of privacy went unaddressed except for the customary, unavoidable mention. This was expected. Debates in Internet governance have, in the past year, been silently and invisibly driven by the Snowden revelations. So too, at WSIS+10 Cybersecurity, speakers emphasized open data, information exchange, data ownership and control (the right to be forgotten), but did not openly address surveillance. Indeed, Simon Muller of Facebook called upon governments to publish their own transparency reports: A laudable suggestion, even accounting for Facebook’s own undetailed and truncated reports.

In a nutshell, the post-2015 Development Agenda dialogues repeatedly emphasized the importance of ICTs in global connectivity, and their impact on GDP growth and socio-cultural change and progress. The focus was on taking this message to the UN General Assembly, engaging all stakeholders and creating an achievable set of action lines post-2015.

The Forum Track:

Participants at the UNESCO session on its Comprehensive Study on Internet-related Issues (Source)

The HLE was organized as an extended version of the WSIS Forum, which hosts thematic workshops and networking opportunities, much like any other conference. Running in parallel sessions over 5 days, the WSIS Forum hosted sessions by the ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, ICANN, ISOC, APIG, etc., on issues as diverse as the WSIS Action Lines, the future of Internet governance, the successes and failures of WCIT-2012, UNESCO’s Comprehensive Study on Internet-related Issues, spam and a taxonomy of Internet governance.

Detailed explanation of each session I attended is beyond the scope of this report, so I will limit myself to the interesting issues raised.

At ICANN’s session on its own future (June 9), Ms. Marilyn Cade emphasized the importance of national and regional IGFs for both issue-awareness and capacity-building. Mr. Nigel Hickson spoke of engagement at multiple Internet governance fora: “Internet governance is not shaped by individual events”. In light of criticism of ICANN’s apparent monopoly over IANA stewardship transition, this has been ICANN’s continual response (often repeated at the HLE itself). Also widely discussed was the role of stakeholders in Internet governance, given the delineation of roles and responsibilities in the Tunis Agenda, and governments’ preference for policy-monopoly (At WSIS+10, Indian Ambassador Dilip Sinha seemed wistful that multilateralism is a “distant dream”).

This discussion bore greater fruit in a session on Internet governance ‘taxonomy’. The session saw Mr. George Sadowsky, Dr. Jovan Kurbalija, Mr. William Drake and Mr. Eliot Lear (there is surprisingly no official profile-page on Mr. Lear) expound on dense structures of Internet governance, involving multiple methods of classification of Internet infrastructure, CIRs, public policy issues, etc. across a spectrum of ‘baskets’ – socio-cultural, economic, legal, technical. Such studies, though each attempting clarity in Internet governance studies, indicate that the closer you get to IG, the more diverse and interconnected the eco-system gets. David Souter’s diagrams almost capture the flux of dynamic debate in this area (please see pages 9 and 22 of this ISOC study).

There were, for most part, insightful interventions from session participants. Mr. Sadowsky questioned the effectiveness of the Tunis Agenda delineation of stakeholder-roles, while Mr. Lear pleaded that techies be let to do their jobs without interference. Ms. Anja Kovacs raised pertinent concerns about including voiceless minorities in a ‘rough consensus’ model. Across sessions, questions of mass surveillance, privacy and data ownership rose from participants. The protection of human rights on the Internet – especially freedom of expression and privacy – made continual appearance, across issues like spam (Question 22-1/1 of ITU-D Study Group 1) and cybersecurity.

Conclusion:

The HLE was widely attended by participants across WSIS stakeholder-groups. At the event, a great many relevant questions such as the future of ICTs, inclusions in the post-2015 Development Agenda, the value of muti-stakeholder models, and human rights such as free speech and privacy were raised across the board. Not only were these raised, but cognizance was taken of them by Ministers, members of the ITU and other collaborative UN bodies, private sector entities such as ICANN, technical community such as the ISOC and IETF, as well as (obviously) civil society.

Substantively, the HLE did not address mass surveillance and privacy, nor of expanding roles of WSIS stakeholders and beyond. Processually, the MPP failed to reach consensus on several issues comfortably, and a compromise had to be brokered.

But perhaps a big change at the HLE was the positive attitude to multi-stakeholder models from many quarters, not least the ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun Touré. His repeated calls for acceptance of multi-stakeholderism left many members of civil society surprised and tentatively pleased. Going forward, it will be interesting to track the ITU and the rest of UN’s (and of course, member states’) stances on multi-stakeholderism at the ITU Plenipot, the WSIS+10 Review and the UN General Assembly session, at the least.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report

Where Does ICANN’s Money Come From? We Asked; They Don’t Know

geetha — 2015-03-05T07:43:45Z

Just how transparent is ICANN? How responsive are they to requests for information? At CIS, we sent ICANN ten questions seeking information about, inter alia, their revenues, commitment to the NETmundial Principles, Globalisation Advisory Groups and organisational structure. Geetha Hariharan wonders at ICANN's reluctance to respond.

Why Is ICANN Here?

