Centre for Internet and Society

WIPO: Scope and rights of potential broadcasting treaty clarified

praskrishna — 2014-05-28T07:03:17Z

This post by Alexandra Bhattacharya was published in SUNS #7796 dated 5 May 2014.

Read the story posted on Third World Network here. CIS is quoted.

Integral concepts and the options on the scope of a proposed broadcasting treaty, and the substantive rights envisaged for broadcasting organisations have been further elucidated.

The 27th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) completed its two- and-half-day discussion on 30 April of the agenda item on a proposed Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations - a 16-year-old issue in WIPO.

However, a number of member states (India and Brazil) pointed out that there was further need to tackle the technical issues and that there was still no clear consensus.

The results of the informal consultations (Regional Coordinators plus six) held by the committee's Chair have produced two tables based on Article 6 which deals with the "Scope of Application" of the proposed treaty, and with Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations" in the working document (SCCR/27/2 Rev).

There is no clear consensus on most of the elements in the tables, but they are meant to consolidate all the options and proposals currently in place.

The 27th session of the SCCR is taking place in Geneva from 28 April to 2 May.

In 2007, WIPO's General Assembly agreed to pursue a "signal-based approach" to drafting a new treaty to provide protection for broadcasting organisations, to ensure that provisions on signal theft in themselves did not give broadcasters additional rights over program content.

Results of Informal Consultations: Tables on Scope of Application and Rights

The informal consultations have resulted in a table on the Scope of Application of the treaty which relates to Article 6 of the proposed treaty. The potential applicable areas identified include:

(i) traditional broadcasting [and cablecasting](wireless or by wire)(+pre-broadcast signal);

(ii) simultaneous and unchanged transmission of broadcast program (simulcasting);

(iii) deferred linear transmission of broadcast program;

(iv) on-demand transmission of broadcasting program (catch up) and program-related material (to be defined); and

(v) internet originated linear transmission (webcasting).

Elements (ii) to (v) relate to transmission over the Internet [if included, only for traditional broadcasters/cable casters]. The Chair stated that there was greater emphasis on traditional broadcasting which included both wireless or by wire along with pre-broadcast signals. There was greater divergence with respect to transmissions over the internet with a majority position that simultaneous and almost simultaneous broadcasting should be part of the treaty. Some had also expressed the opinion that webcasting should be beyond the scope of the treaty.

The second table relates to rights for broadcasting organisations and is in the context of Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations".

This table includes: (i) simultaneous re-transmission of the broadcast signal to the public over any medium; (ii) Near simultaneous re-transmission of the broadcast signal to the public over any medium (to be defined); (iii) Transmission of the broadcast signal to the public from a fixation and over any medium (not limited in time) including the making available right; (iv) Fixation of a broadcast signal, reproduction of fixation of broadcasts, distribution of fixations (copies) of broadcasts, performance of broadcast signal in places accessible to the public [against payment of an entrance fee]; (v) Protection of pre-broadcast signals; and (vi) National Treatment when the protection is equivalent; reciprocity when there is a difference in the protection.

After the presentation of the tables in the plenary, Brazil said that "for the sake of transparency", it wanted to state that the informal discussions were helpful in the sense that they had produced a "deeper understanding of what we are talking about".

It stressed that it had tremendous difficulty in referring to the word "consensus", as many aspects were yet to be clarified. It underlined the need to see the discussion with a "grain of salt".

India supported the statement by Brazil, noting that although the committee had "grappled with many issues," there was need for a more technical discussion. In this context, it proposed that broadcasting engineering experts be invited to an informal experts' meeting during the next session of the SCCR.

Support for India's proposal was voiced by the United States, Brazil, El Salvador, Canada, and Colombia.

The European Union stated that the discussions showed that a number of delegations had expressed their support for covering traditional broadcasting and cablecasting transmissions. The most divergent views were with respect to simulcasting deferred transmissions and on-demand transmissions.

It also said that there was a need to have more discussion with respect to elements (ii) and (iii) of the table on Rights. It added that there could be flexibility on element four if there was a good solution for two and three.

The United States was of the opinion that the "charts" that pulled out the multiple proposals on the table allowed the delegation to understand the key elements better and also to get some initial indication of the thinking of different delegations on those elements.

It observed that there was general agreement as to the inclusion of traditional broadcasting over the air which is clearly within the mandate of the General Assembly.

Elements (i) and (ii) in the table on rights, the simultaneous and near simultaneous re-transmission of signals to the public were essentially the proposal of the United States for discussion purposes, it added.

Trinidad and Tobago stated for the record that it would like the scope of protection to include traditional broadcasting and cablecasting.

China stated that simulcasting should be included in the treaty.

Protection for Broadcasting Organisations: Exclusive Rights Discussed

The second day of the SCCR focused on Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations" which deals with the substantive rights envisaged in the protection for broadcasting organisations in the potential treaty.

