The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 21 to 31.
Automated Facial Recognition Systems (AFRS): Responding to Related Privacy Concerns
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/automated-facial-recognition-systems-afrs-responding-to-related-privacy-concerns
<b>Arindrajit Basu and Siddharth Sonkar have co-written this blog as the second of their three-part blog series on AI Policy Exchange under the parent title: Is there a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy from Data Aggregation by Automated Facial Recognition Systems? </b>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Supreme Court of India, in <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91938676/">Puttaswamy I</a><em> </em>recognized<em> </em>that
the right to privacy is not surrendered merely because the individual
is in a public place. Privacy is linked to the individual as it is an
essential facet of human dignity. Justice Chelameswar further clarified
that privacy is contextual. Even in a public setting, people trying to
converse in whispers would signal a claim to the right to privacy.
Speaking on a loudspeaker would naturally not signal the same claim.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court of Canada has also affirmed the notion of
contextual privacy. As recently as on 7 March, 2019, the Supreme Court
of Canada <a href="http://www.thecourt.ca/r-v-jarvis-carving-out-a-contextual-approach-to-privacy/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">in a landmark decision</a> defined privacy rights in public areas implicitly applying <a href="https://crypto.stanford.edu/portia/papers/RevnissenbaumDTP31.pdf">Helena Nissenbaum’s theory of contextual integrity</a>.
Helena Nissenbaum explains that the extent to which the right to
privacy is eroded in public spaces with the help of her theory of
contextual integrity.</p>
<p>Nissenbaum suggests that labelling information as exclusively public
or private fails to take into account the context which rationalises the
desire of the individual to exercise her privacy in public. To explain
this with an illustration, there exists a reasonable expectation of
privacy in the restroom of a restaurant, even though it is in a public
space.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.thecourt.ca/r-v-jarvis-carving-out-a-contextual-approach-to-privacy/"><em>R v Jarvis</em></a> (Jarvis), the Court overruled a Court of Appeal for Ontario <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2017/2017onca778/2017onca778.pdf">decision</a>
to hold that people can have a reasonable expectation of privacy even
in public spaces. In this case, Jarvis was charged with the offence of
voyeurism for secretly recording his students. The primary issue that
the Supreme Court of Canada was concerned with was whether the students
filmed by Mr. Jarvis enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy at
their school.</p>
<p>The Court in this case unanimously held that students did indeed have
a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court concluded nine
contextual factors relevant in determining whether a person has a
reasonable expectation to privacy would arise. The listed factors were:</p>
<p>“1. The location the person was in when he or she was observed or recorded,</p>
<p>2. The nature of the impugned conduct (whether it consisted of observation or recording),</p>
<p>3. Awareness of or consent to potential observation or recording,</p>
<p>4. The manner in which the observation or recording was done,</p>
<p>5. The subject matter or content of the observation or recording,</p>
<p>6. Any rules, regulations or policies that governed the observation or recording in question,</p>
<p>7. The relationship between the person who was observed or recorded and the person who did the observing or recording,</p>
<p>8. The purpose for which the observation or recording was done, and</p>
<p>9. The personal attributes of the person who was observed or recorded.” (paragraph 29 of the judgement).</p>
<p>The Court emphasized that the factors are not an exhaustive list, but
rather were meant to be a guiding tool in determining whether a
reasonable expectation of privacy existed in a given context. It is not
necessary that each of these factors is present in a given situation to
give rise to an expectation of privacy.</p>
<p>Compared to the above-mentioned factors in Jarvis, the Indian Supreme Court in <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/">Justice K.S Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India</a>: Justice Sikri (Puttaswamy II) <strong>—</strong>
the case which upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar project
relied on the following factors to determine a reasonable expectation of
privacy in a given context:</p>
<p>“(i) What is the context in which a privacy claim is set up?</p>
<p>(ii) Does the claim relate to private or family life, or a confidential relationship?</p>
<p>(iii) Is the claim a serious one or is it trivial?</p>
<p>(iv) Is the disclosure likely to result in any serious or significant injury and the nature and extent of disclosure?</p>
<p>(v) Is disclosure relates to personal and sensitive information of an identified person?</p>
<p>(vi) Does disclosure relate to information already disclosed publicly? If so, its implication?”</p>
<p>These factors (acknowledged in Puttaswamy II in paragraph 292) seem
to be very similar to the ones laid down in Jarvis, i.e., there is a
strong reliance on the context in both cases. While there is no explicit
mention of individual attributes of the individual claiming a
reasonable expectation, the holding that children should be given an opt
out indicates that the Court implicitly takes into account personal
attributes (e.g. age) as well.</p>
<p>The Court in Jarvis further (in paragraph 39) took the example of a
woman in a communal change room at a public pool. She may expect other
users to incidentally observe her undress but she would continue to
expect only other women in the change room to observe her and reserve
her rights against the general public. She would also expect not to be
video recorded or photographed while undressing, both from other users
of the pool and by the general public. </p>
<p>If it is later found out that the change room had a one-way glass
which allowed the pool staff to view the users change — or if there was a
concealed camera recording persons while they were changing, she could
claim a breach of her reasonable expectation of privacy under such
circumstances and it would constitute an invasion of privacy.</p>
<p><strong>So, in the context of an AFRS, an individual walking down a
public road may still signal that they wish to avail of their right to
privacy. In such contexts, a concerted surveillance mechanism may come
up against constitutional roadblocks.</strong></p>
<p><strong>What is the nature of information being collected?</strong></p>
<p>The second big question <strong>—</strong> the nature of information
which is being collected plays a role in determining the extent to which
a person can exercise their reasonable expectation of privacy.