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is responsible for critical backbones of the Internet. It manages the root server system, the global allocation of IP addresses, protocol registries and the domain name system (management of gTLDs, ccTLDs, as well as the newly rolled-out “new gTLDs”).

ICANN was incorporated in California in 1998, and was intended as the technical coordination body for the backbone of the Internet. That is, it was to administer the Internet’s domain names and IP addresses, and also manage the Internet root servers.

As a result of an agreement with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in the US Department of Commerce, ICANN is the IANA functions operator. It carries out the IANA functions, which include making changes to the root zone file (the backbone of the domain name system), allocation of IP address blocks to the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), and maintaining protocol parameter registries in collaboration with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The RIRs are responsible for allocating IP addresses (IPv4 and IPv6) to national and local Internet registries. The IETF develops Internet standards and protocols, such as those within the TCP/IP suite. To be clear, ICANN does not make policy for the IP address or Internet standards/protocols; those are the domains of RIRs and the IETF, respectively.

ICANN, Domain Names and All That Buried Treasure

ICANN is the de facto policy-making body for domain names. Through ICANN’s community Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees (SOACs) – largely a multi-stakeholder community – ICANN determines policies for dispute resolution (see, for instance, the UDRP for domain name disputes), maintaining the WHOIS database, etc. for domain names.

Under its contracts with Top Level Domain (TLD) Registries, ICANN receives payment for all registrations and/or renewals of domain names. For instance, under the .bharti Registry Agreement, ICANN receives a fixed annual registry free of US $6250. If there are more than 50,000 registrations or renewals of domain names under a TLD (say, .bharti) in a quarter, then ICANN also receives an amount equal to (No. of registrations or renewals X US $0.25). TLD Registries “own” TLDs like .com, and they maintain a list of all the domain names registered under that TLD. There are around 816 such Registry Agreements, and in FY14, ICANN received over US $47 million in Registry fees [see page 7].

Similar agreements exist between ICANN and domain name Registrars accredited by it, too. Domain name Registrars are entities like Go Daddy and Big Rock, from whom people like you and me (or companies) can register domain names. Only Registrars accredited by ICANN can register domain names that will be included in the ICANN DNS, the most frequently used DNS on the Web. Each Registrar pays a yearly accreditation fee of US $4000 to ICANN (see Clause 3.9). Each Registrar also pays to ICANN fees for every domain name registration or renewal. There are over 500 ICANN-accredited Registrars, and in FY14, ICANN received over US $34.5 million in Registrar fees [see page 7].

Now, apart from this, in its IANA operator role, ICANN is responsible for the global allocation of IP addresses (IPv4 and IPv6). From the global pool of IP addresses, ICANN allocates to the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), which then allocate to National Internet Registries like the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI as IRINN), local Internet registries or ISPs. For this, ICANN receives a combined contribution of US $823,000 each year as revenue from RIRs [see, ex.: FY09 Financial Statements, page 3].

And this isn’t all of it! With its new gTLD program, ICANN is sitting on a large treasure trove. Each gTLD application cost US $185,000, and there were 1930 applications in the first round (that’s US $357 million). Where there arose disagreements as to the same or similar strings, ICANN initiated an auction process. Some new gTLDs were auctioned for as high as US $6 million.

So ICANN is sitting on a great deal of treasure (US $355 million in revenues in FY14 and growing). It accumulates revenue from a variety of quarters; the sources identified above are by no means the only revenue-sources. But ICANN is unaware of, or unwilling to disclose, all its sources of revenue.

ICANN's Troubling Scope-creep and Does Transparency Matter?

At CIS, we are concerned by ICANN’s unchecked influence and growing role in the Internet governance institutional space. For instance, under its CEO Fadi Chehade, ICANN was heavily involved backstage for NETmundial, and has set aside over US $200,000 for Mr. Chehade’s brainchild, the NETmundial Initiative. Coupled with its lack of transparency and vocal interests in furthering status quo (for instance, both the names and numbers communities’ proposals for IANA transition want ICANN to remain the IANA functions operator, without stringent safeguards), this makes for a dangerous combination.

The clearest indication lies in the money, one might say. As we have written before, ICANN budgets for less than US $10 million for providing core Internet functions out of a US $160 million strong budget (Budget FY15, page 17). It has budgeted, in comparison, US $13 million for travel and meetings alone, and spent over US $18 million on travel in FY14 (Budget FY15, page 11).

To its credit, ICANN makes public its financial statements (current and historic), and community discussions are generally open. However, given the understandably complex contractual arrangements that give ICANN its revenues, even ploughing through the financials does not give one a clear picture of where ICANN’s money comes from.

So one is left with questions such as the following: Which entities (and how many of them) pay ICANN for domain names? What are the vendor payments received by ICANN and who pays? Who all have paid ICANN under the new gTLD program, and for what purposes? Apart from application fees and auctions, what other heads of payment exist? How much does each RIR pay ICANN and what for, if IP addresses are not property to be sold? For how many persons (and whom all) does ICANN provide pay for, to travel to meetings and other events?