The divergence in views related to the scope and range of the substantive rights to be given to broadcasting organisations. This issue, along with the Scope of Protection (Article 6), remains one of the integral areas of the proposed treaty where consensus is yet to be reached.

A consistent concern expressed by a number of member states and some stakeholders' groups such as those representing copyright providers (authors, actors, musicians) during the session, has been the need to ensure that the potential broadcasting treaty did not infringe or curtail the existing rights of underlying content providers of the broadcast.

As seen in the discussion on the Scope of Protection, the complexity of the issue was evident and member states were encouraged to work on a matrix of exclusive rights envisaged for broadcasting organisations in order to both cement progress and also for better conceptualisation.

[The current text of Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations" includes two Alternatives A and B which deal with exclusive rights to be authorised to broadcasting organisations.

[Alternative A lists fewer rights which include: (i) the re-transmission of their broadcast signals to the public, by any means; (ii) performance of their broadcast signal in places accessible to the public, for commercial advantage or using very large screens; (iii) the use of a pre-broadcast signal intended for them.

[Alternative B has a more extensive list of exclusive rights and includes: (i) the right of fixation of their broadcasts; (ii) the direct or indirect reproduction, in any manner or form, of fixations of their broadcasts; (iii) the re-transmission of their broadcasts by any means, including re-broadcasting, re-transmission by wire, and re-transmission over computer networks; (iv) the communication to the public of their broadcasts; (v) the making available to the public of the original and copies of fixations of their broadcasts in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them; (vi) the transmission by any means for the reception by the public of their broadcasts following fixation of such broadcasts; (vii) the making available to the public of the original and copies of fixations of their broadcasts, through sale or other transfer of ownership.

[India's proposal in the Annex of the working document is essentially based on the right to prohibit, if done without authorisation, the following: (i) the re-broadcast of their signal through traditional broadcasting means; (ii) causing the broadcast to be seen or heard in public on payment of any charge; and (iii) make a fixation of signal for the purpose of re-broadcast.

[Additionally, for this session, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan tabled a proposal (SCCR/27/6) in which a broad range of rights such as fixation and re-transmission rights are included.

[The United States has also included a proposal for "discussion purposes" which states that "Broadcasting organizations shall have the right to authorize the simultaneous or near-simultaneous re-transmission of their broadcast or pre-broadcast signal over any medium".]

The Chair sought comments from member states on how to move forward on the issue, particularly with respect to determining the range of rights to be given to broadcasting organisations.

Belarus, introducing the group proposal SCCR/27/6, said that adequate protection should be afforded to broadcasters, bearing in mind the economic investment required by them. It added that there should be the broadest scope for the protection to be enjoyed by the broadcasters.

Belarus stated that these rights have to be linked to re-broadcasting of any such content and with the broadcasting of the content in whatever form. It added that the exhaustion of the rights should be left to domestic legislations.
With respect to India's proposal, Belarus stated that the right to prohibit was not sufficient.

The United States stated that its proposal for discussion attempted to "cut through the debate on the scope of rights" and attempted to focus on a "single core right".

The proposal for a "right to authorize the simultaneous or near-simultaneous re-transmission" focused on the need to address the fundamental concerns of the broadcasting organisations within the scope of the 2007 General Assembly mandate on a signal-based protection.

The US added that it was suggesting no post-fixation rights at the international level and only for the protection of the signal. Any protection for post-fixation would be relying on the protection of the content.

The right to authorise the simultaneous or near-simultaneous re-transmission would include the broadcast and pre-broadcast signal, it explained.

It also noted that there had not been opposition to the treaty covering these elements during the meeting, adding that there had not been any consensus on post-fixation rights.

The US further suggested an approach which could be either (i) based on the US proposal, or (ii) used the US proposal as a basis and included some version of post-fixation rights.

It said that there was a need for something that "we can all agree to in the international level".

India stated that its proposal was based on protection for broadcasting organisations based on a "signal based" approach in the traditional sense. In this context, it supported protection for simultaneous broadcasting in the traditional sense and not for webcasting and simulcasting.

Mexico was of the opinion that there was a need to seek "the establishment of general standards" and the discussion had to focus on general principles and not on the details.

In this context, it supported the proposal by the US.

In a similar vein, South Africa noted the need for a general signal-based approach and supported the proposal by the US which was based on a narrow scope of rights.

Brazil also expressed support for the US proposal and stated that with this "narrow and simple" approach it would be possible to make progress.

It however expressed reservation about including other forms of protection other than for simultaneous and near simultaneous re-transmissions.

The European Union also agreed that there was consensus in the room as to the right to authorise or prohibit simultaneous transmissions by any means. However, there was a need to focus on transmissions from fixations where there was less clarity.

It added that there was a need to separate the discussion from fixation and post-fixation rights. There was also a need to be clear about what "near simultaneous" transmissions meant.