Puttaswamy II laid down that collection of core biometric information
such as fingerprints, iris scans in the context of the Aadhaar-Based
Biometric Authentication (‘ABBA’) is constitutionally permissible. The
basis of this conclusion is that the Aadhaar Act does not deal with the
individual’s intimate or private sphere.</p>
<p>The judgement of the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy II is in a very
specific context (i.e. the ABBA). It does not explain or identify the
contextual factors which determine the extent to which privacy may be
reasonably expected over biometrics generally. In this judgment, the
Court observed that demographic information and photographs do not raise
a reasonable expectation of privacy under Article 21 unless there exist
special circumstances such as the disclosure of juveniles in conflict
of law or a rape victim’s identity.</p>
<p><strong>Most importantly, the Court held that face photographs for
the purpose of identification are not covered by a reasonable
expectation of privacy. The Court distinguished face photographs from
intimate photographs or those photographs which concern confidential
situations. </strong></p>
<p><strong>Face photographs, according to the Court, are shared by
individuals in the ordinary course of conduct for the purpose of
obtaining a driving </strong>l<strong>icense, voter id, passport,
examination admit cards, employment cards, and so on. Face photographs
by themselves reveal no information.</strong></p>
<p>Naturally, this pronouncement of the Apex Court is a huge boost for the introduction of AFRS in India.</p>
<p>Abroad, however, on 4 September 2019, in <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/bridges-swp-judgment-Final03-09-19-1.pdf">Edward Bridges v. Chief Constable of South Wales Police</a>, a Division Bench of the High Court in England and Wales heard a challenge against an AFRS introduced by law enforcement (<em>see</em>
Endnote 1). The High Court rejected a claim for judicial review holding
that the AFRS in question does not violate inter alia the right to
privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights
(‘ECHR’).</p>
<p>According to the Court, the AFRS was used for specific and limited
purposes, i.e., only when the image of the public matched a person on an
existing watchlist. The use of the AFRS was therefore considered a
lawful and fair restriction.</p>
<p>The Court, however, acknowledged that extracting biometric data
through AFRS is “well beyond the expected and unsurprising”. This seems
to be a departure from the Indian Supreme Court’s observation in
Puttaswamy II that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy over
biometric data in the context of ABBA, and may be a wiser approach for
the Indian courts to adopt.</p>
<h6><strong>Endnote </strong></h6>
<p>1. The challenge was put forth by Edward Bridges, a civil liberties
campaigner from Cardiff for being caught on camera in two particular
deployments of the AFRS a) when he was at Queen Street, a busy shopping
area in Cardiff and b) when he was at the Defence Procurement, Research,
Technology and Exportability Exhibition held at the Motorpoint Arena.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This was published by <a class="external-link" href="https://aipolicyexchange.org/2019/12/28/automated-facial-recognition-systems-afrs-responding-to-related-privacy-concerns/">AI Policy Exchange</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/automated-facial-recognition-systems-afrs-responding-to-related-privacy-concerns'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/automated-facial-recognition-systems-afrs-responding-to-related-privacy-concerns</a>
</p>
No publisherArindrajit Basu, Siddharth SonkarCybersecurityCyber Securityinternet governanceInternet Governance2020-01-02T14:09:14ZBlog EntryDecrypting Automated Facial Recognition Systems (AFRS) and Delineating Related Privacy Concerns
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/decrypting-automated-facial-recognition-systems-afrs-and-delineating-related-privacy-concerns
<b>Arindrajit Basu and Siddharth Sonkar have co-written this blog as the first of their three-part blog series on AI Policy Exchange under the parent title: Is there a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy from Data Aggregation by Automated Facial Recognition Systems?</b>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The use of aggregated Big Data by governments has the potential to
exacerbate power asymmetries and erode civil liberties like few
technologies of the past. In order to guard against the aggressive
aggregation and manipulation of the data generated by individuals who
are branded as suspect, it is critical that our firmly established
constitutional rights protect human dignity in the face of this
potential erosion.</p>
<p>The increasing ubiquity of Automated Facial Recognition Systems
(AFRS) serve as a prime example of the rising desire of governments to
push fundamental rights to the brink. With AFRS, the core fundamental
right in question is privacy, although questions have been posed
regarding the potential violation of other related rights, such as the
Right to Equality and the Right to Free Speech and Expression, as well.</p>
<p>There is a rich corpus of literature, (see <a href="https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/digital-identification-facial-recognition-system-ncrb-5859072/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/40-1-11.pdf" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">here</a> and an excellent recent paper by Smriti Parsheera <a href="http://datagovernance.org/report/adoption-and-regulation-of-facial-recognition-technologies-in-india" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">here)</a>
from a diverse coterie of scholars that call out the challenges posed
by AFRS, particularly with respect to its proportionality as a
restriction over the right to privacy. Our contribution to this
discourse focuses on a very specific question around a ‘reasonable
expectation of privacy’ — the standard identified for the protection of
privacy in public spaces across jurisdictions, including in India. This
is because at this juncture, the precise nature of the AFRS which will
eventually be used and the regulations it will be subject to are not
clear. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91938676/'">Retd. K.S </a><a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91938676/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India</a>:
Justice Chandrachud (Puttaswamy I), the Indian Supreme Court was
concerned with the question whether there exists a fundamental right to
privacy under the Indian Constitution. A nine-judge bench of the Court
recognized that the right to privacy is a fundamental right implicit
inter alia in the right to life within Article 21 of the Constitution.</p>
<p>The right to privacy protects people and not places. Every person is
entitled, however, to a reasonable expectation of privacy. The
expectation of privacy must be twofold. First, the person must prove
that the alleged act could inflict some harm. Such harm must be real and
not be speculative or imaginary. Second, society must recognize this
expectation as reasonable. The test of reasonable expectations is
contextual, i.e., the extent to which it safeguards privacy depends on
the place at which the individual is.</p>
<p>In order to pass any constitutional test, therefore, AFRS must
satisfy the ‘reasonable expectation’ test articulated in Puttaswamy.
However, in this context, the test itself has multiple contours. Do we
have a right to privacy in a public place? Is AFRS collecting any data
that specifically violates a right to privacy? Is the aggregation of
that data a potential violation?</p>
<p>After providing a brief introduction to the use cases of AFRS in
India and across the world, we embark upon answering all these
questions.</p>
<p><strong>Primer on Automated Facial Recognition Systems (AFRS)</strong></p>
<p>Facial recognition is a biometric technology that utilises cameras to
match stored or live footage of individuals (including both stills and
moving footage) with images or video from an existing database. Some
systems might also be used to analyze broader demographic trends or
conduct sentiment analysis through crowd scanning.</p>
<p>While the use of photographs and video footage have been core
components of police investigation, the use of algorithms to process
vast tracts of Big Data (characterized by ‘Volume, Velocity, and
Variety), and compare disparate and discrete data points allows for the
derivation of hitherto unfeasible insights on the subjects of Big Data.</p>
<p>The utilisation of AFRS for law enforcement is rapidly spreading around the world. <a href="https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/09/17/global-expansion-of-ai-surveillance-pub-79847" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">A Global AI Surveillance Index</a>
compiled by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace found that
at least sixty-four countries are incorporating facial recognition
systems into their AI surveillance programs.</p>
<p>Chinese technology company Yitu has entered into a partnership with
security forces in Malaysia to equip police officers with facial
recognition body cameras that, powered by enabling technologies, would
allow a comparison of images caught by the live body cameras with images
from several central databases.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/met-polices-facial-recognition-tech-has-81-error-rate-independent-report-says-11755941" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">England and Wales</a>,
London Metropolitan Police, South Wales Police, and Leicestershire
Police are all in the process of developing technologies that allow for
the identification and comparison of live images with those stored in a
database.</p>
<p>The technology is being developed by Japanese firm NEC and the police
force has limited ability to oversee or modify the software, given its
proprietary nature. The Deputy Chief of South Wales Police stated that
“the tech is given to [them] as a sealed box… [and the police force
themselves] have no input – whatever it does, it does what it does.”</p>
<p>In the US, <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/publications/criminal-justice-magazine/2019/spring/facial-recognition-technology/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Baltimore’s police</a>
set up facial recognition cameras to track and arrest protestors — a
system that reached its zenith during the 2018 riots in the city. </p>
<p>It is suspected that authorities in <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/10/23/asia-pacific/hong-kong-protests-ai-facial-recognition-tech/#.Xf1Fs_zhVPY" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Hong Kong</a> are also using AFRS to clamp down on the ongoing pro-democracy protests.</p>
<p>In India, the Ministry of Home Affairs, through the National Crime Records Bureau put out a <a href="http://ncrb.gov.in/TENDERS/AFRS/RFP_NAFRS.pdf" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">tender for a new AFRS</a>,
whose stated objective is to “act as a foundation for national level
searchable platform of facial images.” The AFRS will pull facial image
data from CCTV feeds and compare these with existing records across
databases including the Crime and Criminal Tracking Networks and Systems
(CCTNS), Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (or ICJS), Immigration
Visa Foreigner Registration Tracking (IVFRT), Passport, Prisons and
state police records.</p>
<p>Plans are also afoot to integrate this with the yet to be deployed
National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS), thereby
creating a multi-faceted surveillance system.</p>
<p>Despite raising eyeballs due to its potential all-pervasive scope,
this tender is not the first instance of AFRS being used by Indian
authorities. Punjab Police, <a href="https://www.livemint.com/AI/DIh6fmR6croUJps6x7JW5K/Meet-Staqu-a-startup-helping-Indian-law-enforcement-agencie.html" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">in partnership with Gurugram-based start-up Staqu</a>
has launched and commenced implementation of the Punjab Artificial
Intelligence System (PAIS) which uses digitised criminal records and
automated facial recognition to retrieve information on a suspected
criminal and essentially tracks their public whereabouts, which poses
potential constitutional questions.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This was published by <a class="external-link" href="https://aipolicyexchange.org/2019/12/26/decrypting-automated-facial-recognition-systems-afrs-and-delineating-related-privacy-concerns/">AI Policy Exchange</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/decrypting-automated-facial-recognition-systems-afrs-and-delineating-related-privacy-concerns'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/decrypting-automated-facial-recognition-systems-afrs-and-delineating-related-privacy-concerns</a>