You may well ask why these questions matter, and whether we need greater transparency. To put it baldly: ICANN’s transparency is crucial. ICANN is today something of a monopoly; it manages the IANA functions, makes policy for domain names and is increasingly active in Internet governance. It is without greater (effective) accountability than a mere review by the NTIA, and some teething internal mechanisms like the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP), Ombudsman, Reconsideration and Independent Review and the Accountability and Transparency Review (ATRT). I could elaborate on why these mechanisms are inadequate, but this post is already too long. Suffice it to say that by carefully defining these mechanisms and setting out their scope, ICANN has stifled their effectiveness. For instance, a Reconsideration Request can be filed if one is aggrieved by an action of ICANN’s Board or staff. Under ICANN’s By-laws (Article IV, Section 2), it is the Board Governance Committee, comprising ICANN Board members, that adjudicates Reconsideration Requests. This simply violates the principles of natural justice, wherein one may not be a judge in one’s own cause (nemo debet esse judex in propria causa).

Moreover, ICANN serves corporate interests, for it exists on account of contractual arrangements with Registries, Registrars, the NTIA and other sundry entities. ICANN has also troublingly reached into Internet governance domains to which it was previously closed, such as the NETmundial Initiative, the NETmundial, the IGF and its Support Association. It is unclear that ICANN was ever intended to overreach so, a point admitted by Mr. Chehade himself at the ICANN Open Forum in Istanbul (IGF 2014).

Finally, despite its professed adherence to multi-stakeholderism, there is evidence that ICANN’s policy-making and functioning revolve around small, cohesive groups with multiple professional inter-linkages with other I-Star organisations. For instance, a revolving door study by CIS of the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) found that 20 out of 30 ICG members had close and longterm ties with I-Star organisations. This surely creates concern as to the impartiality and fairness of the ICG’s decision-making. It may, for instance, make a pro-ICANN outcome inevitable – and that is definitely a serious worry.

But ICANN is intended to serve the public interest, to ensure smooth, stable and resilient running of the Internet. Transparency is crucial to this, and especially so during the IANA transition phase. As advisor Jan Scholte asked at ICANN52, what accountability will ICANN exercise after the transition, and to whom will it be accountable? What, indeed, does accountability mean? The CCWG-Accountability is still asking that question. But meanwhile, one among our cohorts at CIS has advocated transparency as a check-and-balance for power.

The DIDP process at ICANN may prove useful in the long run, but does it suffice as a transparency mechanism?

ICANN's Responses to CIS' DIDP Requests

Over December ’14 and January ’15, CIS sent 10 DIDP requests to ICANN. Our aim was to test and encourage transparency from ICANN, a process crucial given the CCWG-Accountability’s deliberations on ways to enhance ICANN’s accountability. We have received responses for 9 of our requests. We summarise ICANN’s responses in a table: please go here.

A glance at the table above will show that ICANN’s responses are largely negative. In 7 requests out of 9, ICANN provides very little new information. Though the responses are detailed, the majority of information they provide is already identified in CIS’ requests. For instance, in the response to the NETmundial Request, ICANN links us to blogposts written by CEO Fadi Chehade, where he notes the importance of translating the NETmundial Principles into action. They also link us to the Final Report of the Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanism, and ICANN’s involvement in the NETmundial Initiative.

However, to the query on ICANN’s own measures of implementing the NETmundial Principles – principles that it has lauded and upheld for the entire Internet governance community – ICANN’s response is surprisingly evasive. Defending lack of action, they note that “ICANN is not the home for implementation of the NETmundial Principles”. But ICANN also responds that they already implement the NETmundial Principles: “Many of the NETmundial Principles are high-level statements that permeate through the work of any entity – particularly a multistakeholder entity like ICANN – that is interested in the upholding of the inclusive, multistakeholder process within the Internet governance framework” (emphasis provided). One wonders, then, at the insistence on creating documents involving such high-level principles; why create them if they’re already implemented?

Responses to other requests indicate that the DIDP is, in its current form, unable to provide the transparency necessary for ICANN’s functioning. For instance, in the response to the Ombudsman Request, ICANN cites confidentiality as a reason to decline providing information. Making Ombudsman Requests public would violate ICANN Bylaws, and topple the independence and integrity of the Ombudsman.

These are, perhaps, valid reasons to decline a DIDP request. But it is also important to investigate these reasons. ICANN’s Ombudsman is appointed by the ICANN Board for 2 year terms, under Clause V of ICANN’s Bylaws. The Ombudsman’s principal function is to “provide an independent internal evaluation of complaints by members of the ICANN community who believe that the ICANN staff, Board or an ICANN constituent body has treated them unfairly”. The Ombudsman reports only to the ICANN Board, and all matters before it are kept confidential, including the names of parties and the nature of complaints. The Ombudsman reports on the categories of complaints he receives, and statistics regarding decisions in his Annual Reports; no details are forthcoming for stated reasons of confidentiality and privacy.

