Internet Governance Blog

When Whistle Blowers Unite

Prasad — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:17:56 +0530

Leaking corporate or government information in public interest in the age of Satyam has new challenges. You couldn't just upload it to a blog, social networking website or even a document management system like Google documents. Google, Yahoo and most other Web service providers nearly always comply with the national law and cooperate with enforcement agencies. In India there have been several arrests in connection with alleged illegal email messages and content on social networking websites. It did not take court order – just a request from the local police station. Furthermore, you would have to undertake additional risky activity online to draw media attention to your documents. Also those who stand to lose from the leak can send a couple of copyright take down notices which will lead to deletion. So your only real option is Wikileaks.org, where they boast: Every source protected. No documents censored. All legal attacks defeated.

Launched in December 2006, Wikileaks.org stands alone on the Internet as the last refuge for the truth. Even though the promoters are European and US academic organisations, journalists and NGOs – a near neutral point of view is realised by sparing no one across the political and ideological spectrum. It is the archive of the whistle-blowers of the world and it is ugly: login information and private emails of a holocaust denier, secret documents from the Church of Scientology, Internet block-lists from Thailand and standard operating procedures for US guards at Guantanamo Bay, et cetera. One could safely assume that these guys have very few friends. Unlike Wikipedia.org whose technology it employs, Wikileaks does not have an open and participatory editorial policy. It accepts documents through a trusted journalist–source system.

Leaking controversial documents can result in loss of job, limb and life, so extreme caution is always advised. Remember that India still does not have laws protecting whistle blowers, in spite of a bill being introduced in 2006. What follows is only a very rough guide to digital whistle blowing, so please get expert advice before you try these at home:

Download and install military grade encryption software like Pretty Good Privacy. Generate a pair of keys – a public and a private one. Use your private key in combination to a journalist's public key to send him or her, a 'for your eyes only message' email. Only the journalist will be able to decrypt the message using your public key and his private key. Note however, that an Indian court under the 2008 amendment of the IT Act can ask you to disclose your key-pair.
Step outside. Working from home is a bad idea since DOT mandates that all ISPs retain logs for all users and for all services utilized for an indeterminate time-period. Office is still worse as your network administrator might be also logging your activities.
Find an anonymous public access point. Cyber-cafes, especially in New Delhi, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are asking users to provide identity cards and record contact details and in some cases web-cam photographs as well. Using your laptop in a coffee shop may work but DOT is considering cracking down on open wifi networks.
Use an anonymizing service so that the chain of digital evidence leading up to Wikileaks is obliterated. TOR is the anonymizing solution of choice. Several TOR servers that provide private tunnels across the Internet work in unison, to form a cloud of anonymity.

If you were leaking large amounts of data, uploading it may be too risky. Burn the data on DVDs and mail them to Wikileaks. However, do ensure that all digital files have been purged of personal information. For word files this can be done by converting to PDF. Also you may not want to leave any finger-prints on the package. India will soon have a database of finger prints thanks to the National Unique Identity (NUID) project. We know this thanks to the leaked NUID project document on Wikileaks.org, days before the consultation.

Address delivered during the IGF Closing Ceremony

Radha Rao — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:00:00 +0530

Good evening, Mr Chairperson and all the distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for this opportunity to address this assembly on behalf of civil society, it is a real honour. And thank you also to the organisers and to the government of Egypt, for the wonderful arrangements and for creating such a excellent environment for us to work in.

I would like to use this opportunity to celebrate, together with you, two very important achievements in particular that we have made collectively during the four days of our intensive deliberations together.

The first one is the progress we are making in terms of recognising the importance of attention for human rights in ensuring a people-centred, development-oriented, non-discriminatory information society. Thus, for example, in the main session on security, openness and privacy, speakers across stakeholder groups couched the debate not any more in terms of security vs. privacy, but in terms of security and privacy. Security or other concerns, it was consistently argued, while obviously deserving our attention, should not be used to justify curtailing longstanding gains made in terms of human rights; rather, it is an improved implementation of already agreed on human rights instruments that we need to reach our goal of an inclusive, people-centred information society. The growing recognition of this fact is an evolution that civil society welcomes with open arms.

Another very hopeful evolution during this IGF was the central attention devoted to the question of where we stand in terms of promoting a people-centred, development-oriented information society more generally. The message that came out of the main session on “Internet governance in the light of the WSIS principles” clearly confirmed the urgent need to pay greater attention to this important issue, and several suggestions were made to address this concern. These include devoting devoting a main session solely to the topic of Internet governance for development in next next year's IGF, and I sincerely hope that these suggestions will be taken up.

While we thus have important reason to celebrate, challenges of course remain. Throughout the existence of the IGF, and perhaps increasingly so, the value of the multistakeholder model has been recognised and stressed by all stakeholder groups. However, at the same time, it has also been acknowledged that we need to continue to work to further strengthen participation from currently underrepresented countries and groups. I would like to note, however, that it is important that we do not restrict our efforts in this regard to capacity building, significant as that may be. Perhaps even more crucial is that the agenda of the IGF consistently talks to the concerns of actors in the developing parts of the world as well.