</p>
No publisherArindrajit Basu, Siddharth SonkarCybersecurityCyber Securityinternet governanceInternet Governance2020-01-02T14:01:48ZBlog EntryCall for Comments: Model Security Standards for the Indian Fintech Industry
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/call-for-comments-model-security-standards-for-the-indian-fintech-industry
<b></b>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society is pleased to make available the Draft document of Model Security Standards for the Indian Fintech Industry, for feedback and comments from all stakeholders. The objective of this document which was first published in November 2019, is to ensure that the data of users is dealt with in a secure and safe manner by the Fintech Industry, and that smaller businesses in the Fintech industry have a specific standard to look at in order to limit their liabilities for any future breaches. <br /><br />We invite any parties interested in the field of technology policy, including but not limited to lawyers, policy researchers, and engineers, to send in your feedback/comments on the draft document by the 16th of January 2020. We intend to publish our final draft by the end of January 2020. We look forward to receiving your contributions to make this document more comprehensive and effective. Please find a copy of the draft document <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/security-standards-for-the-financial-technology-sector-in-india" class="internal-link" title="Security Standards for the Financial Technology Sector in India">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/call-for-comments-model-security-standards-for-the-indian-fintech-industry'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/call-for-comments-model-security-standards-for-the-indian-fintech-industry</a>
</p>
No publisherpranavFinancial TechnologyCybersecurityinternet governanceInternet GovernanceCyber Security2019-12-16T13:16:25ZBlog EntryICANN Begins its Sojourn into Open Data
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/icann-begins-its-sojourn-into-open-data
<b>The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) recently announced that it will now set up a pilot project in order to introduce an Open Data initiative for all data that it generates. We would like to extend our congratulations to ICANN on the development of this commendable new initiative, and would be honoured to support the creation of this living document to be prepared before ICANN 58.</b>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">To quote the ICANN blog directly, the aim of this project is to “<em>bring selected data sets into the open, available through web pages and programming APIs, for the purposes of external party review and analysis</em>” <a href="#ftn1">[1]</a>. This will play out through the setting up of three components:</p>
<ol><li>Development of a catalogue of existing data sets which will be appropriate for publication</li>
<li>Selection of the technology necessary for managing the publication of these data sets.</li>
<li>Creation of a process to prioritise the order in which the data sets are made available <a href="#ftn2">[2]</a>.</li></ol>
<h3><strong>Principles in Question</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Centre for Internet and Society firmly believes in the value of accessible, inclusive open data standards as a tool for enhancing transparency in any system. Greater transparency goes a long way towards bringing a regulatory authority closer to those who are governed under it – be it a state or a body such as ICANN. It is, in fact, an indispensable component of a multistakeholder model of governance to facilitate informed participation by all parties concerned in the decision making process.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The right to information that a regulatory authority owes those it regulates has two kinds of components. The first may be described as reactive disclosure – “<em>when individual members of the public file requests for and receive information</em>” <a href="#ftn#3">[3]</a>. The second is disclosure that is more proactive in nature – “<em>when information is made public at the initiative of the public body, without a request being filed</em>” <a href="#ftn4">[4]</a>. The former is epitomized by initiatives such as the Freedom of
Information Act <a href="#ftn5">[5]</a> in the United States, the Right to Information Act in India <a href="#ftn6">[6]</a>, or ICANN’s very own Documentary Information Disclosure Policy <a href="#ftn7">[7]</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Proactive disclosure policies, on the other hand, operate out of the principle that the provision of information by those in positions of regulatory authority will ensure free and timely flow of information to the public, and the information so provided will be equally accessible to everyone, without the need for individual requests being filed <a href="#ftn8">[8]</a>. Proactive disclosure also goes a long way towards preventing officials from denying or manipulating information subsequent to publication <a href="#ftn9">[9]</a>. Scholars have touted proactive disclosure as the “<em>future of the right to know</em>” <a href="#ftn10">[10]</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">At the Centre for Internet and Society, much of our research has pointed towards the direction of creating better open data standards for governments (Please see “<a href="http://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/open-government-data-study">Open Data Government Study: India</a>”). We are one of the Lead Stewards of the International Open Data Charter <a href="#ftn11">[11]</a> and have maintained that it is crucial for governments to maintain open data standards in the interest of transparency and accountability. We firmly believe that the same principles extend also to ICANN – a body which, as per its own by-laws commits towards operating “…<em>to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness</em>”<a href="#ftn12">[12]</a>.</p>
<h3><strong>Suggestions</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">While this policy is in its nascent stage, we would like to put forward certain principles which we believe ought to be kept in mind before it gets chalked out, in the best interest of the ICANN community:</p>
<ol><li>To determine what data sets should be made publicly accessible, it would be useful to carry out an analysis of existing DIDP requests to understand trends in the kind of information that the ICANN community is interested in accessing, which can then be proactively disclosed. It would be redundant on ICANN’s part to disclose, under this Open Data Policy, data which is already publicly available.</li>
<li>ICANN should first develop a catalog of all existing data sets with ICANN, apply the principles for deciding appropriateness for publication, then make publicly available both the full catalog, and the actual data sets identified for publication. ICANN should make clear the kind of information it is not going to make accessible
under this open data standards, and justify the principles on the basis of which it is choosing to do so (analogous to the exceptions clauses under the DIDP).</li>
<li>With respect to technology to be selected for managing the publication of data sets, free and open source software (such as CKAN) ought to be used, and open standards should be adopted for the use and licensing of such data.</li>
<li>Such data ought to be downloadable in bulk in CSV/JSON/XML formats.</li>
<li>DIDP responses and the open data work flows ought to be integrated so that all the responses to DIDP requests are automatically published in a machine-readable format as open data.</li>
<li>Qualitative (text of speeches, slides from presentations, recordings of sessions, etc.) and quantitative data should both be included under this new policy.</li></ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In conclusion, we would like to extend our congratulations to ICANN on the development of this commendable new initiative, and would be honoured to support the creation of this living document before ICANN 58.</p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<h3><strong>Endnotes</strong></h3>
<div id="ftn1">
<p>[1] Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, <em>ICANN Kicks off Open Data Initiative Pilot</em>, (November 6, 2016), available at <a href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-kicks-off-open-data-initiative-pilot">https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-kicks-off-open-data-initiative-pilot</a> (Last visited on November 9, 2016).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p>[2] Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p>[3] Naniette Coleman, <em>Proactive vs. Reactive Transparency</em>, (February 8, 2010), available at: <a href="http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/proactive-vs-reactive-transparency">http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/proactive-vs-reactive-transparency</a> (Last visited on November 9, 2016).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<p>[4] Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<p>[5] Freedom of Information Act, 1966, 5 U.S.C. § 552.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<p>[6] Right to Information Act, 2005 <em>available at</em> http://righttoinformation.gov.in/rti-act.pdf</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn7">
<p>[7] ICANN, <em>Documentary Information Disclosure Policy</em>, available at <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en</a> (Last visited on November 9, 2016).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn8">
<p>[8] Helen Darbishire, <em>Proactive Transparency: The future of the right to information?</em> Working paper. N.p.: World Bank, (2009).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn9">
<p>[9] Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn10">
<p>[10] Darbishire, <em>supra</em> note 8.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn11">
<p>[11] Open Data Charter, <em>Who We Are</em>, available at <a href="http://opendatacharter.net/who-we-are/">http://opendatacharter.net/who-we-are/</a> (Last visited on November 10, 2016).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn12">
<p>[12] Article III(1), Bylaws For Internet Corporation For Assigned Names And Numbers</p>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/icann-begins-its-sojourn-into-open-data'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/icann-begins-its-sojourn-into-open-data</a>
</p>
No publisherPadmini Baruah and Sumandro ChattapadhyayOpen DataICANNinternet governance2016-11-12T01:17:24ZBlog EntryAn Evidence based Intermediary Liability Policy Framework: Workshop at IGF
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/igf-workshop-an-evidence-based-intermediary-liability-policy-framework
