Centre for Internet and Society

Live Chat: For a neutral net

praskrishna — 2015-05-09T07:13:40Z

How much do you know about net neutrality? How does it affect you?

This was published in the Hindu on April 15, 2015. Pranesh Prakash participated in the chat.

Join us at The Hindu for a live chat at 5 p.m., today with Pranesh Prakash from Centre for Internet and Society, Vijay Anand from The Start Up Centre and Sriram Srinivasan, The Hindu's Business Editor - Online.

Here is the transcript of the chat:

The debate on net neutrality

The Hindu: Hello and welcome to The Hindu's live chat on net neutrality in India.

The Hindu: We have with us Pranesh Prakash from The Centre for Internet and Society and Vijay Anand from The Start Up Centre joining us today!

The Hindu: Also on the panel is The Hindu's Business Editor Online - Sriram Srinivasan who will be moderating this discussion.

Pranesh Prakash: Hi Sriram, thanks for having me on.

Sriram Srinivasan: Hi Pranesh, thanks for joining us

Vijay Anand: Thanks for the invite and looking forward Sriram.

Sriram Srinivasan: The topic of the day is proving to be of huge interest to the public. Pranesh, do you want to start off outlining why Net neutrality is such a big deal.

Sriram Srinivasan: Welcome Vijay, thanks for joining us.

Sriram Srinivasan: Vijay, would like to have your thoughts on the Net neutrality issue too. And how do you see the recent events, starting from the consultation paper that Trai published?

Vijay Anand: Sure, I'll get started as Pranesh puts together his thoughts. In the past few years if you have noticed, entrepreneurship has taken off with a boom. And I'd credit it mostly to the nature of the web - the web being open and allowing anyone with an entrepreneurial thought to build a solution over it. Considering the various constraints we have in a country like India, being ranked over 100 in a list of 146 countries when it comes to the ease of doing business, the fact that the internet is the equaliser has been a huge relief. Thats been recently threatened when Airtel forced TRAI's hand in putting out that 118 page consultation paper. Though, the issue has been brewing for a while now.

Pranesh Prakash: Today, we no longer live in a world of “roti, kapda, makaan”, but in the world of “roti, kapda, makaan aur broadband”. Telecom regulation and net neutrality has a very important role in enabling this vision of Internet as a basic human need that we should aim to fulfil. According to the IAMAI, as of October 2014, India had 278 million internet users. Of these, the majority access Internet through their mobile phones, and the WEF estimates only 3 in 100 have broadband on their mobiles. Thus, the bulk of our population is without broadband.

Pranesh Prakash: All ICT regulation should be aimed at achieving three goals: achieving universal, affordable access; ensuring effective competition in an efficient market and avoiding market failures; protecting against consumer harms.

Sriram Srinivasan: We have sort of taken the openness of the Internet for granted isn't it!

Pranesh Prakash: Given that background, net neutrality is the principle that we should regulate gatekeepers like ISPs to ensure they do not use their power to unjustly discriminate between similarly situated persons, content or traffic.

Vijay Anand: Sriram, we have. The internet by default is open. Thats the way it was built as well, and by nature, carries it through.

Sriram Srinivasan: Pranesh, Vijay, were you both surprised by the kind of reactions that have come in to the Trai paper?

Pranesh Prakash: Currently, ISPs get to play gatekeepers: they can throttle speeds for any service, they can say that a service they don't like (such as WhatsApp) should have to pay them more money to reach their customers (or that customers ought to pay more money to use WhatsApp), etc.

Pranesh Prakash: Well, the Internet has generally been an unregulated space, but the carriers -- those on whose pipes the Internet gets delivered -- have always been highly regulated.

Pranesh Prakash: So, no, the openness of the Internet (by which I guess you mean the unregulated aspect of the Internet) cannot be taken for granted.

Sriram Srinivasan: Just to highlight the issue in a more stark manner, what do both of you see as the best case scenario and worst case scenario facing us now?

Pranesh Prakash: No, I believe that the kinds of responses to the TRAI paper has attracted are predictable. There is a large group of people (including me) who believe the TRAI paper is incredibly biased toward the telecom industry who want greater regulation of "OTTs" like WhatsApp and Facebook and Flipkart.

Pranesh Prakash: What is unexpected is the volume of responses.

Vijay Anand: Sriram, there has been hints of this coming quite sometime back infact. Folks like Nikhil Pawa from Medianama has been raising flags about this issue for almost a year. I dont think it was the TRAI Paper that stirred the waters much as Airtel announcing the differential pricing to charge VoIP calls that woke people up.

Pranesh Prakash: More than 5 lakh responses have been sent in so far!

Vijay Anand: I agree with pranesh. We thought we'd do phenomenally well if we got 10,000 folks to write to TRAI. As of now thats crossed 500,000.

Sriram Srinivasan: That's huge!

Sriram Srinivasan: Vijay is referring to Airtel's decision to charge extra for VoIP apps, which they rolled back immediately.

Vijay Anand: Sriram, they sneakily announced the plan a day after Christmas, hoping everyone was on holidays. But yep the backlash started almost immediately.

Sriram Srinivasan: At that time, Airtel said they were waiting for more clarity from Trai. And then Trai's consultation paper was released around the end of March.

Pranesh Prakash: The worst case scenario is that we have TRAI & the govt setting regulations to enshrine "net non-neutrality" or "network discrimination". The best case scenario is we have TRAI and the govt setting in place good net neutrality regulations and creating an effective marketplace for competitive zero-rating.

Sriram Srinivasan: Pranesh, could you elaborate on what an effective marketplace for competitive zero-rating would look like?

Pranesh Prakash: That's a complicated question... but let me give it a shot.

Vijay Anand: IMO, thats leaving the web as is. Operators not taking a call or having the power to decide, but letting users decide. :)

Sriram Srinivasan: Readers will remember that plans like internet.org and Airtel Zero are zero-rating plans, where some select sites are allowed for access by subscribers free of charge

Pranesh Prakash: Leaving the web as it is, for me, isn't a viable option, since currently operators (who are *gatekeepers*) have the power to decide winners and losers.

Pranesh Prakash: Zero-rating is the practice of not counting (aka “zero-rating”) certain traffic towards a subscriber’s regular Internet usage. The zero-rated traffic could be zero-priced or fixed-price, capped or uncapped, metered or unmetered, subscriber-paid, Internet service-paid, or unpaid. Further, depending on the terms, zero-rating could be competitive or anti-competitive.

Pranesh Prakash: I believe that anti-competitive zero-rating (for instance, Airtel zero-rating it's own Hike chat service's traffic) should be prohibited.

Sriram Srinivasan: Pranesh, what do you think about internet.org?

Sriram Srinivasan: Thanks Vijay, this is very useful

Pranesh Prakash: Internet.org provides free access to a range of Internet services. I hate that they are calling it "Internet.org", when they don't provide access to the whole of the Internet.

Pranesh Prakash: But having said that, Internet.org (for which no operator gets paid) could be competitive or anti-competitive depending on the existence of regulations to ensure a competitive marketplace.