The EU said that there was a need to also be clear about what kind of rights were referred to with respect to the right to prohibit.

Canada stated that a single solution to signal piracy remained a challenge and that it was attached to finding a minimum standard today. It added that there was a need to look at both pre- and post-fixation.

It also noted that there were different modes of delivery of broadcasts and there were a number of alternatives in the text. In this context, it would be useful to develop a matrix to further the discussion.

The need to simplify the range of rights on the table was echoed by the US, Ecuador, Chile and Colombia.
The Russian Federation supported the approach in restricting rights in some way and to focus on agreements previously reached, particularly with reference to traditional broadcasting.

It added that with respect to including additional rights in the scope of protection, there would be a need to receive corresponding authority from the General Assembly to do that.

It reiterated that a signal-based approach had already been decided and " if we are going to keep looking at every nuance, then we will not get anywhere".

Iran stated that the aim of the exercise should focus on the "anti-piracy function" and the function of the treaty should stop all forms of piracy. It noted that one approach could be an umbrella solution as seen in the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty.

The Chair proposed informal consultations (Regional Coordinators plus six) in order to make progress on a matrix with respect to the range of rights and the scope of application of the potential treaty.

Concerns Expressed by Observers

A number of observers to the SCCR representing broadcasting organisations expressed the need for a treaty for the protection of broadcasting organisations; however, a number of other organisations also expressed reservations with the current work being undertaken in the SCCR.

The Trans-Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) stated that it opposed the idea of granting any new layer of intellectual property rights for broadcasters that would make it more expensive and more complex to legally obtain access to and use of information.

It explained that this treaty could create many problems for consumers especially if it is without very clear fixation rights, the rights in literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, performances, films, sound recordings, broadcasts and other material in which there are copyright and related rights.

The Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL) and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) said that they saw no compelling public policy reason for a new international instrument on the protection of broadcasting organisations, because piracy of broadcast signals is already adequately dealt with under existing laws and treaties.

They explained that the creation of a new layer of rights that affects access to content is of great concern to librarians, because it imposes an additional barrier to access to knowledge, especially to content in the public domain and that libraries have practical experience of such over-protection caused by multiple layers of rights.

EIFL and IFLA urged the member states to consider the costs to taxpayers and society, as well as the perceived benefits of this proposed treaty.

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) also expressed concerns regarding the intended scope and language of Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations" in Working Document SCCR/27/2 Rev.

It was of the opinion that the current language expanded the scope of the proposed treaty and was likely to have the effect of granting broadcasters rights over the content being carried and not just the signal.

It stated that the language in Article 9 envisaged fixation and post-fixation rights for broadcasting organisations, for instance, among others, those of reproduction, distribution and public performance and this was inconsistent with a signal-based approach.

Secondly, it expressed reservations on the inclusion of "communication to the public" reflected in Article 9 Alternative B.

It stated that communication to the public was an element of copyright and governs the content layer, as distinct from the "broadcast" or "transmission" of a signal.

Therefore, attempts to regulate "communication to the public" would not be consistent with a signal-based approach, which the CIS believes is the mandate binding on this Committee.

The Chair's conclusions on all the agenda items are expected to be circulated and finalised on the last day of the session (2 May 2014).

The remaining days of the SCCR focused on Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives as well as Limitations and Exceptions for Educational, Teaching and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/third-world-network-may-5-2014-wipo-scope-and-rights-of-potential-broadcasting-treaty-clarified

Civil Society Pushes for Privacy Panel

praskrishna — 2014-05-27T11:39:20Z

The article was published in the Times of India on May 6, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Civil society organizations are pushing for a 'privacy commission' to provide protection to individuals from illegal breach of their privacy, with guidelines imposing penal sanction against the violators. This assumes significance

This assumes significance at a time when the Centre has decided to set up a judicial panel to probe the snoopgate scandal wherein the BJP government in Gujarat was allegedly involved in illegal surveillance of a woman architect and especially when the Right to Privacy Bill is pending in Parliament.

However, industry consortia, including CII and FICCI, prefer lesser regulation, though calling for a cautious approach.

Among civil society organizations pressing for a stringent privacy bill is the International Centre for Free and Open Source Software (ICFOSS), the only representative from Kerala to attend the NETmundial conference held recently in Brazil. The meet focused on privacy issues to ensure basic human rights, including freedom of expression.

NETmundial is the first step towards pushing for a privacy law against the snooping and spying on individuals by those in power, including agencies within and outside the country Privacy guidelines should be clear as to what data can be collected without infringing on the dignity of an individual as 'data' represents the duration of a call, while 'metadata' reveals the content of the caH," said ICFOSS director SatishBabu.

Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), another NETmundial participant, also stands for a strong privacy law. "The two-day conference that concluded on April 24 was a baby step towards a privacy law with a road map for global internet governance. It is the first step towards a multi-stakeholder model offering an equal footing for all civil society organizations, academia, government, private sector and the UN fora," said CIS executive director Sunil Abraham

“We are pushing for a privacy law in the country aimed at national privacy regulation and constituting a privacy commission on the lines of the information commission," he added.