This creates a closed circle in which the Ombudsman operates. The ICANN Board appoints the Ombudsman. He/she listens to complaints about unfair treatment by the ICANN Board, Staff or constituency. He/she reports to the ICANN Board alone. However, neither the names of parties, the nature of complaints, nor the decisions of the Ombudsman are publicly available. Such a lack of transparency throws doubt on the functioning of the Ombudsman himself – and on his independence, neutrality and the extent of ICANN’s influence on him/her. An amendment of ICANN’s Bylaws would then be imperative to rectify this problem; this matter is squarely within the CCWG-Accountability’s mandate and should be addressed.

As is clear from the above examples, ICANN’s DIDP is an inadequate tool to ensure transparency functioning. The Policy was crafted without community input, and requires substantial amendments to make it a sufficient transparency mechanism. CIS’ suggestions in this regard shall be available in our next post.

CIS' Annual Reports are here. Our audit is ongoing, and the Annual Report for 2013-14 will be up shortly. Pranav Bidare (3rd year) of the National Law School, Bangalore assisted with research for this post, and created the table of CIS' DIDP requests and responses.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/where-does-icann2019s-money-come-from-we-asked-they-don2019t-know

What 66A Judgment Means For Free Speech Online

geetha — 2015-03-27T16:50:43Z

This week India's Supreme Court redefined the boundaries of freedom of speech on the internet. With the Court's decision in Shreya Singhal & Ors. v. Union of India, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, has been struck down in entirety and is no longer good law.

Geetha Hariharan's article was originally published in the Huffington Post on March 26, 2015.

This week India's Supreme Court redefined the boundaries of freedom of speech on the internet. With the Court's decision in Shreya Singhal & Ors. v. Union of India, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, has been struck down in entirety and is no longer good law. Through a structured, well-reasoned and heartening judgment, the court talks us through the nuances of free speech and valid restrictions. While previously, intermediaries were required to take down content upon suo moto determination of lawfulness, Section 79(3)(b) of the Act -- the intermediary liability provision -- has been read down to require actual knowledge of a court order or a government notification to take down content. Section 69A of the Act and its corresponding Rules, the provisions enabling the blocking of web content, have been left intact by the court, though infirmities persist.

The Supreme Court's decision comes at a critical moment for freedom of speech in India. In recent years, the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution has suffered unmitigated misery: Wendy Doniger's The Hindus: An Alternative History was banned for hurting religious sentiments, publisher Orient Blackswan fearing legal action stayed its release of an academic work on sexual violence in Ahmedabad, the author Perumal Murugan faced harsh criticism for his novel One Part Woman and chose to slay his authorial identity.

"The Supreme Court's decision comes at a critical moment for freedom of speech in India. In recent years, the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution has suffered unmitigated misery."

The tale of free speech on the Internet is similar. In response to takedown requests, intermediaries prefer to tread a safe path, taking down even legitimate content for fear of triggering penalties under Section 79 of the IT Act. The government has blocked websites in ways that transgress the bounds of 'reasonable restrictions' on speech. Section 66A alone has gathered astounding arrests and controversy. In 2012, Shaheen Dhada and her friend were arrested in Maharashtra for observing that Bal Thackeray's funeral shut down Mumbai, Devu Chodankar in Goa and Syed Waqar in Karnataka were arrested in 2014 for making posts about PM Narendra Modi, and a Puducherry man was arrested for criticizing P. Chidambaram's son. The misuse of Section 66A, and the inadequacy of other provisions of the IT Act, were well-documented.

Section 66A: No longer draconian

In a writ petition filed in 2012, the law student Shreya Singhal challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A on grounds, inter alia, of vagueness and its chilling effect. More petitions were filed challenging other provisions of the IT Act including Section 69A (website blocking) and Section 79 (intermediary liability), and these were heard jointly by justices Rohinton F. Nariman and G. Chelameshwar. Section 66A, implicating grave issues of freedom of speech on the internet, was at the centre of the challenge.

"It is difficult -impossible, in fact - to foresee or predict what speech is permitted or criminalised under Section 66A. As a result, there is a chilling effect on free speech online, resulting in self-censorship."

Section 66A makes it a criminal offence to send any online communication that is "grossly offensive" or "menacing", or false information sent for the purposes of causing "annoyance, inconvenience, insult, injury, obstruction, enmity, hatred, ill will", etc. These terms are not defined. Neither do they fall within one of the eight subjects for limitation under Article 19(2). It is difficult -impossible, in fact - to foresee or predict what speech is permitted or criminalised under Section 66A. As a result, there is a chilling effect on free speech online, resulting in self-censorship.

With yesterday's decision, the Supreme Court has struck down Section 66A on grounds of vagueness, excessive range and chilling effects on speech online. What is perhaps most uplifting is the court's affirmation of the value of free speech. In the midst of rising conservatism towards free speech, the Court reminds us that an "informed citizenry" and a "culture of open dialogue" are crucial to our democracy. Article 19(1)(a) shields us from "occasional tyrannies of governing majorities", and its restriction should be within Constitutional bounds enumerated in Article 19(2).

What speech is protected?