Vijay Anand: I agree with Pranesh on that bit. The name is a bit misleading, and even papers reported it as facebook's web, or facebook giving the Internet for free.

Sriram Srinivasan: But isn't it surprising that criticism against it has been muted, compared to say Airtel Zero. Is that because of its message that it wants to reach out to those who aren't connected with the Net?

Pranesh Prakash: And the good side of Internet.org is that it provides access. That, as I pointed out earlier, is one of the three goals of ICT regulation.

Vijay Anand: Sriram: It could also be that there arent a lot of subscribers on Reliance, as compared to Airtel, Vodafone and Idea, which i believe has close to 75% of the user base.

Sriram Srinivasan: Let's also remind readers that this isn't a fight confined to India. It's happening all over the world, each with their own unique issues. The one in the US was the most high-profile and recent and would be fresh in everyone's mind.

Pranesh Prakash: I think the reason why people view them as being different is that Airtel Zero is explicitly commercial but Wikipedia Zero and Airtel.org are non-commercial (in that they don't pay Airtel or any other provider for carrying their content). But I, personally, don't think this should make a difference.

Comment From Sabiya

What is the scope of zero-rating vis-a-vis important government websites?

Vijay Anand: Its something to think about. And i think this proposal will get floated. But one has to think about Net Neutrality from the perspective of "is this person who is picked, the best person to provide the service (forever)". In the future, i somehow anticipate that it would make far more sense for the government to build the fundamental system and build APIs that other entrepreneurs can build front-ends to, rather than them ending up more clones of IRCTC. Does that answer your question?

Comment From Sankar

Is net neutrality the socialism of the internet world? Is it sustainable on a long run?

Pranesh Prakash: 1. I don't believe it is socialism. In fact, the most important concept that underlies Net Neutrality is competition law. 2. It is sustainable in the long run, since discriminatory practices hurt competition, and harm consumers as well. In fact, not having Net Neutrality will be unsustainable.

Vijay Anand: Sankar: Quite the opposite, it is the platform that enables a free market. In that sense its democratic.

Comment From Guest

How can we make sure that neutrality is made public in India like US or Canada did. What should we do about it? I understand that all ISP have power to decide the winner but its also about consumers who has to pay more to get basic requirements done in right way.

Vijay Anand: If the policy makers and protests that are going on do their job, we will have a net neutrality policy. Canada doesnt have a net Neutality policy by the way. Only 7 countries in the world do. Canada isnt one of them. In a way we are ahead of this trend.

Comment From Ravi

In a country which is democratic, how can one be more free in communication can the other?

Pranesh Prakash: Well put. But do remember that rich people *are* currently more free in communicating with others than poor people since the rich have greater access to the platforms of communication.

Vijay Anand: IMO, I am opposed to zero rating, because saying we want to give access to the "poor" for free, sounds a lot like the aid model. I am not a big fan of that, since I havent seen many who have been weaned of that. An entire continent of Africa has been subject to that. You are right, if you ask me.

Comment From Nayan

I hate technology. So why should I still be bothered about Net Neutrality

Sriram Srinivasan: So that your voice can still be heard.

Pranesh Prakash: To ensure that when Airtel offers you "free Internet" it isn't in fact locking you up in a walled garden of a few services instead of the Internet.

Comment From Pranav

Should we not put pressure on the government to amend the Telegraph Act, 1885 instead of focusing on TRAI? An amendment to the act would ensure that net neutrality remains rather than just focusing on consultation papers by TRAI.

Vijay Anand: Pranesh would know how to answer this best.

Comment From Abhinav Goyal

To save internet from the general perception "more you pay easier it gets for you" , neutral net is essential.

Pranesh Prakash: If we dogmatically oppose all zero rating, then it will take much much longer for Internet services to trickle down to poor people. So as things stand, the more you pay, the more free you are. And if you're poor, you're not free to access Internet services.

Comment From Guest

how is airtel zero similar to net non neutrality. isnt it like OLX/quicker who return search result with preference to their paid advertiser

Vijay Anand: Yes. or a Google for that matter. But unlike the operators who are the gateway to the internet, OLX and Quickr both have to fight to better their experience for folks to come to them in the first place. Take the case of Google for example, if you are starting to get better search results in bing, you might switch. But operators could dramatically alter the way that goes, when they start prioritizing.

Pranesh Prakash: Stated as a general principle, I don't think those two situations are alike. In economic jargon: OLX/Quickr don't exhibit as strong a network effect as Airtel does, and thus are lesser "gatekeepers" than Airtel. So them showing preferential treatment to some matters less than when Airtel does it.

Pranesh Prakash: Airtel Zero is similar to Facebook, though. Not to OLX/Quickr. Facebook exhibits huge network effects, and the shifting costs (to VK or Sina Weibo) are huge since the people and businesses you want to reach are present in Facebook but not on VK.

Comment From Guest

Could you please explain in detail what are all the possible ways in which Airtel Zero could unduly make money if the platform is given the permission to operate.

Vijay Anand: If you say come up with an idea to start a music service - or prefer Gaana.com or you listen in Saavn or rdio, but Airtel says data is free if you use Wynk, which would people prefer? Thats the issue. Operators could have the opportunity to pick winners, (based on who could pay), whereas the web, being an open platform was always about the best solution winning.

Sriram Srinivasan: It could make it difficult for internet start-ups to compete with incumbents, therefore.

Pranesh Prakash: Three potential problems which are closely linked, are cross-subsidization, tying (anti-competitive bundling) of multiple services, and vertical price squeeze. All three of these are especial concerns now, with the increased diversification of traditional telecom companies, and with the entry into telecom of companies that create content. Hence, if Airtel cross-subsidizes the Hike chat application that it recently acquired, or if Reliance Jio requires customers to buy a subscription to an offering from Reliance Big Entertainment, or if Reliance Jio meters traffic from Reliance Big Entertainment differently from that from Saavn, all those would be violative of the principle of non-discrimination by gatekeepers.

Comment From Abhishek

Sir dont u think always and everytime there is a protest when something emerges which is out of conventional stuffs......this protest culture is holding back India to develop a healthy competitive culture.

Vijay Anand: Who is protesting, usually has a lot to say. At times very very good things come out of protests. thats the way democracy works. Doesnt it?

Pranesh Prakash: There are some modes of protest that I didn't agree with (down-voting the Flipkart app on Google Play Store and on iTunes, eg). But what's wrong with protest?

Comment From abutiger@gmail.com

Panel members : Can any members explain what is Net Neutrality. In what it is going to effect the net user had the new law come in to force? Thank you. Abu

Vijay Anand: Abu, there is no new law yet. There is a proposal from the operators asking for differential pricing based on a few factors. You can read that 118 page proposal on the website. At the moment, the government is considering both sides of the argument.

Sriram Srinivasan: Comments on the paper can be sent till April 25. And counter-comments close on May 8.