<b>CIS is organising a workshop at the Internet Governance Forum 2014. The workshop will be an opportunity to present and discuss ongoing research on the changing definition of intermediaries and their responsibilities across jurisdictions and technologies and contribute to a comprehensible framework for liability that is consistent with the capacity of the intermediary and with international human-rights standards.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society, India and Centre for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School, USA, will be organising a workshop to analyse the role of intermediary platforms in relation to freedom of expression, freedom of information and freedom of association at the Internet Governance Forum 2014. <span>The aim of the workshop is to highlight the increasing importance of digital rights and broad legal protections of stakeholders in an increasingly knowledge-based economy. The workshop will discuss public policy issues associated with Internet intermediaries, in particular their roles, legal responsibilities and related liability limitations in context of the evolving nature and role of intermediaries in the Internet ecosystem. distinct</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Online Intermediaries: Setting the context</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet has facilitated unprecedented access to information and amplified avenues for expression and engagement by removing the limits of geographic boundaries and enabling diverse sources of information and online communities to coexist. Against the backdrop of a broadening base of users, the role of intermediaries that enable economic, social and political interactions between users in a global networked communication is ubiquitous. Intermediaries are essential to the functioning of the Internet as many producers and consumers of content on the internet rely on the action of some third party–the so called intermediary. Such intermediation ranges from the mere provision of connectivity, to more advanced services such as providing online storage spaces for data, acting as platforms for storage and sharing of user generated content (UGC), or platforms that provides links to other internet content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Online intermediaries enhance economic activity by reducing costs, inducing competition by lowering the barriers for participation in the knowledge economy and fuelling innovation through their contribution to the wider ICT sector as well as through their key role in operating and maintaining Internet infrastructure to meet the network capacity demands of new applications and of an expanding base of users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Intermediary platforms also provide social benefits, by empowering users and improving choice through social and participative networks, or web services that enable creativity and collaboration amongst individuals. By enabling platforms for self-expression and cooperation, intermediaries also play a critical role in establishing digital trust, protection of human rights such as freedom of speech and expression, privacy and upholding fundamental values such as freedom and democracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, the economic and social benefits of online intermediaries are conditional to a framework for protection of intermediaries against legal liability for the communication and distribution of content which they enable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Intermediary Liability</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Over the last decade, right holders, service providers and Internet users have been locked in a debate on the potential liability of online intermediaries. The debate has raised global concerns on issues such as, the extent to which Internet intermediaries should be held responsible for content produced by third parties using their Internet infrastructure and how the resultant liability would affect online innovation and the free flow of knowledge in the information economy?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given the impact of their services on communications, intermediaries find themselves as either directly liable for their actions, or indirectly (or “secondarily”) liable for the actions of their users. Requiring intermediaries to monitor the legality of the online content poses an insurmountable task. Even if monitoring the legality of content by intermediaries against all applicable legislations were possible, the costs of doing so would be prohibitively high. Therefore, placing liability on intermediaries can deter their willingness and ability to provide services, hindering the development of the internet itself.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Economics of intermediaries are dependent on scale and evaluating the legality of an individual post exceeds the profit from hosting the speech, and in the absence of judicial oversight can lead to a private censorship regime. Intermediaries that are liable for content or face legal exposure, have powerful incentives, to police content and limit user activity to protect themselves. The result is curtailing of legitimate expression especially where obligations related to and definition of illegal content is vague. Content policing mandates impose significant compliance costs limiting the innovation and competiveness of such platforms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">More importantly, placing liability on intermediaries has a chilling effect on freedom of expression online. Gate keeping obligations by service providers threaten democratic participation and expression of views online, limiting the potential of individuals and restricting freedoms. Imposing liability can also indirectly lead to the death of anonymity and pseudonymity, pervasive surveillance of users' activities, extensive collection of users' data and ultimately would undermine the digital trust between stakeholders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thus effectively, imposing liability for intermediaries creates a chilling effect on Internet activity and speech, create new barriers to innovation and stifles the Internet's potential to promote broader economic and social gains. To avoid these issues, legislators have defined 'safe harbours', limiting the liability of intermediaries under specific circumstances.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Online intermediaries do not have direct control of what information is or information are exchanged via their platform and might not be aware of illegal content per se. A key framework for online intermediaries, such limited liability regimes provide exceptions for third party intermediaries from liability rules to address this asymmetry of information that exists between content producers and intermediaries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, it is important to note, that significant differences exist concerning the subjects of these limitations, their scope of provisions and procedures and modes of operation. The 'notice and takedown' procedures are at the heart of the safe harbour model and can be subdivided into two approaches:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">a. Vertical approach where liability regime applies to specific types of content exemplified in the US Digital Copyright Millennium Act</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">b. Horizontal approach based on the E-Commerce Directive (ECD) where different levels of immunity are granted depending on the type of activity at issue</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Current framework </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Globally, three broad but distinct models of liability for intermediaries have emerged within the Internet ecosystem:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">1. Strict liability model under which intermediaries are liable for third party content used in countries such as China and Thailand</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2. Safe harbour model granting intermediaries immunity, provided their compliance on certain requirements</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3. Broad immunity model that grants intermediaries broad or conditional immunity from liability for third party content and exempts them from any general requirement to monitor content. <b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While the models described above can provide useful guidance for the drafting or the improvement of the current legislation, they are limited in their scope and application as they fail to account for the different roles and functions of intermediaries. Legislators and courts are facing increasing difficulties, in interpreting these regulations and adapting them to a new economic and technical landscape that involves unprecedented levels user generated content and new kinds of and online intermediaries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The nature and role of intermediaries change considerably across jurisdictions, and in relation to the social, economic and technical contexts. In addition to the dynamic nature of intermediaries the different categories of Internet intermediaries‘ are frequently not clear-cut, with actors often playing more than one intermediation role. Several of these intermediaries offer a variety of products and services and may have number of roles, and conversely, several of these intermediaries perform the same function. For example , blogs, video services and social media platforms are considered to be 'hosts'. Search engine providers have been treated as 'hosts' and 'technical providers'.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This limitations of existing models in recognising that different types of intermediaries perform different functions or roles and therefore should have different liability, poses an interesting area for research and global deliberation. Establishing classification of intermediaries, will also help analyse existing patterns of influence in relation to content for example when the removal of content by upstream intermediaries results in undue over-blocking.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Distinguishing intermediaries on the basis of their roles and functions in the Internet ecosystem is critical to ensuring a balanced system of liability and addressing concerns for freedom of expression. Rather than the highly abstracted view of intermediaries as providing a single unified service of connecting third parties, the definition of intermediaries must expand to include the specific role and function they have in relation to users' rights. A successful intermediary liability regime must balance the needs of producers, consumers, affected parties and law enforcement, address the risk of abuses for political or commercial purposes, safeguard human rights and contribute to the evolution of uniform principles and safeguards.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Towards an evidence based intermediary liability policy framework</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This workshop aims to bring together leading representatives from a broad spectrum of stakeholder groups to discuss liability related issues and ways to enhance Internet users’ trust.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Questions to address at the panel include:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">1. What are the varying definitions of intermediaries across jurisdictions?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2. What are the specific roles and functions that allow for classification of intermediaries?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3. How can we ensure the legal framework keeps pace with technological advances and the changing roles of intermediaries?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">4. What are the gaps in existing models in balancing innovation, economic growth and human rights?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">5. What could be the respective role of law and industry self-regulation in enhancing trust?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">6. How can we enhance multi-stakeholder cooperation in this space?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Confirmed Panel:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Technical Community: Malcolm Hutty: Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA)<br />Civil Society: Gabrielle Guillemin: Article19<br />Academic: Nicolo Zingales: Assistant Professor of Law at Tilburg University<br />Intergovernmental: Rebecca Mackinnon: Consent of the Networked, UNESCO project<br />Civil Society: Anriette Esterhuysen: Association for Progressive Communication (APC)<br />Civil Society: Francisco Vera: Advocacy Director: Derechos Digitale<br />Private Sector: Titi Akinsanmi: Policy and Government Relations Manager, Google Sub-Saharan Africa<br />Legal: Martin Husovec: MaxPlanck Institute</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Moderator(s): </span><span>Giancarlo Frosio, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and </span><span>Jeremy Malcolm, Electronic Frontier Foundation </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Remote Moderator: </span><span>Anubha Sinha, New Delhi</span></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/igf-workshop-an-evidence-based-intermediary-liability-policy-framework'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/igf-workshop-an-evidence-based-intermediary-liability-policy-framework</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotihuman rightsDigital Governanceinternet governanceFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance ForumHuman Rights OnlineIntermediary LiabilityPoliciesMulti-stakeholder2014-07-04T06:41:10ZBlog EntryAccess Beyond Developmentalism: Technology and the Intellectual Life of the Poor
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/access-beyond-developmentalism
<b>Essay by Lawrence Liang, September 21, 2009 in response to - A Dialogue on ICTs, Human Development, Growth, and Poverty Reduction
</b>
<p>In February 2009 we invited the French philosopher Jacques Ranciere to
Delhi for the release of his book “Nights of Labour” which we had
translated into Hindi, and to have a conversation with a group of young
writers and practitioners at the Cybermohalla (“CM”) in Dakshinpuri.