The reconfirmation of the importance of a development agenda that we have seen in this IGF is thus a very important step forward indeed. At the same time, within this larger development agenda, it is crucial that we also as soon as possible start to discuss some of the specific issues that require our attention on an urgent basis. For example, within the IGF as elsewhere, it is generally acknowledged that access to knowledge is central to development processes; yet the IGF so far has not paid systematic attention to the ways in which the amazing possibilities that the Internet offers in this regard are increasingly threatened by new policies that seem to make intellectual property regimes more stringent day by day. From a developing country perspective, finding a balanced solution that can address these concerns is an urgent priority. Starting the debate on how this can be achieved here, in the IGF, is certain to attract a larger number of developing country participants, including from governments.

Going by the experience of the past years as well as this particular meeting, I have no doubt that if given the opportunity, we will measure up to the challenges before us. Without wanting to preclude the Under-Secretary General's report, the proceedings during this IGF have made clear time and again its crucial significance in Internet governance processes. I hope with all my heart that we will continue to get the opportunity to work together on addressing these important issues and on resolving tensions and contradictions as they emerge, with the support of an independent secretariat that can ensure an environment genuinely inclusive of all stakeholders. Only when such open, inclusive conditions govern our own processes, may we in turn, together be able to create a genuinely inclusive information society which will indeed create opportunities for all.

Thank you.

The Role of ICT in Judicial Reform- An Exploration

Rebecca Schild — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:10:00 +0530

The Indian judiciary is facing mounting pressures to reform its apparatus. Even the judiciary itself has come to recognize, on the books, that change is long overdue. Some estimates have it that it would require almost three years to clear the current backlog of cases in High Courts. While technocrats herald that the enormous backlog of cases may eventually be the death knell for India's judicial branch, reform efforts must go beyond achieving the speedier delivery of justice and work towards tackling other inadequacies of the system if “access to justice for all”(1) is to become a reality.

The rural penetration of courts in India is extremely low, which significantly limits access to justice for the many citizens living far beyond the district courts of city centers. An extremely low judge to population ratio in India only contributes further to the already high incidence of pending cases, making delays in justice a regular occurrence. Mr. P.K. Malhotra from the Department of Legal Affairs has noted that increased litigation within the government has also caused a stark increase in the number of pending cases. While the need for reform can be demonstrated quite clearly on a practical level, the right to information (RTI) movement has also provided further impetus for reform on a more fundamental level. Well organized citizens are now demanding the right to a more transparent and accountable judiciary.

As e-government initiatives continue to transform the nature of India's bureaucracy and enhance the quality of government services, there is a mood of great optimism that ICT will also come to play a central role in judicial reform efforts. Speakers at the seminar enthusiastically cited innovative practices such as Singapore's “paperless court” which makes a compelling case for automation. Notable success in implementing ICT in the judiciary have also been achieved in Canada, Australia, and in several countries across Latin America. This is not to say, however, that the appropriation of ICT is uniform in every case. Variables such as political will and context, institutional capacity and reform goals all play a role in shaping the outcome. Plans could, for example, take more of an operational approach by prioritizing the improved efficiency and the rationalization of resources by implementing electronic case management systems. Other strategies may be designed and implemented from an access perspective, seeking to restore faith in the justice system by increasing transparency and accountability. This could be done, for example, by installing video technology in court rooms, or publishing legal information online.

At the seminar, India's consortium of well-organized and highly ambitious technocrats were not shy in suggesting the many ways ICT may be used to transform the judicial system, and, additionally, the many ways such an endeavor provides the IT sector with “new opportunities”. Dr M. Veerappa Moily, Union Minister for Law and Justice, has proposed for India a centrally funded and administered National Judicial Technology Program. Such a program aims to use ICT in the courtrooms to free the legal system of “historical inefficiencies". It is of no doubt that ICT can reduce the duplicity of the paper world and make courts more green through electronic case filing and video conferencing. Online case filing systems can increase speed in which citizens can have their cases heard, and real time access to online repositories of legal information drastically expedites the case cycle.

Mr. C P Gurnani, CEO of Tech Mahindra made the bold assertion that with ICT, India's 300 year case backlog can be reduced to three years, in a span of only three years (2). Features of this newly envisioned e-justice system include the use of video hearings to reduce transportation costs, case filing operation systems, RFID based file tracking, and the creation of a publicly accessible and easily searchable e-library. While others were much less optimistic than Mr. Gurani and recognize that the use of ICT in the reform process is “no instant coffee”, the question of whether or not ICT can be a strategically appropriated in the Indian context still remains.