Sriram Srinivasan: Apologies, it should be April 24

Comment From Badri Narayanan

How is net neutrality in developed nations? Does it work differently there?

Vijay Anand: Only 7 countries in the world (pranesh can correct me if wrong) have a policy in place. it is assumed that by default the internet is open and neutral. Its only when that is challenged that we need a policy in place, so that there are no grey areas.

Sriram Srinivasan: Also, even in developed countries, the telecom companies do keep complaining about OTT services, the apps, and how they are cannabalising into their business.

Comment From kasthuri rangan

I support the TRAI suggestion as it will put an end to unwanted sites that spoils the youth and waste their tiem

Vijay Anand: I'd agree, but one can do that on a more individual household level, rather than on a national / network level. Who decides what we consume? What if tomorrow the government decides everyone watching youtube is wasting their time, or watching cricket should be doing something better. That starts to tread into censorship - which infact is a totally different matter altogether.

Sriram Srinivasan: Totally agree with Vijay.

Comment From RAJAT

My question is that why the ISPs want to disrupt the ongoing net neautrality?/

Vijay Anand: To make more money :) Even though their revenues are doubling every year from selling data services.

Pranesh Prakash: Currently net neutrality doesn't exist. So ISPs can't destroy it.

Comment From Amit Jha

Who owns the Internet and where does money come for its maintenance/expansion etc.

Vijay Anand: Amit, thats a brilliant question, Worthy of going into Quora infact. Its a long answer. The core of the web is managed by an organization called iCANN which is infact a confederation. However the extension, hosting, services etc are put together by virtually everyone and anyone. You can plug a computer into the internet and decide to be a server or a consumer. That's the beauty of the internet.

Sriram Srinivasan: You might want to read a very interesting book called 'Tubes' by Andrew Blum. It is about "a journey to the center of the internet." The author wanted to understand the physicality of the Internet.

Comment From Jyotiranjan

In the garb of net neutrality are the companies like whatsapp, skype getting their business without paying licencing fee where as telcos had to pay substantial sum for doing business?

Sriram Srinivasan: It's a completely different business model. It's tech that has enabled of lot of these things, in the same way that telcos can now play a part, albeit small, in the banking industry.

Vijay Anand: Jyoti, In a way yes. But skype or whatapp still doesnt work unless we pay for the data through which all of this rides. So infact even when we use skype and think its a free call there is cost of bandwidth associated with it. With the fact that the call is no longer circuit switched by packet switched, the charges that the operator claims they incur are also eliminated. its a far more efficient system.

Comment From VA

If airtel is providing free access to certain websites, I welcome that. I already have access to other websites via other service providers for which I pay. I don't understand what is this fuss all about.

Pranesh Prakash: This can be a good thing if it doesn't harm competition. If it harms competition, then in the long run, it is bad (even if immediately consumers think it is good). Think about predatory pricing: http://www.ictregulationtoo... Consumers might like predatory pricing in the beginning, but that allows for a company to squeeze out competition and then raise prices later. Harming competition is harmful for consumers in the long run. That's why we need to ensure that we only allow competitive zero-rating.

Vijay Anand: I agree. Users will want this. I Would want this. But the truth is, when you think about it from the other side, of people who are building companies, and coming up with new ideas to make things better, it makes it an uphill battle.

Comment From sapan

i would like request to Trai. do not give Net Nuutrality

Pranesh Prakash: Why do you think it would be harmful? Protection of consumers from harm is something you oppose? Ensuring fair non-discriminatory competition is something you oppose? I'm unclear why.

Vijay Anand: Sapan, I presume you mean the other way around.

The Hindu: Thank you Pranesh, Vijay and Sriram for all the replies!

Vijay Anand: It was a pleasure. And thanks for having me.

The Hindu: Is there anything else you'd like to say before we close this chat?

Pranesh Prakash: Net neutrality is the principle that we should regulate gatekeepers to ensure they do not use their power to unjustly discriminate between similarly situated persons, content or traffic. It is a democratic principle (in line with the right to equality in our Constitution) and it is important for freedom of speech and expression. Let us ensure that through effective regulation of competition we can ensure a free and open Internet that is accessible by all!

Sriram Srinivasan: Thanks! Also, readers, would be great to treat this as a consultation process initiated by Trai. There will be different points of view. It's not like a usual protest. It's just to find the right way forward for us. Also, please do participate in the process, whatever your views.

The Hindu: Well said! Thank you to all the readers who followed and participated in this live chat. Do connect with us on Twitter/Facebook for more questions and discussions on this topic.

The Hindu: Thanks and have a great evening!

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-april-15-2015-chat-for-neutral-net

Net neutrality: Debate rages on

praskrishna — 2015-05-02T08:45:03Z

The article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in the Business Standard on April 11, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

Net neutrality campaigners have raised the pitch as the telecom regulator seeks public comments on the issue.

They argue any kind of discrimination will scuttle the Internet's growth in the country. Opponents claim technology may make it difficult for the government to stop network management.

A controversy was sparked after Bharti Airtel, the country's largest telecom operator, launched 'Airtel Zero' on Monday that allows companies to offer their applications to Airtel subscribers for free. The maker of the application pays the operator for the customer's free use. "It is wrong for me to have to pay Airtel or Vodafone money to access YouTube, Skype or any site they decide to charge for," Mahesh Murthy, founder of digital marketing agency Pinstorm, wrote in a blog on Wednesday. "What we do with bandwidth must be up to us, not up to some profiteering telecom tycoon," he added. Sachin Bansal, founder of e-commerce company Flipkart.com, on the other hand, tweeted, "When foreign companies do it in India - innovation. Indians do it - violation". Flipkart may have signed up with Airtel's Zero platform.

"Telecom companies are saying zero-rating websites (that are offered free like Facebook or Wikipedia) are cannibalising revenues from customers who used to pay for data earlier. It is also failing to convert non-data paying customers into paying ones, so it is not working for telecom companies," said a member of an Internet think tank who did not wish to be named.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India released a discussion paper on net neutrality in the last week of March and is seeking public comments by April 24 and counterviews by May 8.

Another Internet expert said people paying extra to visit select sites was like higher charges for high definition cable television. If net neutrality was restricted to price, consumers could decide what they wished to pay for, he added.

However, if websites or apps were blocked or telecom operators bumped up internet speed for certain services, the implications for innovation would be wider, he pointed out. "If the government is attempting to make a policy, it has to be as fair as possible," he said.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet Society, said ensuring network neutrality might be difficult, but the government could stop censorship and discrimination. "Competition usually resolves these issues. We have competition among telecom service providers and Internet service providers. This must be protected," he added.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-surabhi-aggarwal-april-11-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages-on

Net neutrality debate rages

praskrishna — 2015-05-08T14:45:34Z

While Airtel has put out a statement on the pull out by Flipkart, other operators are playing a cautious game.