Click to read the full story

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-may-6-2014-laxmi-ajai-prasanna-civil-society-pushes-for-privacy-panel

Pushing the Boundaries in Open Governance: Insights from OGP Asia Pacific Regional Conference in Bali, Indonesia (Day 1)

praskrishna — 2014-05-27T11:16:06Z

Sunil Abraham is quoted. He said that open governance is more about citizens checking on what government leaders are doing than on government coding its citizens to exercise surveillance.

This post originally appeared on the Open Data Research Network and has been republished with permission from the author. For the republished post on OGP website, see here.

The plenary room of Bali Nusa Dua Convention Center was jam-packed at 845 in the morning, with representatives from different countries in the Asia-Pacific region and all over the globe joining the first regional conference on open data hosted by the Government of Indonesia. The conference stage backdrop depicts a million colourful cranes moving in one direction towards the OGP logo, perhaps signalling an unprecedented wave of aspirations, commitments, plans, and actions towards a more ‘open’ governance within the region. Then a few minutes later, President Yudhoyono arrived and the two-day gathering (6-7 May 2014) of roughly 500 people started.

The program was impressive. It tried to cater to the different voices of what ideally should make an open government community – government leaders, journalists, right-to-information activists, business representatives, academia, researchers, civil-society groups, funding agencies, programmers, among others. The over-arching theme of the conference “Unlocking Innovative Openness: Impetus to Greater Citizen Engagement” speaks to both the supply side and the demand side of open data where governments can make openness more innovative to which citizens can proactively engage. The people in attendance reflected this multi-dimensionality and the kind of discussions on open governance that happened in Day 1 reflects the several, differentiated, yet somehow united view and interests of the many people that were there.

The first day of the conference brings me to four main realisations, prompted by the excellent presentations of the speakers and the lively discussion at the break-out session that I attended.

Openness is not an option but an imperative. Aruna Roy, founder of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathanaof India, and considered one of the most influential thinkers of this decade put it more vividly using her organization’s slogan – “right to know, right to live”. While bureaucrats, like Minister Francis Maude of the UK argued that openness improve transparency, enhance public service, and stimulate growth, civil society groups claimed that openness is not something the government can do, but must do, to benefit right holders by ensuring that they are not only aware of what the government is doing but by ensuring that government leaders, to whom citizens entrust sovereignty, execute the will of the governed.
Open governance is about relations, about people, not just about technology, transparency, or data provision. Ms. Nwe Zin Win, of Myanmar National NGOs Network emphasized that as Myanmar moves towards Open Government Partnership (OGP) membership, the process should create a space for civil society groups to proactively participate. In his remarks, Director General Yoon Soon-Gu of the Republic of Korea emphasized that when his government embarked on the process of crafting Gov 3.0 as a development agenda, with the end-goal of making Koreans live a happy life, citizen consultations were conducted all across government to ensure that this plan is responsive and relevant and reflects the people’s aspirations. Anne Jellema, CEO of World Wide Web Foundation highlighted the fact that open governance is not only good for vertical accountability (government-governed) but also about horizontal accountability (agencies within the same government) and ensures that systems are working with government – judiciary, legislative, audit, executing agencies – for the common good. Open governance then, is about building that relationship of trust between government and citizens, between business and government, and between agencies in the government.
Open government has many challenges, but these are not insurmountable. Malou Mangahas of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism emphasized five “I”s in her plenary speech that she said are the main challenges to the open government story in the Philippines and in the region – implementation, inclusiveness, information, institutionalisation, and interconnectedness. In the area of inclusiveness, one of the challenges is on how to ensure that people can participate in a context when there is a large digital divide, where internet penetration is low, and broadband speed is slow to a crawl. Mr. Samadhi of the Government of Indonesia emphasized that there are many examples in his country where government information is translated to accessible formats by infomediaries so that citizens without internet connection became aware, informed, and knowledgeable. In one of the coffee breaks, Redempto Parafina of the Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific shared to me that non-government organizations, concerned individuals, and universities translate information in the CheckmySchool portal to information materials for distribution and use by communities without internet.
Open governance narrative should focus on making governments more responsive and accountable. President Yudhoyono uses Facebook and Twitter, apart from the traditional media as text and snail mail, to listen to the demands of his constituents. The Government of New Zealand, according to Minister Peter Dunne, sets goals on basic public services as health, education, and employment and demands regular public reporting on these goals; reports that can be accessed and challenged by the people to whom the services are intended. Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society argued that open governance should not veer away from this narrative. He made an example regarding India’s Unique Identification System, where the implementation is couched within the open data narrative. He believed that open governance is more about citizens checking on what government leaders are doing than on government coding its citizens to exercise surveillance.