There are three types of speech, the court says: Discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion and advocacy are at the heart of Article 19(1)(a), and are unquestionably protected. But when speech amounts to incitement - that is, if it is expected to cause harm, danger or public disorder- it can be reasonably restricted for any of these reasons: public order, sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State and friendly relations with foreign states.

" The Union of India argued that Section 66A is saved by the clauses "public order", "defamation", "incitement to an offence" and "decency, morality". But as the court finds that these are spurious grounds."

Section 66A, however, does not meet the legal standards for any of the limitation-clauses under Article 19(2), and so is unconstitutional. The Union of India argued that Section 66A is saved by the clauses "public order", "defamation", "incitement to an offence" and "decency, morality". But as the court finds that these are spurious grounds. For instance, Section 66A covers "all information" sent via the Internet, but does not make any reference (express or implied) to public order. Section 66A is not saved by incitement, either. The ingredients of "incitement" are that there must be a "clear tendency to disrupt public order", or an express or implied call to violence or disorder, and Section 66A is remarkably silent on these. By its vague and wide scope, Section 66A may apply to one-on-one online communication or to public posts, and so its applicability is uncertain. For these grounds, Section 66A has been struck down.

For freedom of speech on the internet, this is fantastic news! The unpredictability and threat of Section 66A has been lifted. Political commentary, criticism and dialogue are clearly protected under Article 19(1)(a). Of course, the government is still keen to regulate online speech, but the bounds within which it may do so have been reasserted and fortified.

Section 69A and website blocking

Section 69A empowers the government and its agencies to block websites on any of six grounds: "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". The blocking procedure is set out in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. It requires that a Committee for Examination of Request (CER) examines each blocking request, and gives the content-generator or host 48 hours to make a representation. The Secretary of the Department of Electronics and Information Technology then issues the blocking direction to the intermediary.

"[The court has] failed to consider the impact of Section 69A and its Rules. Our free speech rights as listeners are equally affected when legitimate websites containing information are blocked. Transparency, blockpage notifications and judicial review are essential to determine whether each blocking direction is valid."

Now, the Supreme Court decision has left Section 69A and its Rules intact, stating that it is a "narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards". However, the Court has overlooked some crucial details. For instance, no judicial review is available to test the validity of each blocking direction. Moreover, Rule 14 of the Blocking Rules requires that all blocking requests and directions are kept confidential. This means that neither the content-generator, nor the reader/listener or general public, will have any idea of how many blocking directions have been issued or why. There is no standard blockpage display in India, either, and this further aggravates the transparency problem.

Lamentably, the Supreme Court has not considered this. Though the court has recognised and upheld the rights of viewers, readers and listeners in its decision on Section 66A, it failed to consider the impact of Section 69A and its Rules on readers and listeners. Our free speech rights as listeners are equally affected when legitimate websites containing information are blocked. Transparency, blockpage notifications and judicial review are essential to determine whether each blocking direction is valid.

Section 79 and the intermediary as a judge

Section 79 provides a safe harbour for intermediaries: if they abide by the requirements of Section 79(2), they retain immunity. But under Section 79(3)(b), intermediaries can lose their immunity from prosecution if, after receiving a takedown notice, they do not take down content in three circumstances: (1) if they have actual knowledge that third-party information within their control is being used to commit an unlawful act (i.e., by suo moto deciding the lawfulness of content); (2) if a court order requires takedown of content; (3) if a government notification requires takedown. Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules, 2011 has a similar provision.

"The Supreme Court has wisely put an end to private adjudication of lawfulness. Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(4) have been read down to mean that the intermediary must have actual knowledge of a court order or government notification."

This leads to a situation where a private intermediary is responsible for deciding what constitutes lawful content. Previous studies have shown that, when placed in such a position, intermediaries prefer overbroad blocking to escape liability. As readers, we can then only access uncontroversial content. But the freedom of speech includes, as the European Court of Human Rights emphasised in Otto-Preminger Institut, the freedom to "offend, shock and disturb".

In Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court has wisely put an end to private adjudication of lawfulness. Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(4) have been read down to mean that the intermediary must have actual knowledge of a court order or government notification. Even if an intermediary chooses not to act in response to a private takedown notice, it will retain its immunity under Section 79.

With Shreya Singhal, India has reaffirmed its protections for freedom of speech on the internet. One may now freely speak online without fear of illegitimate and unconstitutional prosecution. However, a re-examination of the blocking procedure, with its infirmities and direct impact on speech diversity, is essential. But today, we celebrate!

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/huffington-post-geetha-hariharan-march-26-2015-what-66-a-judgment-means-for-free-speech-online

UNHRC Civil Society Statement (26th Session)

geetha — 2014-06-19T13:24:02Z

Statement endorsed by 63 civil society groups, urging the the UNHRC to address challenges to human rights online.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/unhrc-civil-society-statement-26th-session

UN Human Rights Council urged to protect human rights online

geetha — 2014-06-19T13:28:32Z

63 civil society groups urged the UN Human Rights Council to address global challenges to freedom of expression, privacy and other human rights on the Internet. Centre for Internet & Society joined in the statement, delivered on behalf of the 63 groups by Article 19.