The article by Lalatendu Mishra and Pradeesh Chandran was published in the Hindu on April 15, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

It’s a major victory for the proponents of net neutrality and a big setback for service provider Airtel. As the e-commerce firm Flipkart pulled out of talks on joining the controversial Airtel Zero platform, launched by Airtel last week, the debate on net neutrality has taken a fresh turn in the Indian context. In the wake of a virtual uproar in social media and following wide condemnation by votaries of net neutrality, Flipkart has to just give in. With Flipkart-induced new twist in the net neutrality game, the Internet Service Providers (ISPs), mostly telecom operators, are running for cover without knowing how to deal with the evolving situation that has the potential to adversely affect their business.

While Airtel has put out a statement on the pull out by Flipkart, other operators are playing a cautious game. And, they are unwilling to comment on a subject that has become an emotive issue. There are, however, voices which seek a middle path as solution to this issue.

“We are in favour of net neutrality. But this has to be defined in the Indian context. That is what TRAI is precisely doing. The debate on net neutrality is appropriate and important. All stakeholders should be able to decide what is net neutrality for India after due debate,” said Rajan Mathews, Director-General, Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI). “We must have a holistic approach to this issue. There should be rational debate, and we are committed for open and non-discriminatory Internet,” Mr Mathews added. A thought must go into protecting the interest of telecom operators as well, he felt.

While supporting net neutrality, analysts have voiced concern over its impact on the finances of telecos. “Net neutrality is a fair concept but it must take into account the concerns of telecom operators and ensure that their revenue and margins are not significantly impacted,” said Rajiv Gupta, Partner and Director, BCG. “Some kind of middle path needs to be achieved,” Mr Gupta said. Only a few countries so far have made net neutrality into a law. “We are yet to see whether our government’s moral support for net neutrality can translate into a law,” Mr Gupta added.

Surprisingly, Airtel which has come under flak on two occasions in last four months for alleged violation of net neutrality norms, too, has pledged its support for net neutrality! “Airtel fully supports the concept of net neutrality. There have been some misconceptions about our toll free data platform Airtel Zero. It is a not a tariff proposition but is an open marketing platform that allows any application or content provider to offer their service on a toll free basis to their customers who are on our network… The statement made by Flipkart regarding their decision not to offer toll-free data service to their customers is consistent with our stand that Airtel Zero is not a tariff proposition. It is merely an open platform for content providers to provide toll free-data services,” Airtel said. Without spelling out the future of Airtel Zero, it said “The platform remains open to all companies who want to offer these toll free data services to their customers on a completely non-discriminatory basis.” Over 150 start-ups have already expressed willingness to come on board Airtel Zero.

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society, said, “The need for net neutrality is very real and urgent. There are many practices that telecom companies are trying to engage in, such as blocking of WhatsApp to force customers to pay more money for it, which ought not to be allowed.” On Airtel Zero plan, he said “We should clearly separate out the issue of "zero rating" from that of "net neutrality". ``Only anti-competitive instances of zero-rating - for instance, Airtel offering it's own Hike service for free, or Airtel entering into an exclusive deal with Flipkart for zero-rating its app — are problems. Competitive zero-rating, with regulatory safeguards to ensure a fair and efficient marketplace, should be allowed, just as we allow free TV channels and allow toll-free numbers. Banning is akin to a brahmastra in a regulator's arsenal: it should not be used lightly,” Mr Prakash said.

No such plans: Snapdeal

Snapdeal said, “We have no such plans at this point, especially given the regulatory framework is unclear.’’

Zero rating is a practice among mobile network operators, where customers are not charged for a certain volume of data by specific applications or internet services.

An Amazon spokesperson said, “Amazon supports net neutrality - the fundamental openness of the Internet - which has been so beneficial to consumers and innovation.”

Earlier, Facebook and Reliance Communications had partnered for Internet.org. Reliance had announced in 2012 that it would offer free Facebook and WhatsApp for Rs 16 a month, without any additional data costs.

Amidst the debate on net neutrality, Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said a six-member panel had been constituted by the telecom department to submit its recommendations regarding the same by early next month.

Start-ups for net neutrality:

Sumit Jain, Co-Founder & CEO, CommonFloor.com

“It’s well acknowledged that Internet has disrupted the world of business like no other technology has in last few decades. It has enabled start-ups with hardly any capital and clout to make a mark. So by rejecting net neutrality, we will be shutting the door on the entrepreneurial aspirations of millions and will leave telcos to play the gate-keeper to a valuable resource as the Internet and challenges the democratic behaviour that Internet in known for”.

Sameer Parwani, CEO & Founder, CouponDunia

“We will stand for net neutrality. India has been in the forefront of digital world. It is the Internet that has given the country hope and aspirations to the common man to be informed and entertained. Not being able to give equal access will just make the situation anti- competitive and it will have a negative effect on the upcoming businesses.”

Kashyap Vadapalli, Chief Marketing officer, Pepperfry

“Lack of net neutrality supports a monopolistic market which will adversely affect the growing start-up eco-system. While heavily funded businesses will be able to maintain their supremacy over consumers start-ups will stand to lose out heavily. We do not encourage discrimination of any sorts when it comes to consumer's access to information.”

Yogendra Vasupal, Founder of Stayzilla

“Airtel Zero seems like an innovative solution to bring Internet to every person. Whether this is on a firm footing or a slippery slope will be decided by the actual implementation. The current way of individual companies buying Internet for their consumers is a slippery slope. The right way to do it would be through a central consortium formed from the e-commerce companies and who has the interests of both the start-ups in this sector and the end-users in mind. After all, Internet is all about freedom of choice. Keeping in mind that currently it would be free only if you use a particular company makes it free at the cost of the freedom of choice it offers. This is everyone's loss.”

Ritesh Agarwal, CEO, OYO Rooms

“Net neutrality is absolutely essential for a free and competitive market especially now since there is a start-up boom in the country particularly in the online sector. Most importantly, Internet was created to break boundaries and as concerned industry players, we should maintain that. We support net neutrality and will do all needed to build this further.”

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-lalatendu-mishra-pradeesh-chandran-april-15-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages

Indians Join ‘Save the Internet’ Campaign

praskrishna — 2015-05-09T07:42:06Z

In India, hundreds of thousands have joined a public campaign to ensure equal access to the Internet as an impassioned debate engulfs the country on what is called “net neutrality.”

The article by Anjana Pasricha was published by Voice of America on April 15, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The controversy heated up after one of the country’s main telecom providers launched a new marketing platform, Airtel Zero, where Internet businesses could pay to have users browse their sites for free.

This triggered a nationwide backlash from those who fear that this could deny equal access to the Internet. They are demanding that the Internet remain a level playing field with all data getting equal treatment - whether it is a student’s blog or an online company with deep pockets.

Celebrities, professionals, entrepreneurs and students, are among the tens of thousands who have signed up for an online campaign “savetheinternet.”

Petitions are being sent at a furious pace to the telecom regulator, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), which invited public comments last month on various proposals such as allowing telecom companies to charge for services like Skype and YouTube.

One of the persons behind the campaign to ensure net neutrality, Kiran Jonnalagadda, in Bangalore, has been taken aback by the overwhelming response.