The Cybermohalla is one of three media labs that have been set up in
different working class colonies in Delhi where young people living in
the colony meet, engage in conversations and write about their
neighborhood, technology, media, culture and life in the city. Almost
six years old, the CMs were set up as experimental spaces to explore
ways of looking at the relationship between technology and the urban
poor beyond the lens of developmentalism. The CM is presently involved
in documenting intellectual life in their neighborhoods and the
transformations brought about by media.</p>
<p>In this brief note I would like to raise a few critical questions about
the dominant ICT and Development discourse that dominates policy and
NGO circles, and I will be using the writings of Ranciere, the CM
practitioners, and the conversation between them as the grounds on
which to raise these questions. Ranciere began his career as a labour
historian, and had initially set out to do a straight forward history
of class consciousness in the labour archives outside Paris. What he
found surprised him, and informed his philosophy of education and I
believe has immense significance for people working on ICT, poverty and
development. Ranciere’s rethinking of labour history paves the way for
us to start thinking seriously about the hidden domain of aspiration
and desire of the subaltern subject, while at the same time thinking
about the politics of our own aspirations and desires.</p>
<p>Ranciere goes into an unexplored aspect of the labour archive of
nineteenth century France, where he starts looking at small, obscure
and short lived journals brought out by workers, in which they were
writing about their own lives. But they were not necessarily writing
about their work, or their condition as workers. And if they were ,
they were not writing about it in glorified terms but with immense
dissatisfaction. Instead they were interested in writing poetry,
philosophy and indulging in the pleasures of thought. They looked
enviously at the thinking life that intellectuals were entitled to. At
the same time, intellectuals have always been fascinated with the world
of work and the romance of working class identity. Ranciere says “what
new forms of misreading will affect this contradiction when the
discourse of labourers in love with the intellectual nights of the
intellectuals encounters the discourse of intellectuals in love with
the toilsome and glorious days of the labouring people”</p>
<p>Ranciere’s motley cast of characters include Jerome Gillard, an iron
smith tired of hammering iron, and Pierre Vincard, a metal worker who
aspires to be a painter. In other words, a series of sketches of people
who refused to obey the role sketched out of for them by history,
people who wanted to step across the line and perform the truly radical
act of breaking down the time-honored barrier separating those who
carried out useful labour from those who pondered aesthetics. He says
that “A worker who has never learned how to write and yet tried to
compose verses to suit the taste of his times was perhaps more of a
danger to the prevailing ideological order than a worker who performed
revolutionary songs… Perhaps the truly dangerous classes are not so
much the uncivilized ones thought to undermine society from below, but
rather the migrants who move at the borders between classes,
individuals and groups who develop capabilities within themselves which
are useless for the improvement of their material lives and which in
fact are liable to make them despise material concerns.”</p>
<p>While we ordinarily think of development in terns of an improvement in
the material life and living condition of people, it seems from
Ranciere’s account that this was not enough. What the workers wanted
was to become entirely human, with all the possibilities of a human
being which included a life in thought. What was not afforded to works
was the leisure of thought, or the time of night which intellectuals
had. This is not to say that an improvement in the material conditions
of life was not important. On the contrary it was crucially important,
but if we are also recognize inequality as being about the distribution
of possibilities, then it is futile to maintain a divide between
material and intellectual life. The struggle in other words was between
time as a form of constraint and time as a possibility of freedom. For
Ranciere, a worker then was someone to whom many lives were owed.</p>
<p>If we were to translate what this means for our understanding of ICT
and the subject of development, we find that most interventions frame
the poor as objects of the discourse of digital access, and they are
rarely seen as the subject of digital imaginaries. How do we think of
the space created by ICT as one that expands not just the material
conditions but also breaks the divide between those entitled to the
world of thought, and those entitled to the world of work? In other
words, what is the space that we create when we frame the discourse of
‘digital divides’ only as a matter of technological access? How do we
begin to look at the technological lives of people beyond
developmentalism and take into account the way it changes aspirations
and subjectivities?</p>
<p>Suraj, one of the writers at CM, in his conversation with Ranciere says
“The capacity of my intellectual life always competes against my
imagination. Exploration for me consists of recognizing the continuous
pull by others around me (the constant movement), which propels me to
the imagination of an intellectual life which always seems to be beyond
me.” What this statement forces us to think about is the fact that we
all lead intellectual lives, but the distribution of opportunities to
lead an intellectual life is unequal, and we need to think through the
history of materiality also as the history of conditions which divide
people on the basis of those who think and those who work, or the
division of time between the days of labour and the nights of writing.
It would be tragic if we were to recycle clichéd ideas of the real
needs of the elite and the real needs of the subaltern. The development
sector seems to have inherited a certain anti intellectualism on the
grounds that it is elitist and the left have failed to engage with such
desires on the grounds that they were ‘false consciousness’.</p>
<p>But as Ranciere says “What if the truest sorrow lay not in being able
to enjoy the false ones.” Ranciere argues that politics has always been
about a distribution of the sensible or sensibilities (and this is
certainly evidenced in political discourse as well as the critical
discourse on technology where we find metaphors of ‘visibility’,
‘silence’ as a way of thinking about the political condition of the
underclass). While the focus of the Harvard Forum has been
appropriately on the correlation between ICT and poverty alleviation,
it is also important to remember that these technologies (computers,
mobiles, DVD players) are also a radical redistribution of the
sensible. All of a sudden you have a vast number of people whose access
to the world of images, texts and sounds have dramatically increased.
At the same time they are engaging with the world of the sensible not
just as passive consumers but actively producing, sharing and thinking
through these new ephemeral forms.</p>
<p>We could ask questions about the larger change that a small experiment
like the CM has been able to bring about. Do these young writers have
the ability to change the world, is the model sustainable, etc.? The
answer would be yes, but perhaps not in the way usually imagined by
funders or NGOs. They have already changed the horizon of the possible
by reinventing themselves and claiming their space in the world of
thought. This also involves a radical rethinking of the very idea of
equality itself. The liberal assumption is that equality for something
we strive, in other words that we move from inequality to equality. But
what if we were to start with equality itself.</p>
<p>Starting from equality does not presuppose that everyone in the world
has equal opportunities to learn, to express their capacities. We
recognize immense inequalities in the material conditions of life, but
we also recognize that there is always some point of equality when we
think of each other as thinking beings, and to think of the process of
learning, not as a moving from ignorance to knowledge but as a process
of going from what is already known or what is already possessed to
further knowledge or new possessions.</p>
<p>It in this context that we also have to recognize that ICT technologies
are a serious redistribution of the means of thought and expression.