It was a productive day. I am thankful that I was afforded the opportunity to attend the conference. One message that profoundly affected me was Aruna Roy’s exhortation at the end of her presentation – that we should make truth powerful, and that we should make power truthful.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/open-government-partnership-michael-canares-may-6-2014-pushing-the-boundaries-in-open-governance

Round-table on User Safety Internet

praskrishna — 2014-05-06T09:53:02Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/user-safety-internet.pdf

Transparency and Privacy

praskrishna — 2014-05-06T04:07:57Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/transparency-and-privacy.zip

National Security and Privacy

praskrishna — 2014-05-06T04:03:28Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/national-security-and-privacy.zip

Identity and Privacy

praskrishna — 2014-05-06T04:00:07Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/identity-and-privacy.zip

GSMA Partners Meeting

praskrishna — 2014-05-05T07:03:40Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/gsma-partners-meeting.pdf

WIP SCCR 27 (May 1, 2014)

praskrishna — 2014-05-05T00:07:10Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-day-4-may-1-2014.pdf

WIPO SCCR 27 (April 29, 2014)

praskrishna — 2014-05-05T00:02:08Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-day-2-april-29-2014.pdf

WIPO SCCR 27 (April 28, 2014)

praskrishna — 2014-05-04T23:54:18Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-day-1-april-28-2014.pdf

OGP Asia Pacific Regional Conference

praskrishna — 2014-06-03T12:03:55Z

Open Government Partnership is organizing this conference in Bali on May 6 and 7, 2014. Sunil Abraham is a speaker for this event.

This was published on the website of Open Government Partnership

Below are the speakers and moderators that will participate in the Asia Pacific Regional Conference on 6-7 May 2014 per 5th of May 2014.

Plenary 1: 10.25 – 11.10

Reflective statements by Heads of Delegations and CSO Representatives of OGP Asian Participating Countries, followed by Q&A

Ms. Natalia Soebagjo, Chair, Executive Board, Transparency International Indonesia

Hon. Peter Dunne, Minister of Internal Affairs, New Zealand

Mr. Yoon Soon-Gu, Director-General Ministry of Security & Public Administration (MOSPA), Republic of Korea

Mr. Gan-Ochir, Advisor of Prime Minister, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of Mongolia

Ms. Malou Mangahas, Executive Director, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

Ms. Suneeta Kaimal, Support CSO Chair of OGP (Moderator)

Plenary 2: 11.10 – 11.55

Reflective statements by Heads of Delegations and CSO Representatives of Non-OGP Participating Countries, followed by Q&A

H.E. Mr. Ahsan Iqbal, Federal Minister for Planning, Development and Reforms, Pakistan

Ms. Nwe Zin Win, Chairperson, Myanmar National NGOs Network

H.E. Mr. Rimbink Pato, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Immigration, Papua New Guinea

Ms. Aruna Roy, Founder, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathana

H.E. Mr. Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, United Kingdom

Mr. Wicaksono Sarosa, Executive Director, Kemitraan/Partnership for Governance Reform (Moderator)

Breakout Session: 14.15 – 16.15

Topic 1 Opening up: Inspiring Stories from Transparent and Accountable Local Governments

A panel on how local governments become open governments; experiences from local governments in the Asia Pacific region.

Co-organized by: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH and UKP-PPP

Ridwan Kamil, Mayor of Bandung, Government of Indonesia

Sad Dian Utomo, Executive Director, PATTIRO

Thy Try, Executive Director Open Development Cambodia

Vidyadhar Mallik, former Minister for Local Government and Federal Affairs, Nepal

Aparna Daz, GIZ Sustainable Urban Habitat Programme

Dr. Birgit Kerstan (Moderator)

Topic 2 Open Data in Asia-Pacific: a Cross-Country Learning Discussion

The session seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the key enablers and obstacles in unlocking the benefits from open data in the region.

Co-organized by: Web Foundation, World Bank, and UKP-PPP

T. Nirarta Samadhi, Deputy Head President's Delivery Unit on Development Monitoring and Oversight, Government of Indonesia (UKP-PPP)

Ivygail Ong, Department of Budget and Management, Philippines

Anne Jellema, CEO, World Wide Web Foundation

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society

Soong Sup Lee, Lead Information Officer, Development Economics Data Group, World Bank

Andreas Pawelke, Project Manager, World Wide Web Foundation (Moderator)

Topic 3 Perfecting Openness: Bridging Open Government Partnership and Traditional Access to Information Law

The session seeks to elaborate on implementation of law on freedom of information (FOI)/ access to information (ATI) in the region.