“400,000 users have on their own copy, pasted an email from our website and mailed it to TRAI from their own computers. It is not an automated script. There is nothing is going on from our servers. People are doing it by themselves on their own computers. That is incredible. We did not think they would do it,” said Jonnalagadda.

The strident public criticism on the issue has already had an impact. One of the country’s biggest online retailers, Flipkart, said on Tuesday that it had scrapped discussions with Airtel Zero on giving users free access to its app.

Flipkart announced its decision after some angry supporters of net neutrality denounced the company saying it would get an unfair advantage over its competitors. Some users even threatened to boycott the online retailer.

Supporters of allowing telecoms to give preferential, free access to Internet sites say providers need the funds to expand infrastructure and net coverage in countries like India, where broadband access is still limited. Opponents say such practices allow for preferential treatment for some websites over others, creating a disadvantage for upstart websites that would inhibit innovation.

Pranesh Prakash at the Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society supports net neutrality. However he said that under certain conditions, companies could pay for customers using their data.

“They anyway have to pay money for using data. Right now what some companies are offering to do is not only to pay money for their data use, but also for customers data use. That can be anti-competitive, for instance if there is in exclusive deal, or if the terms of the deal are not transparent. But just the fact that a company is offering to pay for its customers data does not by itself make it anti-competitive. For instance toll free numbers are not considered anti-competitive by anyone,” said Prakash.

The government says it will wait for a report from a six-member committee due in May before it takes a position on the issue. But net users hope the government is leaning toward net neutrality.

Earlier this week, Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Ravi Shankar Prasad, called the Internet “one of the finest creations of the human mind.”

“It is the property of the entire human race, not of any country or of any society. Net to become truly global must have integral link with the local and when we talk of digital inclusion, it is equally important it must be available to those who are underprivileged and on the margins,” said Prasad.

India is one of the world’s biggest Internet markets after the United States and China with an estimated 180 million users. It is not the only country to debate net neutrality - it has also been a subject of intense discussion in the United States and Europe.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-april-15-2015-anjana-pasricha-indians-join-save-the-internet-campaign

Global Conference on CyberSpace 2015

praskrishna — 2015-05-01T16:48:59Z

Sunil Abraham is a panelist at this event.

Opening session

Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, will open the conference, followed by an introduction by Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, host of the GCCS. The conference will start with a strategic discussion among representatives of all stakeholders on the most important current developments in cyberspace. A panel consisting of high-level government officials and private sector and civil society leaders will sketch the main opportunities, dilemmas and challenges facing the further evolution of the internet. All main issues of the conference will be touched upon: internet governance and multistakeholder cooperation, freedom and privacy online, the digital divide, the internet as enabler for social and economic development, cyber security and cybercrime. The panel will address questions such as:

How should we balance freedom, security and economic development and innovation in cyberspace?
How do we guarantee an open, free and secure internet?
What are the responsibilities of the various stakeholders in cyberspace, e.g.: what role should governments vis a vis the private sector play in protecting privacy online?
How can we improve cooperation between governments, private sector and civil society in cyber-related matters?
How can we maintain and improve trust by consumers in the internet?
How can we stimulate research and development, and interdisciplinary academic cooperation in order to strengthen cyberspace?

The panel will be followed by ministerial statements.

Moderator: Riz Kahn, Founder and CEO of Global Media Productions

Panellists:

Mireille Ballestrazzi, President of Interpol
Vint Cerf, Vice-President of Google
Nnenna Nwakanma, World Wide Web Foundation
Fadi Chehadé, CEO ICANN
Yurie Ito, Director of Global Coordination Division for the JPCERT/CC

12:30 to 13:15 None

Side Event: Lunch panel on 'Cyber warfare and jus in bello'

The International Committee of the Red Cross, with the support of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, will organise a short side-event on 'Cyber warfare and jus in bello' during the Thursday lunch break of the conference. This panel will focus on the use of cyber operations as means and methods of warfare during armed conflict, namely cyber warfare. It will give participants insights into the challenges that cyber warfare creates for the application and interpretation of international humanitarian law (IHL). The panel will touch upon issues such as the potential human cost of cyber warfare; the protection that IHL affords to infrastructure essential to the civilian population against cyber attacks; the challenges that the dual use of cyberspace creates for the principle of distinction; or the legal review of cyber weapons.

The panel should support participants in gaining a better understanding on whether the relevant IHL norms, in particular the rules governing the conduct of hostilities, appear to be sufficiently clear in light of the specific characteristics and foreseeable human cost of cyber warfare.

13:15 to 14:45 Livestream available

Scenario-based Policy Discussion

An interactive discussion ensures all participants are aware of the urgency of the challenges we face in cyberspace. The discussion is based on a fictitious but realistic scenario which presents dilemmas we face in cyberspace. See the teaser on youtube. Panellists representing governments, private sector and civil society will be asked to come up with concrete solutions to the issues posed in several short film clips. The entire audience will be able to react to the scenario and to the proposed solutions.

Moderator:

Riz Kahn, Founder and CEO of Global Media Productions

Panellists-VIP Panel:

Klaas Dijkhoff, State Secretary for Security and Justice of the Netherlands
Robert Nicholson, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada
Pedro Huichalaf, Vice Minister for Telecommunications of Chile
Michèle Coninsx, President of Eurojust
Eelco Blok, CEO of KPN
Cheri McGuire, Vice President, Global Government Affairs & Cybersecurity Policy of Symantec Corporation
Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society

Panellists - CyberSpace Perspective Panel:

Giuseppe Targia, Vice President Security of Nokia
Gerard Hartsink, Vice-Chair of the Digital Economy Commission of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
Guillaume Poupard, Director General of the Agence Nationale de la Sécurité des Systèmes d’Information (ANSSI)
Coen Vermeulen, Division Director Cash and Payment Systems of the Dutch Central Bank

15:00 to 16:15 Livestream available

Prolonged Opening Session

Ministerial statements.

15:00 to 16:15 Livestream available

FOCUS SESSION : International peace and security in cyberspace

The use of cyber operations has become a new challenge in the field of international peace and security. How can international political cooperation be reinforced and international law applied in order to avoid conflicts and maintain a stable cyberdomain?

It is likely that cyber capabilities will be part of future conflicts and, below the threshold of armed conflict, there is a growing risk of cyber attacks by state and non-state actors. The use of this tool is incentivized by low entry costs, high potential gains and low political and legal risks in case of discovery. Given the unique attributes of this tool and the difficulty of verifying behavior, there is the potential for mistaken attribution, miscalculation and unintended escalation in a time of crisis. The threats and risks must not be exaggerated, but the increasing use of cyber operations potentially creates instability and mistrust in international relations. Uncertainty and insecurity raise the spectre of a cyber arms race, which would be even more destabilizing.

The need for international cooperation to reduce these risks is clear. This is a strategic challenge for states that transcends the technical and operational level. It is also a challenge in which the private sector must be a part of any solution, given its ownership over most of the global cyber infrastructure. Although sometimes described as “wild West” characterized by normative ambiguity, cyberspace is not sui generis. Much work has been done to affirm the applicability in cyberspace of existing international law and norms for State conduct, in which especially the 2013 the report of the Group of Governmental Experts stands out as a landmark achievement.