When Victor Hugo, a sympathizer of the working class, was shown a poem
written by a worker, his embarrassed and patronizing response was “In
your fine verse there is something more than fine verse. There is a
strong soul, a lofty heart, a noble and robust spirit. Carry on. Always
be what you are: poet and worker. That is to say, thinker and worker.”
This is a classic instance of what Ranciere would term as an ‘exclusion
by homage’. Thus, the aspiration and desires of the poor have to be
‘something more than fine verse’; the information needs of the poor
have to be more than wanting to watch a film or even dreaming of
becoming a film maker.</p>
<p>These injunctions certainly tell us more about the fantasies of the
state, of the intellectual and of NGOs than they do about people
participating in the new realms of the digital, and if we are to avoid
collapsing all ICT interventions into ‘exclusions by homage’ then we
also need to start thinking about the new landscape via the
intellectual possibilities that they hold, and the many lives that they
enable. After all, the poor are also those to whom many lives are owed.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Liang" target="_blank">Lawrence Liang</a> is founder of the <a href="http://www.altlawforum.org/" target="_blank">Alternative Law Forum</a> and a <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../about/people/distinguished-fellows#lawrence-liang" class="internal-link" title="Distinguished Fellows">Distinguished Fellow</a> with the <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../" class="external-link">Centre for Internet and Society</a>.<em><br /></em></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://publius.cc/access_beyond_developmentalism_technology_and_intellectual_life_poor/091109">Link to the original article</a></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://publius.cc/dialogue_icts_human_development_growth_and_poverty_reduction/091109">Link to related article</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/access-beyond-developmentalism'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/access-beyond-developmentalism</a>
</p>
No publisherradhainternet governance2011-08-02T07:16:36ZBlog EntryThe ICANN-US DOC 'Affirmation of Commitments' - A Step Forward?
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-icann-us-doc-affirmation-of-commitments-a-step-forward
<b>On 30 September 2009, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) signed an Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) with the US Government's Department of Commerce. For those of us who are concerned that the Internet should serve the global public good, is the new arrangement a step forward? An assessment. </b>
<p>On 30 September 2009, ICANN signed an Affirmation of
Commitments (AoC) with the US Government's Department of Commerce.
ICANN is the not-for-profit public-benefit corporation that
coordinates the Internet's naming system. The Affirmation has been
widely hailed for the loosening of US-ICANN ties that it implies.
The unilateral control that the US exercised over the organisation
had for long been criticised in various quarters as inappropriate for
a – by now - global resource such as the Internet. A central
instrument of this control was constituted by the reviews that the
US's NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information
Administration) would conduct of the organisation, based on which the
country's Department of Commerce would rework and renew its contract
with ICANN. With the signing of the AoC, reviews will henceforth be conducted by panels to
be appointed by the Chair of ICANN's Board of Directors, as well as
the Chair of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) in consultation
with the other members of the GAC. Since the Affirmation of
Commitments is of long standing – unlike earlier Memoranda of
Understanding, which had a limited validity – and since the US has
demanded for itself a permanent seat on only one of the four panels
that the AoC institutes, the US has indeed given up significant
amounts of the control that it wielded over the organisation so far.</p>
<p>A clear step forward? Well, not
necessarily – and in many ways it is too early to tell. Because
while the denationalisation of ICANN was high on many stakeholders'
agenda, so was the strengthening of ICANN as an accountable tool for
global governance. And where the latter is concerned, the AoC falls
sorely short. Although ICANN likes to posit itself as an
organisation rooted in communities, where policy is developed from
the bottom up, this wonderfully democratic discourse stands in rather
ugly contrast to the quite questionable practices that are all too
frequently reported from the organisation (the rather stepsisterly
treatment meted out to noncommercial users in ICANN in recent times,
for example, immediately comes to mind [1]<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="#sdfootnote1sym"></a>).
At the root of this contradiction seems to lie the fact that, while
ICANN may be a public interest organisation on paper, in practice it
is heavily dominated by large businesses, in particular those
US-based, who seem to be willing to go to considerable lengths to
defend their interests. The AoC has done nothing to check these
tendencies. The review panels suggested are an internal affair,
where those who develop policy will get to appoint the people who
will assess the policy development processes, and most of those
appointed, too, will come from within the organisation. While the
suggested wider involvement of ICANN communities, including
governments, in reviewing the organisation is a welcome move, it
remains to be seen, then, to what extent these review panels will
have teeth – in any case their recommendations are not binding.
But some go even further and argue that the AoC has effectively
removed the one democratic control that existed over ICANN's Board:
that of the US Government. As the communities that supposedly make
up ICANN do not have the power to unseat the Board, the Board now is
effectively accountable... to none.</p>
<p>Since it does not directly address
accountability problems within ICANN, the AoC is not so much an
improvement, then, as simply a change: it has closed a few old doors,
and opened some new ones. Whether this is for good or for bad
remains to be seen: in the absence of clear structures of control and
oversight, the shape of things to come is never fixed.
For those within ICANN who genuinely want to work towards an
Internet in the service of the public good, rather than of big
business, there is, therefore, a tough task ahead of trying to ensure
that the most will be made of the opportunities that the new
arrangement does provide. Considering ICANN's institutional culture,
this will undoubtedly mean that much of their energy will need to be
invested in simply trying to shape new procedures and frameworks of
governance in more democratic and accountable directions, eating into
valuable time that could and should have been devoted to policy
development instead. Indeed, irrespective of the final
outcome of the AoC, the spectre of ICANN's lack of accountability and
its glaring democratic deficit, for now, remains. And for a forum
such as ICANN, that is unbecoming to say the least.</p>
<p>1] For
more information, please see
<a href="http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/ncuc-letter-to-icann-board-of">http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/ncuc-letter-to-icann-board-of</a>,
<a href="http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/top-10-myths-about-civil">http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/top-10-myths-about-civil</a>,
and
<a href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/10/2/4338930.html">http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/10/2/4338930.html</a>.</p>
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote1sym" href="#sdfootnote1anc"></a></p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-icann-us-doc-affirmation-of-commitments-a-step-forward'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-icann-us-doc-affirmation-of-commitments-a-step-forward</a>
</p>
No publisheranjaPublic AccountabilityICANNinternet governance2011-08-02T07:16:09ZBlog Entryಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದ - ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನ್ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/c95cc3cb7cbf-cb8c82caaca6-c87-caeccdcafcbec97c9cca8ccd-caccbfca1cc1c97ca1cc6
<b>ಪರಿಸರ ಬರಹಗಾರ ನಾಗೇಶ್ ಹೆಗಡೆ ಅವರು ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರಿನ ಸ್ವಿಚ್ ಒತ್ತಿ ಪರದೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ಪುಟ ಬೆಳಗಿ "ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದ" ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನನ್ನು ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಲೋಕಕ್ಕೆ ಅರ್ಪಿಸಿದರು.</b>