The 26th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is currently ongoing (June 10-27, 2014). On June 19, 2014, 63 civil society groups joined together to urge the United Nations Human Rights Council to protect human rights online and address global challenged to their realization. Centre for Internet & Society joined in support of the statement ("the Civil Society Statement"), which was delivered by Article 19 on behalf of the 63 groups.

In its consensus resolution A/HRC/20/8 (2012), the UNHRC affirmed that the "same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice". India, a current member of the UNHRC, stood in support of resolution 20/8. The protection of human rights online was also a matter of popular agreement at NETmundial 2014, which similarly emphasised the importance of protecting human rights online in accordance with international human rights obligations. Moreover, the WSIS+10 High Level Event, organised by the ITU in collaboration with other UN entities, emphasized the criticality of expanding access to ICTs across the globe, including infrastructure, affordability and reach.

The Civil Society Statement at HRC26 highlights the importance of retaining the Internet as a global resource - a democratic, free and pluralistic platform. However, the recent record of freedom of expression and privacy online have resulted in a deficit of trust and free, democratic participation. Turkey, Malaysia, Thailand, Egypt and Pakistan have blocked web-pages and social media content, while Edward Snowden's revelations have heightened awareness of human rights violations on the Internet.

At a time when governance of the Internet and its institutions is evolving, a human rights centred perspective is crucial. Openness and transparency - both in the governance of Internet institutions and rights online - are crucial to continuing growth of the Internet as a global, democratic and free resource, where freedom of expression, privacy and other rights are respected regardless of location or nationality. In particular, the Civil Society Statement calls attention to principles of necessity and proportionality to regulate targeted interception and collection of personal data.

The UNHRC, comprising 47 member states, is called upon to address these global challenges. Guided by resolutions A/HRC/20/8 and A/RES/68/167, the WSIS+10 High Level Event Outcome Documents (especially operative paragraphs 2, 8 and 11 of the Vision Document) and the forthcoming report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding privacy in the digital age, the UNHRC as well as other states may gather the opportunity and intention to put forth a strong case for human rights online in our post-2015 development-centred world.

Civil Society Statement:

The full oral statement can be accessed here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/un-human-rights-council-urged-to-protect-human-rights-online

TLD

geetha — 2014-07-01T12:38:26Z

Part of a web address

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

The Hazards of a Non-neutral Internet

geetha — 2015-05-27T16:07:36Z

Spurred by recent events, India’s policy circles are dancing to the complex tunes of net neutrality. Airtel came under fire for pricing calls made over the Internet differentially; it has since withdrawn this plan. Airtel and Reliance Communications are caught in the storm as Airtel Zero and Internet.org, the Facebook-spearheaded product for low-cost Internet access, face stiff criticism for violating net neutrality. Companies like Flipkart, which earlier supported these products, have stepped back and are throwing their weight behind net neutrality. The Department of Telecommunications has set up a six-member panel to consult on net neutrality.

A modified version of the blog entry was published as an article titled "A must for free speech" in the Week on April 18, 2015

Responding to concerns, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) released a consultation paper on OTT services on March 27, 2015. TRAI has called for public comments to be sent by April 24, 2015, and counter-comments to be sent by May 8, 2015. The TRAI consultation paper raises several crucial issues, including net neutrality. Given the heightened interest in the issue, let us two steps back and revisit the basics about net neutrality.

What is net neutrality?

In the simplest terms, net neutrality is the principle by which the carrier (telco/ISP like Reliance, Airtel) is prohibited from discriminating between any two ‘packets’ of data carried over its network. That is, ISPs ought not treat data packets differently, no matter what the content, source or price.

It follows, then, that when packets are given differential treatment, the principle of net neutrality is violated. As Centre for Internet and Society’s Sunil Abraham explains, differential treatment may occur in many ways: first, carriers may provide consumers with free access to certain websites or web content, while charging the sender or destination; second, ISPs may throttle traffic of one website/company to give it priority over other sites (the website will then load faster than others); third, ISPs may refuse access to some websites unless consumers or content-providers pay extra charges. Other violations abound too; this list is merely illustrative.

Diversity, Innovation & Competition: The Costs of Net Non-neutrality

Let us take zero-rating to explore the impacts of a net neutrality violation. In Internet.org and Airtel Zero, companies like Facebook and Flipkart (prior to the latter’s withdrawal) pay to provide users with free access to their cluster of websites; these are examples of “zero-rating”. Telcos and content-providers like Facebook argue that this is crucial to expand Internet access in price-sensitive markets like India. While this is an important consideration, zero-rating can have detrimental impacts on free speech and diversity, competition and innovation. It can result in “walled gardens” and a diversity-trap, where the only sites we can access are the walled gardens of curated information compiled by Facebook and the like.

Today, we can access an unprecedented variety of content across freely accessible platforms. We pay for our Internet connections and for data, but the content we access is neither set nor monitored by ISPs or content-providers, unless legally mandated to do so under Section 69 of Information Technology Act, 2000. Our freedom to access and receive diverse information is not curated by the companies themselves (as Facebook would in Internet.org) or their ability to pay ISPs to carry traffic. But with zero-rating, preferential access or traffic throttling, content diversity will suffer.