Against this background, the fundamental challenge is to further develop a sustainable international cyber stability “regime”, both between states and non-state actors, and to work out how this connects into the overarching regime complex for managing global cyber activities. This focus is relevant for all countries and companies, not just for the ‘cyber great powers’.

1. How to develop international security and stability within the regime complex for managing global cyber activities
2. What are the responsibilities of States towards other States that follow from the application of international law and the principle of State sovereignty to State activities in cyberspace?
3. What norms or additional measures of self-restraint or mutual assistance can States and companies implement to create a more stable cyberspace?

Speakers:

The Hon. Julie Bishop MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Australia
Mr. Christopher Painter, Coördinator for State Department United States of America
Chen Xu H.E. Ambassador Ministry of Foreign Affairs People’s Republic of China
Arvind Gupta H.E. Deputy National Security Adviser India
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Estonia (to be confirmed)
Mr. Matt Thomlinson, Vice President of Security Microsoft United States of America
H.E. Mrs. Amina Mohamed, Cabinet Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Kenya

Moderator:

Joseph S. Nye, Professor University Distinguished Service Professor Harvard Kennedy School of Government United States of America

Professor Joseph S. Nye is the author of The Regime Complex for Managing Global Cyber Activities, which was written as part of his participation in the Global Commission on Internet Governance.

15:00 to 16:15 Livestream available

Parallel Session : The Ethics of Algorithms - From Offensive Content to Self-Driving Cars

From search engine results to predictive policing, algorithms are determining and shaping ever more parts of our lives. This new type of governance has a name: algorithmic regulation. What are the ethical responsibilities of those architecting algorithms and for us as a society?

Algorithms are used to decide who should be hired, or who should be flagged as a suspect; which news gets highlighted and which stories disappear from social media feeds. The subjective decisions by institutions and companies who design computer algorithms to process information, also known as ‘algorithmic regulation’, may directly interfere with freedom of speech. Ensuring that such algorithms are in line with human rights standards will be a challenge for governments and companies in the coming years.

This is why this session brings together leading experts from academia, technology and civil society to discuss the ethical dimensions for those architecting algorithms and for us as a society.

Background information: Ethics of Algorithms

Panellists:

Ben Wagner, director Centre for Internet & Human Rights (moderator)
Jillan York, Policy Director freedom of expression Electronic Frontier Foundation
Richard Allan, Director of Policy in Europe, Facebook
Frank LaRue, Director of European Operation, Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
Kave Salamatian, Professor of computer Science, University of Savoie
Joe McNamee, Executive Director, European Digital Rights
Frank Pasquale, Professor of law, University of Maryland, Francis King Carey School of Law

15:00 to 16:15

Parallel Session : CSIRT Maturity

The cyber threat landscape is constantly changing and the responsibility to prevent, detect and respond to incidents is ever more challenging. To remain effective and to be able to meet these rapidly evolving challenges, Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) must evolve continuously. The cyber domain is not limited by political borders and most cyber threats cannot be adequately addressed by any single CSIRT. Therefore international cooperation with a view to reaching higher levels of CSIRT maturity is essential. During this session (among other things) the “Quick Scan CSIRT Maturity” as well as the “Toolkit CSIRT Maturity” will be demonstrated.

Moderator:

Wout de Natris, Consultant, De Natris Consult/MKB Cyber Advies Nederland

Speakers:

Baiba Kaskina, General manager CERT Latvia
Aart Jochem, Head of Monitoring and Response, National Cyber Security Center - NL
Jordana Siegel, Director, International Affairs, Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, US Department of Homeland Security

Panellists:

Maarten van Horenbeeck, Chairman, Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST)
Steve Purser, Head of Core Operations Department ENISA
Jean Robert Hountomey, CEO AfricaCERT

15:00 to 16:15

Parallel Session : Cybercrime, jurisdiction and hosting

Cybercrime is a growing problem for people, business and the economy. This parallel session will focus on the problem of cybercrime and the specific problems that law enforcement organisations encounter in addressing it. For cybercriminals, the rewards can be substantial, while the risk of being caught is limited. The risk can further be decreased by using the complex nature of the internet and by spreading criminal activity across different jurisdictions. The reselling of hosting services can hamper the efficient acquisition of digital evidence and other relevant data. Furthermore, criminals often know which countries have limited legal possibilities or technical capacity for effective law enforcement.

In this parallel session the participants will discuss possible options to prevent criminal safe havens. How can we prevent criminals from abusing the complex and international nature of the internet to avoid law enforcement? How do criminals use the complex and international nature of the internet, cloud services and bad hosting for their criminal activity? Considering the loss of location of data and services, what policies could help overcome the problems connected to the territory-based concept of jurisdiction? In a multistakeholder cyber environment, how can hosting providers, cloud services and other private organisations help to prevent criminal safe havens from emerging?

Moderator:

Jamie Saunders, Director, National Cyber Crime Unit, United Kingdom

Speakers:

Sergey Lozhkin, researcher Kaspersky Labs
Zahid Jamil, Barrister-at-law, Jamil & Jamil, Pakistan
Angela McKay, Director of Cybersecurity Policy and Strategy, Microsoft
Bert-Jaap Koops, Professor of Regulation & Technology at the Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT), the Netherlands
Koen Hermans, Public Prosecutor, Eurojust

16:45 to 18:00 Livestream available

FOCUS SESSION : A secure place for business and people

To help fight the abuse of the internet, cooperation between different international stakeholders is key. This cooperation is explored by discussing the various roles and responsibilities of businesses, governments and citizens/consumers.

Even after 30 years, the internet is still unlocking extraordinary potential within societies. Unfortunately, along with this extraordinary potential are equally unbelievable threats. The rise of consumer broadband has greatly increased the power of botnets to launch crippling denial of service (DoS) attacks on servers, infect millions of computers with malware, steal identity data, send out vast quantities of spam, and engage in click fraud and extortion. As a result, botnets are considered a primary security threat of the internet today, threatening businesses and people worldwide.

Moderator: Riz Khan, Founder and CEO of Global Media Productions

Panellists:

Mr. Hiromichi Shinohara, Senior Executive VP and CTO of NTT
Mr. Christian Rivierre, VP International Development Thales
Mrs. Kathryn Brown, President and CEO of Internet Society
Mr. Rob Wainwright, director Europol
Jan Kleijssen, Director Information Society and Action Against Crime, Council of Europe
Mr. Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General Council of Europe
Mr. Han Moraal, Chairman of the GPEN Committee (Global Prosecutors E-crime Network) at International Association of Prosecutors (IAP)
Mr. Raphael Koffi, Head of Telecommunication/ICT Division, Ecowas, Nigeria
Mr. Peter Lord, Director of Technology Policy of Oracle, special advisor to Commission on the Digital Economy of the International Chamber of Commerce

16:45 to 18:00 Livestream available

Parallel Session : Rethinking the social impact of new cyber technologies

As in the recent past, the coming months will be characterized by exciting new technological developments in the cyber domain becoming adopted in our everyday lives. Many of these innovations have great potential in improving and enhancing matters in areas such as healthcare, education or business. Just think of the enormous potential being unlocked by wearable computers, drone technology or brain-computer interface!