Co-organized by: PATTIRO and UKP-PPP

Claudia Taya, Office’s Director for Corruption Prevention, Office of Comptroller General of Brazil
John Fresly, Information Commission Indonesia
Under Secretary Abigail Valte, Deputy Presidential Spokesperson, Office of the President, Philippines
Zahid Abdullah, Program Manager, Centre for Peace and Development Initiatives
Maryati Abdullah, Publish What You Pay Indonesia, OGP Steering Committee Member (Moderator)

Topic 4 Roundtable on Open and Good Governance in Post-2015 Development Agenda

The roundtable aims to brainstorm and discuss the central role of transparency, public participation and accountability to achieve sustainable development in various contexts, with a focus of Asia-Pacific region.

Organized by: UKP-PPP

Noeleen Heyzer, Special Adviser of the United Nations Secretary General for Timor-Leste

Iftekhar Zaman, Executive Director, Transparency International, Bangladesh

Sugeng Bahagijo, Executive Director, INFID

Beate Trankmann, Country Director, United Nations Development Programme, Indonesia

Yanuar Nugroho, Special Advisor to the Indonesian President's Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight (Moderator)

Topic 5 Measuring Civic Engagement for Better Open Government Policies and Services

The session aims to present and discuss international principles and good practices on how to measure citizens’ participation throughout the full cycle of governance in the Asia-Pacific Region.

Organized by: OECD and UKP-PPP

Ms. Inda Loekman, Program Manager for Indonesia Governance Index (IGI), Kemitraan

Mr. Juan Carlos Botero, Executive Director, The World Justice Project

Mr. Toby Iles, Senior Analyst, Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)

Ms. Dra. RD Siliwanti, Direktur Politik dan Komunikasi, Bappenas

Mr. Paul Maltby, Director of Open Data and Government Innovation, Cabinet Office, UK

Ms. Keitha Booth, Programme Leader, Open Government Information and Data Programme, Land Information, New Zealand

Mr. Zeric K. Smith, Deputy Director, Office of Democratic Governance, USAID Indonesia

Mr. Alessandro Bellantoni, Policy Analyst and Project Manager, OECD (Moderator)

Topic 6 OGP-GIFT Fiscal Openness Working Group Session

The session aims to share experiences and lessons learned from Asian countries who have noticeably improved their fiscal openness policies, institutions, and practices especially in utilizing government budget transparency for public services solutions and citizen engagement.

Co-organized by: Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT) Fiscal Openness Working Group and UKP-PPP

Malou Mangahas, Executive Director, Philippines Center for Investigative Journalism

Murray Petrie, GIFT Technical Expert

David Gentry, Advisor, International Monetary Fund

Suyoto, Regent of Bojonegoro, Government of Indonesia

Joko Purwanto, Bojonegoro Institute, Indonesia

Dr. Juan Pablo Guerrero, GIFT Network Director (Moderator)

Warren Krafchik, International Budget Partnership (Moderator)

Jim Brumby, World Bank (Moderator)

Topic 7 Building Trust between Private and Public Sectors for a Competitive and Sustainable Economy

The session aims to explore participative strategies for the private sector to express their expectations of government while demonstrating willingness to take shared accountability that encourages openness and transparency.

Co-organized by: Indonesia Global Compact Network (IGCN) and UKP-PPP

H.E. Mr. Stig Traavik, Royal Norwegian Ambassador to Indonesia

Thomas Darmawan, Chairman, AP5I (The Indonesian Fishery Product Processing & Marketing Association)

Erick Stephens, Chief Technology Officer, Microsoft Asia Pacific

Peter Bakker, President, World Business Council for Sustainable Development

David Brain, President & CEO, Edelman Asia Pacific, Middle East & Africa

Andrew Wilson, Co-Chair of the Council on Private Sector Engagement and CIPE Deputy Director, Programs and Strategic Planning

Ahmad Yuniarto, Chairman, Schlumberger Indonesia (moderator)

Topic 8 OGP 101: Everything You Need To Know About Open Government Partnership

This session will introduce participants to the Open Government Partnership and familiarize attendees with key OGP institutional processes, requirements for participation, and resources available to participant countries.

Organized by: OGP Support Unit

Abhinav Bahl, Director, Global Integrity

Jack Mahoney, Program Associate, OGP Support Unit

Patrick Lim, Department of Budget and Management of Philippines and OGP SC member (TBC)

Alejandro Gonzales, GESOC and OGP SC member (TBC)

Plenary 3: 16.45 – 17.45

Topic Keeping an Open Mind: Perspectives from Other Region

This session aims to explore the elements of success in achieving a more open government in other regions and also the unique nature of each region that must be taken into account in moving forward.

H.E. Robert Blake, US Ambassador to Indonesia

Mr. Paul Maltby, Director for Transparency and Open Data for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, OGP SC Member

Ms. Roberta Solis Ribeiro, Chief International Affairs Advisor, Office of the Comptroller General of Brazil

Mr. Alejandro Gonzalez, Director General, GESOC, OGP SC Member

Mr. Martin Tisne, Director, Policy, Omidyar Network, OGP SC Member

Mr. Warren Krafchik, Director, International Budget Partnership, OGP SC Member (Moderator)

Day 2, Wednesday, 7 May 2014

Lightning Talks Session: 09.12 – 10.1509.12 – 10.15

Topic Lightning Talks on Open Government Solutions

In this session, seven individuals from government, the private sector and civil society will present case studies of innovative and impactful open government reforms in Asia Pacific.