Of course, impact of receding diversity of content may not be felt in the short term, if access is made the priority. However, if net non-neutrality is allowed to continue in perpetuity, this may result in corporate curation and censorship of content. Moreover, since established players can better shell out the money needed for zero-rated or prioritised access, new companies and start-ups may find their entry blocked. Such a possibility is vexing for innovation, as greater costs will disincentivise smaller players from entering the market. There is also an impact on competition: entrenched players who can afford to pay carriers will dig their heels deeper, and become the sole curators of content. This is censorship by market design.

Access and Self-preservation, say the Telcos

Some telecom operators and ISPs argue that zero-rating is essential for universal access to data services, a dream of the Digital India mission. They also stress that OTTs like Whatsapp, Viber, Skype and others are free-riding on their networks and usurping their revenue, since it is the telcos and not OTTs who pay licence fees and spectrum charges. Finally, telcos and ISPs say that treating packets differently is a form of network and traffic management; such management is crucial to an efficient and open Internet, and is an age-old practice of operators.

Of course, traffic and network management practices do exist, and operators do block or manage speeds during congestion periods or when there are security threats. As users, we also experience different Internet speeds depending on the hardware and software employed by operators, the time of day, the type of content accessed (video/ audio/ text), etc. As Christopher Yoo says, operators should be free to experiment with network management practices (‘network diversity’) so long as consumers and competition suffer no detriment.

But as reports show, net non-neutrality practices have negative impacts on speech diversity, innovation and competition, among others. Any proposal to grant legal recognition to net non-neutrality practices like zero-rating, traffic-prioritization or others, which depend on the consumer or content-provider’s ability to pay and result in differential treatment of data packets, must answer these concerns and provide safeguards. In Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court affirmed the value of freedom of speech and diversity; saying that “…a culture of open dialogue is important”, the Court declared that “…we need to tolerate unpopular views”. Internet companies and telcos provide the platforms to make such views available. Through traffic prioritization and zero-rating, and by chilling innovation and competition, net neutrality violations can stifle speech diversity. The Department of Telecom and TRAI must remember this when debating a net neutrality regulation.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-week-april-18-2015-geetha-hariharan-hazards-of-non-neutral-internet

Table of CIS DIDP Requests

geetha — 2015-03-05T06:42:25Z

CIS sent 10 DIDP requests to ICANN, and we received responses for 9 of them. As this table shows, the majority of ICANN's responses are negative. In 7 requests out of 9, ICANN provides no new information apart from what CIS had already identified in the Requests.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/table-of-cis-didp-requests

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

Principles for Internet Governance: NETmundial 2014 — What do the Contributions Reveal?

geetha — 2014-04-23T04:01:21Z

The Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) is scheduled for April 23-24, 2014. Towards its stated end of establishing "strategic guidelines related to the use and development of the Internet in the world", NETmundial sought contributions from stakeholders around the world on two topics: (1) Set of Internet governance principles; (2) Roadmaps for the further evolution of the Internet governance system.

This post analyses the contributions of the academic community to draw out broad agreements and divergences concerning Internet governance principles.

I. Introduction

In two days, a large measure of the global Internet community – governments, the private sector, civil society, technical community and academia – gather in São Paulo, Brazil, for the Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. The NETmundial (April 23-24, 2014), touted as the World Cup of Internet governance, is a global conference convened and supported by the Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff, and organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) and /1Net, a forum comprising various stakeholders involved and interested in Internet governance. It hopes, importantly, “to establish strategic guidelines related to the use and development of the Internet in the world”. To this end, it sought open-ended Contributions from interested stakeholders on the topics, “Set of Internet governance principles” and “Roadmaps for the further evolution of the Internet governance system”. The agenda for NETmundial may be found here.

To fully utilize the 2 short days available, knowledge of the stakeholder positions, especially their broad agreements and divergences on the two topics, is of immense help. Through a series of posts, I analyse the contributions to NETmundial on the question of Internet governance principles, seeking to dig deep into definitions and interpretations of suggested principles, such as management of Critical Internet Resources (such as the Domain Name System), human rights including freedom of expression and privacy, cyber-security, inclusiveness and participation in Internet governance, etc. In separate posts, I shall analyse contributions of each sector (governments, the private sector, civil society, technical community, academia and ‘Other’) and finally, present an overall analysis of the contributions pitted against the Draft Outcome Document, which is presently under discussion.

II. The Contributions

The NETmundial has received 187 contributions from 46 countries. Sector break-ups are given below:

Sector	Number of Contributions (187)
Academia	20
Governments	28
Private Sector	43
Civil Society	61
Technical Community	16
‘Other’ (such as UNESCO, the European Commission, etc.)	19

A quick look at the contributors indicates that contributions are primarily from North America, Europe, South and East Asia, and South America. No or very few contributions were made from large parts of Africa and South East Asia, Central and West Asia, Eastern Europe and Western South America. We present a graphical representation of contributing countries here.