Policymakers, however, often lag behind in estimating the social impact of these innovations, both in validating their potential and their disadvantages. At the GCCS2015 various stakeholders will therefore sit down to discuss the impact of today’s and tomorrow’s technological developments in the cyber domain, thereby looking for fitting policy answers to the social issues (security, privacy, ethics) raised.

Speakers:

Erik Huizer, Chief Technology Officer at SURFnet, part-time professor Internet Applications University of Utrecht
Philip Brey, professor of philosophy of technology and chair of the department of philosophy, University of Twente
Gry Hasselbalch, founder of Mediamocracy

Demo's:

Wladimir Mufty, product manager at SURFnet
Joost Damen, IT Engineer and Young Talent Program participant at SURFnet.

16:45 to 18:00 Livestream available

Parallel Session : Clarifying the application of existing international law in cyberspace

This panel discussion will put forward a range of perspectives on the future progressive development of the application of international law in cyberspace. This panel will bring together legal specialists from academia or think tanks from key cyber states and other stakeholders.

Objectives:

To promote in-depth discussion on a number of questions related to the application of existing international law, both above and below the threshold of armed conflict.
To facilitate an airing of views, not to resolve these issues or to reach consensus.
To inform the thinking of the international community as they continue to discuss the specifics of applying international law to the cyber domain.

Participants:

Ben Baseley-Walker, Programme Lead, Emerging Security Threats program, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (moderator)
Professor Michael N. Schmitt, Professor of Public International Law, Exeter University
Mr. Laurent Gisel, Legal Adviser, International Committee for the Red Cross
Professor Tang Lan, Deputy Director, Insitute of Information and Social Development, China Institutes for Contemporary International Relations
Mr Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, United Nations, member of the International Law Commission

16:45 to 18:00

Parallel Session : Towards 21st century internet standards

While modern internet standards are of crucial importance to protect cyberspace, the limited uptake of security related internet standards seems systemic. The structural inability to shed troublesome legacy internet technology, and upgrade to more secure and reliable 21st century alternatives, is by now seriously affecting the usability, robustness and scalability of the internet. This in turn significantly affects growth opportunities as well as hollowing out user trust.

Why is it so hard to migrate the internet to more modern internet standards? What are the underlying economic factors that come into play, and what are the possibilities for e.g. governments to positively influence market externalities? What can we do to create and leverage awareness of suppliers and users? How can we raise the bar to a cybersecurity level which is better in line with the global business and societal importance of the internet?

This parallel session is centred around the issue of spurring adoption of modern internet standards in cyberspace, and highlighting some interesting approaches and best practices - including the initiative internet.nl which will be launched during the GCCS.

It will be an interactive session, delving deep into the issue together with renowned speakers and panellists representing governments, civil society, academia, business, and the internet technical community. We will discuss the role of different stakeholders with regard to the adoption, promotion and implementation of modern internet standards - and discuss approaches to finally start moving the needle.

Moderator

Gerben Klein Baltink, Chairman of Platform Internet Standards and co-owner SME Cyber Advise Netherlands

Panellists

Olaf Kolkman, Chief Internet Technology Officer at Internet Society International
Melissa Hathaway, Senior Advisor Project on Technology, Security, and Conflict in the Cyber Age at Belfer Center, Harvard University
Jonne Soininen, Head of Software Industry Initiatives at Nokia Networks
Demi Getschko, Chief Executive Officer at Brazilian Network Information Center
Ramsés Gallego, Security Strategist & Evangelist at Dell Software
Michiel Leenaars, Director at Internet Society Netherlands

16:45 to 18:00

Parallel Session : Building Public Private Cooperation in Cyber Security

For a more secure cyberspace, partnerships are essential for the security and resilience of our infrastructures. Sharing good practices in public private partnerships can help managing the collaborative cyber risks in a domain where the threat landscape is continuously changing.

Main goals of the session:

Inform: Showing the importance of (international) public-private partnerships
Practice: Sharing international good practices in public private partnerships (incl conditions, issues, lessons learned and the next steps)
Activate: Sharing information to create an international community on cooperation

Moderator:

Roderik van Grieken, founder and director of the Dutch Debate Institute

Speakers:

Hans Henseler, Managing Director Tracks Inspector
Mari Ichikawa, counsellor, National center of Incident readiness and Strategy for Cybersecurity (NISC) Japan
Joanne Trimble, Head of International Engagement | CERT-UK
Igor van Gemert – Senior Business Consultant , Alliander
Fernando Sanchez, Director National Centre for Critical Infrastructure Protection, Ministry of the Interior, Spain.
Auke Huistra, International Corporation

Documents:

Cyber Security of Industrial Control Systems
Crucial processes in most critical infrastructures, and in many other organisations, rely on the correct and undisturbed functioning of Industrial Control Systems (ICS). A failure of ICS may both cause service disruptions, and result in safety risks to people and or the environment. Therefore, the cyber security and resilience of ICS is of utmost importance to society as a whole, to utilities and other critical infrastructure operators, and to organisations which use ICS. This document first and foremost, provides private and public sector executives with an Executive Summary outlining the ICS risk and challenges. This document appeals to the executive leadership of organisations to address the clear and present cyber security danger to their organisations and our societies as a whole.
From Awareness to Action: Bridging the gap in 10 steps
This interactive website presents the results from The Grand Conference 2014, “Building a Resilient Digital Society”. The website captures the most salient points that have been raised by the high-level stakeholders from the private, public, and knowledge domains during the interactive debates about necessary steps to enhance cyber resilience across all levels of society.
Sharing Cyber Security Information
When discussing cyber security in an international context, information sharing in a public-private-participation context is one of the most heard suggested solutions for increasing cyber resilience. However, there is a world, if not a universe, between the concept of information sharing and the practice of doing it. This Good Practice booklet contains the Dutch experiences, knowledge and lessons learned concerning information sharing.
Summary Report of the Meridian Conference 2014
The Meridian Conference 2014, a conference for government officials responsible for Critical Information Infrastructure Protection (CIIP), was held from 12 to 14 November, 2014, in Tokyo, Japan.
As a deliverable of the Meridian Conference 2014, the Summary Report of the Meridian Conference 2014 was developed to present key findings for CIIP.

18:15 to 19:00 Livestream available

Global Forum on Cyber Expertise

Founding partners will launch the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise: a global platform that contributes to cyber capacity building. The GFCE stimulates new funding streams and the sharing of expertise and experiences in the field of cyber security, cyber crime, data regulation and e-development. By matching supply and demand, countries that lack knowledge in certain cyber areas can benefit from the knowledge and expertise that will be provided by countries and companies with more experience in cyber matters. The GFCE will be launched officially with the adoption of a political declaration that emphasises the need for more capacity building, exchanges of best practices and strengthened international cooperation.