Diah Setiawaty, API Pemilu, Perludem (Association for Elections & Democracy), Indonesia

Jose Solomon Cortez, The Integrity Initiative, Makati Business Club, Philippines

Budiyanto Sidiki, E-Monitoring & Evaluation, Gorontalo Province, Indonesia

Sowmya Kidambi, Society of Social Audit, State of Andhra Pradesh, India

Sayed Ikram Afzali, Community-Based Monitoring Program, Integrity Watch Afghanistan

Undral Gombodorj, Check My Service, Democracy Education Center Mongolia (DEMO)

Fiona Tweedie, GovHack, Open Knowledge Foundation Australia

Wimar Witoelar, Founder, InterMatrix Communication (Moderator)

Breakout Session 1: 10.15 – 10.45

Topic 1 How To (& Not To) Open Data: Lessons on Designing and Implementing Open Data Interventions

The session seeks to present practical recommendations and discuss the key factors that need to be considered when designing and implementing successful and sustainable open data initiatives, or a project that has open data at the core of its design. Co-organized by: Web Foundation, World Bank, and UKP-PPP

Satyarupa Shekhar, Transparent Chennai

Gabriel Baleos, Co-Lead Coordinator Open Data Philippines, Department of Budget and Management

John Taylor, Director, Yayasan Kota Kita

Promita Sengupta, Head of Rule of Law Program, GIZ Bangladesh

Dr. Vijay Pingale, Joint Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, India

Ramda Yanurzha, Ambassador for Open Knowledge Indonesia

Daniel Dietrich, Steering Committee Member, OGP Open Data Working Group (Moderator)

Topic 2 Be the Change! Social Accountability Success Stories and Obstacles

The session seeks to provide an overview of the topic of citizen empowerment, with leaders sharing insights on lessons learned, success stories, and obstacles.

Co-organized by: Hivos, Omidyar Network, and UKP-PPP

Nikhil Dey, MKSS

Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, Head of Indonesian President's Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight

Undersecretary Richard Moya, Department of Budget and Management, Government of the Philippines

Marjan Besuijen, Director, Making All Voices Count

Otgonbayar Chimeddorj, Legal and Procurement Policy Department, Ministry of Finance, Mongolia

Rakesh Rajani, Head, Twaweza (Moderator)

Topic 3 Transparent and Accountable Policing for Safer Community

The panel aims to discuss ways in which transparency and public participation can improve policing policies, practices and outcomes.

Co-organized by: Open Society Foundations (OSF), Tifa Foundation, and UKP-PPP

Brigjen Pol Moch Naufal Yahya, Coordinator for Bureaucracy Reform, Indonesia National Police

Geo Sung-Kim, Chairperson, Transparency International South Korea

Wajahat Habibullah, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) India

Monica Tanuhandaru, National Project Coordinator, United Nation on Drugs and Crime (Moderator)

Topic 4 Sustaining the Open Government Partnership: Youth as New Agent of Open Governance

The session aims to provide platforms for young people to exchange views on transparency, public participation and accountability and also to explore meaningful ways to sustain youth participation in OGP.

Organized by: UKP-PPP

Haidy Ear-Dupuy, Social Development Specialist, Asian Development Bank
Zaw Win Than, Chief of Staff, The Myanmar Times
Joel Mark Barredo, ASEAN Youth Movement
Clara Fok, Amnesty International
Ou Ritthy, Oxfam Cambodia
Lia Toriana, Transparency International Indonesia
Emily Swan, Fudan University
Gatra Priyandita, Asia Pacific Youth Organization (Moderator)

Topic 5 Opening Government: Citizen Engagement in Policymaking

This session will explore examples of good practice of citizen engagement in government policymaking and will apply the principles and lessons discussed to the development and implementation of OGP National Action Plans.

Organized by: OGP Support Unit

Tim Hughes, Involve
Shita Laksmi, Program Manager, Southeast Asia Technology and Transparency Initiative (SEATTI), Hivos Regional Office Southeast Asia
Sowmya Kidambi, Society for Social Audit, Accountability and Transparency (SSAAT), India
Patrick Lim, Department of Budget and Management of Philippines and OGP SC member
Maryati Abdullah, Publish What You Pay Indonesia, OGP Steering Committee Member
Linda Frey. Executive Director, OGP Support Unit (Moderator)

Breakout Session 2: 14.00 – 16.00

Topic 1 Co-creation and Partnership: Improving Service Delivery through Social Accountability

This session aims to “dig deep”, focusing on social accountability in service delivery, with a special emphasis on partnerships.