<p class="MsoPlainText">"ನಮ್ಮ ಪಾರಂಪರಿಕ ಜ್ಞಾನವನ್ನು ರಕ್ಷಿಸಲಿಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂವಹನದ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನವನ್ನು ಸಮರ್ಥವಾಗಿ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕಾಗಿದೆ. ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಕಟವಾಗುವ ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನಗಳು ಈ ನಿಟ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಧಾನಪ್ರಾತ್ರವಹಿಸಬಲ್ಲವು. ಅದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕನ್ನಡದ ಮೊದಲ ಕೃಷಿ ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನ್ "ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದ" ವನ್ನು ಇಂದು ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ ಮಾಡಲು ಸಂತೋಷವಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ" ಎಂಬ ಮಾತುಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಪರಿಸರ ಬರಹಗಾರ ನಾಗೇಶ್ ಹೆಗಡೆ ಅವರು ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರಿನ ಸ್ವಿಚ್ ಒತ್ತಿ ಪರದೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ಪುಟ ಬೆಳಗಿ "ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದ" ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನನ್ನು ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಲೋಕಕ್ಕೆ ಅರ್ಪಿಸಿದರು. </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">ನಲವತ್ತು ವರುಷಗಳ ಮುಂಚೆ ಯು.ಎಸ್.ಎ ದೇಶದ ಗಗನಯಾತ್ರಿಗಳು ಚಂದ್ರನ ನೆಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಪ್ರಥಮ ಭಾರಿ ಪಾದಾರ್ಪಣೆ ಮಾಡಿದರು. ಇಡೀ ಜಗತ್ತು ಆ ಘಟನೆಯನ್ನು ಕಾತರದಿಂದ ನಿರೀಕ್ಷಿಸುತ್ತಿತ್ತು. ಮಾನವನೊಬ್ಬ ಚಂದ್ರನ ಮೇಲಿಟ್ಟ ಪುಟ್ಟ ಹೆಜ್ಜೆ ಮನುಕುಲದ ವೈಜ್ಞಾನಿಕ ಪ್ರಗತಿಯ ಪಯಣದ ಪರ್ವತ ಹೆಜ್ಜೆ. ಆ ಕ್ಷಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಭೂಲೋಕದ ಜನರೆಲ್ಲ ಸಂಭ್ರಮಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ಅದೇ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಯು.ಎಸ್.ಎ ದೇಶದ ಮಿಲಿಟರಿ ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಬೃಹತ್ ಯೋಜನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮುಳುಗಿತ್ತು - ರಷ್ಯಾ ದೇಶದಿಂದ ಪರಮಾಣು ಬಾಂಬ್ ದಾಳಿ ನೆಡೆದರೆ, ಯು.ಎಸ್.ಎ ದೇಶದ ಸರಕಾರ, ಸೇನಾಪಡೆಗಳು ಹಾಗು ವೈಜ್ಞಾನಿಕ ಪ್ರಗತಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಅಗಾಧ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ರಕ್ಷಿಸುವ ಯೋಜನೆ ಅದಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಅದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ನಾಲ್ಕು ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಸ್ಥಳಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಇರಿಸಿದ ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರ್ ಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಶೇಖರಿಸಿಟ್ಟರು. ಒಂದು ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರ್ ಬಾಂಬ್ ದಾಳಿಯಿಂದ ನಾಶವಾದರೂ ಉಳಿದ ಮೂರು ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರ್ಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಅಗಾಧ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸುರಕ್ಷಿತವಾಗಿ ಉಳಿದಿರುತ್ತಿತ್ತು. ಈ ಪ್ರಾಜೆಕ್ಟಿಗೆ ಅರ್ಪಾನೆಟ್(ARPANET) ಎಂದು ಹೆಸರಿಡಲಾಗಿತ್ತು.ಇದುವೇ ಮುಂದೆ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಆಗಿ ಬೆಳೆಯಿತು. ಇಂದು ಕನ್ನಡದ ಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಅದೇ ರೀತಿಯ ಸಂಭ್ರಮ. ಕೃಷಿ ಹಾಗು ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣರಂಗಗಳ ಅಗಾಧ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸಿಡುವ ಮಹಾತ್ವಾಕಾಂಕ್ಷೆಯ "ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದ" ಯೋಜನೆ ಅನಾವರಣಗೊಂಡದ್ದು ನಾವೆಲ್ಲ ಹೆಮ್ಮೆ ಪಡಬೇಕಾದ ಬೆಳವಣಿಗೆ ಎಂದು ನಾಗೇಶ್ ಹೆಗಡೆಯವರು ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಪಟ್ಟರು.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">ಸಾವಿರಾರು ಕನ್ನಡ ಅಭಿಮಾನಿಗಳು ಸದಸ್ಯರಾಗಿರುವ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಸಮುದಾಯ "ಸಂಪದ". ಇದರದೇ ಒಂದು ಭಾಗವಾದ ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದದ ಹೊಸದೊಂದು ಯೋಜನೆ "ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದ" ಎಂಬ ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನ್. ಇದು "ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟೀವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್" ಲೈಸೆನ್ಸ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಕಟವಾಗುತ್ತಿರುವ ಪ್ರಥಮ ಕನ್ನಡದ ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನ್. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಇದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಕಂಟೆಂಟನ್ನು (ಬರಹಗಳು, ಪೊಟೋಗಳು ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ) ಯಾರುಬೇಕಾದರೂ "ಇದ್ದದ್ದು ಇದ್ದ ಹಾಗೆ" ಮರುಬಳಕೆ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು. ಅಂದರೆ ಲಾಭರಹಿತ ಉದ್ದೇಶಗಳಿಗಾಗಿ ಮರುಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಬಹುದು ಅಥವಾ ಪ್ರತಿಗಳನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದು ಆಸಕ್ತರಿಗೆ ಹಂಚಬಹುದು ಎಂದು "ಸಂಪದ" ತಂಡದ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಹರಿಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ನಾಡಿಗ್ ಆರಂಭದಲ್ಲಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">ಇದೇ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದದ ಸಂಪಾದಕರಾದ ಅಡ್ಡೂರು ಕೃಷ್ಣರಾವ್ ರವರು, ಕೃಷಿ ಹಾಗು ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಬದುಕಿನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕಾಳಜಿಯಿರುವ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ವೇದಿಕೆ ಒದಗಿಸುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನ್ ಅನ್ನು ಆರಂಭಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿ, ಇದರ ಉದ್ದೇಶಗಳನ್ನು ವಿವರಿಸಿದರು.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ "ಕೃಷಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞರ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ" ಯಲ್ಲಿ ನೆಡೆದ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಲವಾರು ಆಸಕ್ತರು ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದ್ದರು. "ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದ" ಬಿಡುಗಡೆಯ ಬಳಿಕ ಜರುಗಿದ ಸಂವಾದದಲ್ಲಿ ಚುರುಕಿನ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೋತ್ತರ ಜರುಗಿತು. ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ಸೆಂಟರ್ ಫಾರ್ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ & ಸೊಸೈಟಿ, ಸಂಪದ ಹಾಗು ಕೃಷಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞರ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ - ಇವರ ಸಹಯೋಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಆಯೋಜಿಸಲಾಗಿತ್ತು.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನ್ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದದ ತಾಣದಿಂದ ಡೌನ್ ಲೋಡ್ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ: <a href="http://krushi.sampada.net/"><u>http://krushi.sampada.net</u></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">ನಿಮ್ಮ ಅನಿಸಿಕೆ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿಗಳನ್ನು ಕೃಷಿಸಂಪದ ತಂಡಕ್ಕೆ ಇ-ಮೈಲ್ ಮೂಲಕ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿ ಕೊಡಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ: <a href="mailto:krushi@sampada.net"><u>krushi@sampada.net</u></a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/c95cc3cb7cbf-cb8c82caaca6-c87-caeccdcafcbec97c9cca8ccd-caccbfca1cc1c97ca1cc6'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/c95cc3cb7cbf-cb8c82caaca6-c87-caeccdcafcbec97c9cca8ccd-caccbfca1cc1c97ca1cc6</a>
</p>
No publisherradhainternet governance2011-08-02T07:15:54ZBlog EntryInformation and Communication Technology For Improving Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/information-and-communication-technology-for-improving-agriculture-and-rural-livelihoods
<b>ಮೈಕೇಲ್, ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಮತ್ತು ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ (ಮೈಕೇಲ್ ರಿಗ್ಸ್ ಭಾಷಣ) - ಚಾಮರಾಜ ಸವಡಿ
</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/information-and-communication-technology-for-improving-agriculture-and-rural-livelihoods'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/information-and-communication-technology-for-improving-agriculture-and-rural-livelihoods</a>
</p>
No publisherradhainternet governance2011-08-02T07:15:43ZBlog EntryValue Added Services of Information & Communication Technology- Mobile Telephony for Farmers Benefit
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/value-added-services-of-information-communication-technology-mobile-telephony-for-farmers-benefit
<b>Mr. G Raghunatha, State Manager, IFFCO Kisan Sanchar Ltd., Bangalore and Secretary, Institution of Agricultural Technologists, Bangalore has written an article on how ICT - Mobile Technology can be used for the farmers' benefit.</b>