Moderator: Riz Khan, Founder and CEO of Global Media Productions

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/global-conference-on-cyber-space-2015

Reconciling Policy Priorities of the Global North and South: Implications for Norms of Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace

praskrishna — 2015-05-01T16:38:08Z

This meeting is an official side-event of the 2015 Global Conference on Cyberspace and is co-organized by the Hague Institute for Global Justice and the Observer Research Foundation. The meeting will take place at the Hague Institute for Global Justice. Sunil Abraham will participate in an expert roundtable.

This will be followed by a public panel discussion on International Cyber Norms and Global Swing States from 5.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.Click to download the agenda.

List of Participants

Mr. Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Center for Internet and Society, India
Dr. Ivan Arreguin-Toft, Oxford Martin Fellow, Global Cyber Security Capacity Center
Mr. Ben Baseley-Walker, Program Lead - Emerging Security Threats, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research
Professor Dennis Broeders, Senior Research Fellow, Scientific Council for Government Policy
Mr. Ilias Chantzos, Senior Director for Government Affairs Europe, Symantec
Dr. Tobias Feakin, Director, ASPI International Cyber Policy Centre
Dr. Alison Gillwald, Executive Director, Research ICT Africa
Mr. Zahid Jamil, Barrister-at-law, Jamil & Jamil
Ms. Sash Jayawardane, Researcher, The Hague Institute for Global Justice
Mr. Adrian Koster, Legal Advisor, Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport, DDPS Reporting and Analysis Centre for Information Assurance MELANIDr. Andrey Kulpin, Director of the International Center, Information Security Institute, Moscow State University
Dr. Joris Larik, Senior Researcher, The Hague Institute for Global Justice
Ms. Emile Loza de Siles, Founding Partner, Technology and Employment Law Group
Ms. Marilia Maciel, Researcher & Coordinator, Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
Professor Edmon Makarim, Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia
Dr. John Mallery, Research Scientist, MIT Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Mr. Robert Morgus, Research Associate, Open Technology Institute, New America
Mr. Jan Neutze, Director of Cyber Security Policy, Microsoft
Professor Alejandro Pisanty, Director-General of Academic Computing Services, National University of Mexico
Dr. Richard Ponzio, Head of Global Governance, The Hague Institute for Global Justice
Mr. Samir Saran, Vice President, The Observer Research Foundation
Ms. Isabel Skierka, Research Associate, Global Public Policy Institute
Ms. Chelsey Slack, Officer, Cyber Defence, NATO
Dr. Linnet Taylor, Marie Curie Research Fellow, University of Amsterdam
Mr. Ian Wallace, Senior Fellow, International Security, New America
Dr. Shen Yi, Associate Professor, School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/reconciling-policy-priorities-of-the-global-north-and-south-implications-for-norms-of-responsible-state-behaviour-in-cyberspace

National IPR Policy Series: DIPP Response (3)

praskrishna — 2015-04-15T03:54:07Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-3.pdf

National IPR Policy Series: DIPP Response (2)

praskrishna — 2015-04-15T03:42:32Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-2.pdf

National IPR Policy Series: DIPP Response (1)

praskrishna — 2015-04-15T03:23:51Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-1.pdf

Net neutrality: Trai receives over 2 lakh mails

praskrishna — 2015-05-08T02:11:15Z

The idea of an open internet can bring together not just worried netizens but politicians of all hues.

The article by Sandhya Soman and Jayanta Deka was published in the Times of India on April 14, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

On a day when the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India got more than 2 lakh emails by Monday afternoon from Indian netizens annoyed by possible efforts to make internet an unequal space, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and DMK leader MK Stalin also defended net neutrality.

While Kejriwal tweeted that "India MUST debate #NetNeutrality. I support #Saveinternet campaign www.savetheinternet.in", Stalin in his statement said that any move to allow telecom companies to give preferential access to websites would go against the concept of equality.

Telecom minister Ravishankar Prasad, meanwhile, told media that a special DoT panel will come out with its report on net neutrality in May.

The latest fight for net neutrality — the idea that all traffic is treated equally by internet service providers — gained momentum after Trai put up a consultation paper on the topic asking users to give their views before April 24. The paper was in response to demands from telecom companies seeking to splice up internet into various packages so they could charge users based on what websites and services they were using. The companies' specific grouse is against services like Skype, Whatsapp and Viber, which they claim are eating into their profits.

"Net neutrality is about ensuring that ISPs don't end up harming universal access, effective competition and consumer benefit," says Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society. This means that what Airtel was trying to do in December by preventing its customers from accessing WhatsApp, Skype and Viber without paying extra shouldn't be permitted, Prakash says.

One of the worst case scenarios could be the murder of innovation, says Srinivasan Ramani, 'director, National Centre for Software Technology (now, part of C-DAC).

"New ways of doing things are disruptive — Voice over Internet Protocol demonstrated how inexpensive voice calls could be. Video calls over the internet demonstrate what the old telephone technology could not do in a cost-effective manner, can now be done with ease," Ramani says. If ISPs get greater control over the internet they may end up killing the golden goose, he says.

Neutrality of the internet is essential to a wide variety of users, from bloggers, entrepreneurs and to students. "A non-neutral internet is like offering a separate driving lane to people who own a Ferrari, Mercedes or any other luxury vehicle," says Harsh Agrawal, a professional blogger atshoutmeloud.com. He is clear that he can't pay telecom operators to offer better speeds to his blog. "But what if one of my competitors can afford to pay for preferential treatment for his website? It could be a huge loss to me," Agrawal says.

E-commerce startup-founder Catherine Dohling has the same fear. "We want our website to be accessed by anyone who is interested in our products and this should not be governed by which telecom provider a person buys data from," says Dohling, co-founder of TheNorthEastStore.com.

Activists like Lobsang Tseten, who relies on digital media to reach out to people, fear that if there is no net neutrality, it could mean that a huge chunk of the NGO's grassroots base could be taken away unless users pay. "This is a very underhand way of stopping people from accessing certain websites and products," says Tseten, Asia regional coordinator of International Tibet Network.

With many biggies like Flipkart considering Airtel's Zero plan, which aims to offer free consumer browsing for such companies that sign up with the telco, start-up enthusiasts are also troubled. "An internet that is non-neutral would be a huge set-back for people like me who want to create a tech start-up. We would have to factor in a good sum of money for tie-ups with ISPs," says Rahul Kumar, an IIT-Kanpur student.

However, some activists say that some nuances of what is net neutrality are getting lost as the campaign gathers steam. On Monday, several angry netizens tweeted about uninstalling Flipkart's app and actively working to get it down voted. "What we need are regulations that ensure access, competition and benefit consumers instead of proposing specific outcomes or solutions," says Prakash.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-april-14-2015-sandhya-soman-and-jayanta-deka-net-neutrality-trai-receives-over-two-lakh-mails