Co-organized by: Hivos, Omidyar Network, and UKP-PPP

Dr. Kemal Siregar, Secretary of the National AIDS Commission (KPAN), Indonesia
Aditya Wardhana, AIDS Coalition, Indonesia
Redempto S. Parafina, The Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific (ANSA-EAP)
Mr. Michael Macaulay, Transparency International, New Zealand
Gordon Davis, Head of Legal & Integrity Advice Group, New Zealand Government
Maria Ressa, CEO and Executive Director, RAPPLER INC (Moderator)

Topic 2 Civil Society and the Media: Levers for Transparency, Participation, and Accountability

This session seeks to highlight the ways in which citizen empowerment interacts with a lively media, and ways in which a proactive media environment can contribute to accountability.

Co-organized by: Hivos, Omidyar Network, and UKP-PPP

Adnan Pandu Praja, Commissioner of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Indonesia
Umar Idris, Independent Journalist Alliance
Malou Mangahas, Philippines Centre for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ)
Thaung Su Nyein, CEO, Information Matrix
John Wonderlich, Sunlight Foundation
Stephen King, Partner, Omidyar Network (Moderator)

Topic 3 Better Access to Information for Better Accountability and Public Services Delivery

The session will explore some ideas in developing coherent relationship between government and non-government representatives in implementing transparency as well as access to information and the relation of these strategies to quality improvement of public service delivery.

Co-organized by: PATTIRO and UKP-PPP

Sad Dian Utomo, Executive Director, PATTIRO
Juan Pablo Guerrero, Secretary General, Federal Institute for Access to Information & Data Protection, Mexico
Tanka Raj Aryal, Executive Director, Citizen's Campaign for Right to Information, Nepal
Gulbaz Khan, Senior Manager, Governance and Capacity Development Citizen Engagement for Social Service Delivery
Yuli Ismartono, Board of Editors, Tempo (Moderator)

Topic 4 Legislative Openness Working Group Workshop: Building Openness and Citizen Engagement in the Legislative Process

The session will focus on positive examples of legislative openness and citizen engagement projects from the Asia region and around the world, seeking to present options that are at a range of stages of development in terms of their methods for openness and citizen engagement.

Co-organized by: Legislative Openness Working Group and UKP-PPP

Hon. Eva Kusuma Sundari, Member of the House of Representatives, Indonesia
Hon. Peter Dunne, Minister of Internal Affairs, New Zealand
Dante Preisser, Senior Advisor to Senator Arely Gómez González, Senate Member, Chair Committee on the Guarantee of Access to Information and Transparency, Mexico
Lucy Park, Director, Team POPONG, South Korea
Chaksu Roy, Head of Outreach, PRS Legislative Research, India
Dan Swislow, National Democratic Institute (Moderator)

Topic 5 Models of Openness in Sustainable Natural Resources Management

The session aims to discuss and explore options for cooperation and strategies in developing greater transparency and civic participation mechanisms in the natural resources management both at national and sub-national level.

Co-organized by: Indonesian Center for Environmental Law (ICEL), Publish What You Pay (PWYP), RWI (Revenue Watch Institute), and UKP-PPP

Emanuel Bria, Senior Associate for Asia Pacific, Revenue Watch Institute
Lalanath de Silva, Director, The Access Initiative Global Network
Suyoto, Regent of Bojonegoro, Government of Indonesia
Elisea G. Gozun, Board of Trustees, Government Social Insurance System (GSIS), Philippines
Josi Khatarina, REDD+ Agency Special Team (Moderator)

Closing Plenary: 16.30 – 17.30

Topic Take Actions! Innovative Openness in Asia Pacific

The session would feature one representative from each different groups of community that are represented at the Conference who will provide brief impression on their two-day experience and mark their respective action plan to drive further innovative openness.

Maryati Abdullah, OGP Steering Committee Member, Publish What You Pay Indonesia
Dr. Michael James Macaulay, Deputy Director of the Institute of Governance and Policy Studies, Australia
Mr. Ahmad Yuniarto, CEO of Schlumberger Indonesia
Phil Matsheza, Practice Leader, Democratic Governance, Asia-Pacific Regional Centre, UNDP
Joel Mark Barredo, ASEAN Youth Movement
Ms. Czarina Medina, Executive Director, Union of Local Authorities of The Philippines
Wimar Witoelar, Founder, InterMatrix Communication (Moderator)

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/open-govt-partnership-asia-pacific-regional-conference-may-6-7-2014

WIPO SCCR 27 Text (May 1, 2014)

praskrishna — 2014-05-02T23:44:20Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-may-1-2014.txt

WIPO SCCR Text (April 28, 2014)

praskrishna — 2014-05-05T00:35:07Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-28_sccr.txt

WIPO Signing Ceremony for Marakkesh Treaty

praskrishna — 2014-05-02T23:18:49Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-marakkesh-treaty