Of the contributions, stakeholders from various sectors contributed to the two topics listed above in the following manner:

Sector	Set of Internet Governance Principles	Roadmaps for Further Evolution of the Internet Governance System	Combined: Internet Governance Principles & Roadmaps
Academia	7	7	6
Government	7	4	17
Private Sector	11	3	29
Civil Society	25	21	15
Technical Community	8	5	3
‘Other’	7	4	8

Despite the above classification, I focus on all 187 contributions for analysis. This is as some contributions expressly set out principles while others do not. Therefore, eliciting and analyzing principles from stakeholder contributions has involved a certain amount of subjective maneuvering. However, such elicitation has been restricted on the following bases:

The contribution is externally categorized as falling under either “Set of Internet governance principles” or “Combined – Internet governance principles & Roadmaps”.
Internally, the document places principles under rubrics of ‘Internet governance principles’.
Internally, the document makes references to Internet governance principles before setting out (without rubrics) principles.

With this caveat, I go on to discuss the NETmundial contributions from the academic community to Internet governance principles.

Part I: Academia

Of the academic contributions, the main contributors are Africa (Kenya – 1, Sudan – 3), Europe (Germany – 1, Poland – 1, Portugal – 1, Russia – 2, Ukraine – 1), South America (Argentina – 1, Brazil – 3) and the United States (8). No Asian country has made an academic contribution, and as evident from above, academia is geographically severely under-represented. Furthermore, only 4 out of 20 contributions expressly set out Internet governance principles. These four are:

Semantics aside, certain broad, high-level consensus emerges within the academic community. On substantive principles of governance on the Internet, the greatest support is found for freedom of express and access to information, with 6 contributions emphasizing this. Equally important is Internet universality and non-discriminatory (3 contributions), universal access to the Internet (6). Protection of privacy and permissible levels of surveillance come a close second, with 5 contributions referring to these. Cyber-security (5), respect for human rights (4) and support for net neutrality (3) and cultural and linguistic diversity on the Internet (3) also emerge as issues of concern for the academic community. The UNESCO and academics from Sudan emphasize training and education to use the Internet. Inter-operability (2) and a single, unfragmented Internet (2) also find a place in the academic community’s contributions.

With regard to processual principles for Internet governance, inclusiveness and participation are the most important concerns (5). The academic community asks for an open, transparent and multi-stakeholder Internet governance system (4), calling for international cooperation (2) among governments and other stakeholders. Interestingly, one contribution requires that the role of governments in the multi-stakeholder model be limited to “the facilitation of the participation of their domestic stakeholder communities in Internet governance processes”, while a Brazilian contribution advocates a multilateral model.

While no contribution expressly calls for these principles to underscore global Internet governance, the author believes that a high-level consensus may be gleaned in favour of respect for and protection of human rights, especially freedom of expression, access to information, privacy and protection from unwarranted domestic or extraterritorial surveillance. This is further supported by cyber-security concerns. The call for universal access to the Internet, alongside mention of net neutrality, emphasizes inclusiveness and non-discrimination. Processually as well, inclusiveness and participation (including equal participation) of all stakeholders finds the largest support, reflected in the calls for multi-stakeholder models of Internet governance.

No glaring divergences exist with regard to human rights or principles of governance on the Internet. The only major divergence amongst academia is the call for multilateral or multi-stakeholder models of Internet governance. While a majority of the contributions call for multi-stakeholder models, the Brazilian contribution (linked above) calls for “Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector”, while at the same time supporting a “real multi-stakeholder governance model for the Internet based on the full involvement of all relevant actors and organizations”. Indeed, even this divergence is marked by a common emphasis on open, transparent and inclusive participation in Internet governance.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/principles-of-internet-governance-net-mundial-2014

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

geetha — 2015-12-17T08:40:05Z

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

Press Release

16 December 2015

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

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

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

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

Speakers shared their views on a variety of issues:

Access to Medicines

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

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

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

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

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

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

Openness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intellectual Property and Development

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

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

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

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

User Rights

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

geetha — 2015-12-17T08:33:54Z

PRESS RELEASE
DECEMBER 15, 2015: DAY 1

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

No wealth? No health, then!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

geetha — 2015-12-14T09:21:01Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distinguished Speakers and Scholars

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

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

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

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

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

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

New at the Global Congress

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

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

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

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

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

***

About CIS

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS, http://cis-india.org) is a non-for-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research from policy and academic perspectives on digital technologies and the Internet. Our focus areas of research include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), Internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy and cyber-security. CIS’ academic wing seeks to understand the mediation and reconfiguration of social and cultural processes and structures by the Internet and digital media technologies.

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

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

geetha — 2015-02-12T14:52:04Z

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

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

I. About CIS

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

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

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

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

II. Structure of Submission

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

III. Internet Governance Issues

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

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

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

Rights Online

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical Internet Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cyber-security

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

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

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

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

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

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

Models of Internet Governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emerging Issues

Net Neutrality

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

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

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

IV. Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NTIA Announcement

geetha — 2014-06-22T03:11:19Z

IANA Oversight Mechanism

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