<p>The rural areas are suffering with extreme poverty and isolation. Such isolation has led to many miseries and tragic consequences in many families. This trend is more evident due to the absence of joint family system, which has deprived the supportive role of family members. It is seen that mobile phones have to some extent end isolation and therefore proved to be most transformative technology of economic development in recent times. The mobile phone technology has been so powerful and costs so little that it has now proved possible to sell mobile phone access to the poor. </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The rural poor have access to wireless banking and payment systems. The mobile revolution is creating logistics revolution in farm to retail marketing connecting farmers to food retailers enabling them to sell the produce at high farm gate prices without delay.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Mobile telephony has become a part of everybody’s of life. This has also become a symbol of progress. If rural telephony grows by 1% there will be an increase of 0.6% in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) showing the impact of growth of rural mobile telephony on Indian economy. 70% of the population of the country is still left behind so far as mobile telephone connectivity is concerned. This indicates that there is an excellent potential for growth in rural areas.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The rural population deserves to shift to mobile telephones in view of the delipitated, ancient and almost useless fixed line infrastructure. They have proved to be an effective instrument of empowerment of rural masses. It is a welcome sign that mobile operators have now shifted their focus to service the rural areas. The once neglected, non profitable areas with high operating costs with low income subscribers is now seen as a proverbial pot of gold with technological advancement and better network management.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Karnataka being in the forefront of Information technology revolution has not lagged behind to harness the Information and communication technology for strengthening the rural masses. Communication is a major challenge and serious impediment in taking the fruits of development to our farmers in the country. IFFCO has realized that a reliable and economical communication medium, as well as, useful services of relevance over this channel have the potential to transform the quality of living in our villages. The need of the hour is to take valuable information inputs to farmers- directly to their ‘ears’ & ‘eyes’ using latest information media like mobile technologies, in addition, rural friendly technologies which are simple, affordable and can address the basic needs of our farmers need to be designed, developed and supplied in all the villages of our country. IFFCO was amongst the first in India to realize the importance and benefits of information and communication technology (ICT) for the development of rural India and applied the technology under 'ICT Initiatives for Farmers & Cooperatives'.</p>
<p>As the country witnessed a boom in Communication in the past decades, most of the developments had been limited to urban areas. It is well known that communication plays a vital role in overall growth in country. It has been proved that mobile telephony has a positive and significant impact on economic growth. But communication infrastructure is still lacking in rural areas.</p>
<p>'IFFCO Kisan Sanchar Limited (IKSL)' is IFFCO's initiative tying up with telecom giant “Airtel”to take further the application of ICT to the benefit of Rural India through a<strong> </strong>mandate to design, develop, source and supply state of the art, economical & environmentally friendly rural communication & other technologies with value additions of content & services. The focus is to empower people living in villages by taking advantage of appropriate technology to address issues relating to farmers who are in need of communication, access to input from experts and services of reliable quality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">IFFCO has always been in the forefront in spreading the benefits of latest in science and technology for the upliftment of quality of life in rural India. Service to farmers is an integral part of the marketing in gaining trust of rural masses. IFFCO has distinction of floating institutions with focus on rural India like IFFCO- TOKIO General Insurance (ITGI), CORDET, IFFCO Foundation, Kisan Sewa Trust and IFFDC. Unique initiatives of ITGI like 'Sankat Haran Bima Yojna' and ‘Barish Bima Yojana’ have become very popular</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">IKSL is harnessing domain strength of vast resources of expertise both within and outside IKSL by leveraging organizations engaged in communications & rural friendly technologies. Partnerships have been forged with giant companies like Airtel and Freeplay. Innovation, dynamism & sense of purpose guide IKSL in its journey towards harnessing technology for the betterment of life in rural India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Value added services are designed to disseminate through mobile channel five voice messages of current importance to farmers in local languages every day free of cost. The broad areas covered are: recommendation on best agricultural practices, nutrient management, animal husbandry, problems & possible solutions for the specific location, information on mandies, weather & climate and several other areas. In Karnataka IKSL is entering into an MOU with University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore & Dharwad for developing content in the form of message bank and helpline services which is enhanced and updated on a continuous basis.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/value-added-services-of-information-communication-technology-mobile-telephony-for-farmers-benefit'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/value-added-services-of-information-communication-technology-mobile-telephony-for-farmers-benefit</a>
</p>
No publisherradhainternet governance2011-08-02T07:15:28ZBlog EntryA Comment on the 2009 IGF Draft Programme Paper
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/a-comment-on-the-2009-igf-draft-programme-paper
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society is part of a broad group of civil society actors that submitted a comment on the Draft Programme Paper of the fourth Internet Governance Forum (IGF), taking place in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, in November 2009. The IGF is a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue on Internet governance issues. The comment decries the complete absence of attention for Internet Rights and Principles in the agenda as it stands as of today, and this despite repeated requests from a wide range of stakeholders to make this theme a central one. All stakeholder groups were invited to submit their comments on the Draft Programme Paper of the 2009 IGF to the IGF Secretariat by 15 August.
</b>
<p align="justify">The comment submitted
reads as follows:</p>
<p align="justify"><strong>Re:
IGF Draft Programme Paper, August 2009</strong></p>
<p align="left">We,
the undersigned would like to express our surprise and disappointment
that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on
the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was
suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a
range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations,
this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme
Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as
a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of
Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed
the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an
inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful,
it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly
building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet
Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda
of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so.</p>
<p align="justify"><strong>Signatories:</strong></p>
<p>Centre
for Internet and Society, Bangalore</p>
<p>Association
for Progressive Communications </p>
<p>IP
Justice <br /></p>
<p>Bytesforall, Pakistan<br /></p>
<p>Instituto
Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil</p>
<p>Jacques
Berleur</p>
<p>Ginger
Paque</p>
<p>Fouad
Bajwa</p>
<p>Milton
L Mueller</p>
<p>Willie
Currie</p>
<p>Michael
Gurstein</p>
<p>Jeanette
Hofmann</p>
<p>Eric
Dierker</p>
<p>Jeffrey
A Williams</p>
<p>Charity
Gamboa, chairperson Internet Governance Working Group, ISOC
Philippines </p>
<p>Ian
Peter</p>
<p>Tracy
F. Hackshaw</p>
<p>Shaila
Rao Mistry, Internet Rights and Principles</p>
<p>Lee
W McKnight</p>
<p>Jeremy
Malcolm</p>
<p>Tapani
Tarvainen</p>
<p>Shahzad Ahmad, ICT Policy Monitors Network<br /></p>
<p>Carlos
Afonso</p>
<p>Dina Hovakmian</p>
<p>Rui
Correia<br /></p>
<p>Lisa Horner</p>
<p>Deirdre Williams<br /></p>
<p>Jaco
Aizenman<br /></p>
<p>Nyangkwe Agien Aaron<br /></p>
<p>Siranush Vardanyan, Armenia<br /></p>
<p>Kwasi
Boakye-Akyeampong<br /></p>
<p>Linda D. Misek-Falkoff</p>
<p>Baudouin
Schombe<br /></p>
<p>Stefano Trumpy</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/a-comment-on-the-2009-igf-draft-programme-paper'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/a-comment-on-the-2009-igf-draft-programme-paper</a>
</p>
No publisheranjainternet governance2011-08-02T07:15:14ZBlog Entry