Optimistic accounts of how ICT will increase access to justice, incorporate the marginalized into the law-making process, and increase judicial transparency and accountability all sounds uncomfortably techno-utopian. While ICT should facilitate the reform process, past experiences have shown that the over zealous use of technology has too-often resulted in less than impressive results (3). To ensure that the reform process in India is not driven mainly by the IT sector, it is important that the use of technology remains complimentary to a sound national judicial reform strategy. An abundant supply of technical support with little demand for the reform process from within the judicial branch may spell disappointing results for all stakeholders. Seeing that India's first seminar discussing the role of IT in the judiciary has been organized by the IT industry, it is safe to assume that reform strategies are being crystallized through the gaze of technocrats rather than the judiciary itself. Technology has an important role to play, but India's technocrats may be jumping the gun.

Many deep-seated challenges must be overcome before the use of ICT can be truly transformative. Often cited is the level of resistance judicial cultures express towards externally imposed change. Quite logically, those required to make change are also those who may have the most to lose in the short-term by doing so. Similarly, it is also difficult garnering the levels of political support judicial reforms require to be effective. Because the judiciary is such a highly politicized apparatus, efforts to fundamentally transform the system will require the support of a vast number of stakeholders . The low level of technological literacy which exists among India's judges is also problematic. Not only will members of the judiciary be open to new ways of doing business, they will also have to be diligent in adopting a new skill-set in which they may be more than a decade behind in acquiring.

Other deep-rooted limitations of India's judicial system are becoming increasingly apparent today. Questions surrounding access to justice remain deeply embedded in the asymmetries of class power, which are often reinforced by the political nature of the judiciary. Constitutional law in India also remains unstable, as the principles informing judicial action have become increasingly less clear (5). Furthermore, the courts have come to maintain a disproportionate share of power and influence in the Indian political sphere (6). It is questionable if ICT can work to ameliorate some of these malignancies, or if its use will only come to reinforce them. If technology is appropriated in a way which serves to make the judicial process more transparent and accountable, protect the rights of citizens, and provide greater and more equitable access to justice, it may be safe to assume that a more tech-savvy judiciary is a positive development for citizens. Publishing legal information online, for example, currently allows for greater transparency in the law making process and allows dialogue on important issues of governance and citizenship.

However, it is almost unnecessary to reiterate that such outcomes are not guaranteed. Technology is often seen as neutral– the evaluative outcome of its application remains dependent on numerous variable factors. Most important is whether or not the government provides a legal framework conducive to the appropriation of ICT in ways which are considered to further the public interest. It may be useful to view the successful appropriation of ICT to judicial reform as a cumulative process, each step being a precondition to the other. It is clear to see how basic infrastructure such as civil courts in rural areas must be in place before the use of ICT can facilitate access to justice for individuals who remain peripheral to the legal system. Similarly, one would assume that laws would have to first be to be nondiscriminatory to all members of society before it could it can be widely accepted that more technology will better safeguard our rights and freedoms.

Without a legal framework which is considered to be socially just, greater speed of the judicial process, aided by technology, may become a tool which enables the judiciary to act more arbitrarily, more efficiency. This could be troubling for individuals who are already marginalized by certain policies or legal practices. Technology can also make it possible for judges to insulate themselves from the necessary checks and balances required in the law-making process. While Mr Gurani stated that ICT can help preserve judicial independence, it is questionable if the use of technology is an appropriate strategy to mitigate politicization of the judicial branch. Any frivolous efforts to spearhead the reform process through the introduction of ICT without the required commitment of judges and policy makers may be naïve at best. At worst, it could serve to reinforce what judicial bodies believe they do well without critically re-examining the fundamental roles, norms and principles of the Indian judicial system itself.

Online case-filing services may unintentionally, due to cost or lack of awareness, erect further barriers to justice for individuals who traditionally remained outside of the sphere of access. In the same vein, if ICT is favored for use in criminal rather than civil courts, technology may simply become a tool used to sentence people, more quickly. This scenario sits quite polemic to visions of technology serving as a tool to empower individuals to better assert their rights and seek justice. Foreshadowing the role ICT may play in the future of India's judicial reform process, SPANCO Technologies is currently piloting the use of video technology in criminal courts. Furthermore, India's judiciary has made several attempts to insulate itself from the provisions of the RTI act, indicating that new laws, and even new technologies, may not be able to change practice. There are also strong doubts looming that the Gramin Nyayalayas Act will be successful in leveraging the required financial support needed to construct civil courts in rural areas. Without the basic building blocks, it is difficult to envision how a National Judicial Technology Program will be successful in bringing "justice" to all who are awaiting it. Such instances serve as a light warning that technology, even within a favorable legal framework, may not necessarily spell a more accessible, transparent and accountable justice system.

A well-functioning judicial system is required to keep up with the demands of modern democratic society. It is unquestionable that technology can play an influential role in ensuring that the relationship between citizens and the government is strong and communicative. However, it is important to ask under what conditions may it be beneficial to implement technology’s use. Inferring from last week’s seminar, proposals and rationale behind potential reforms were made from an economic perspective; how ICT can be used to see that cases are filed and judgments are delivered more quickly to improve efficiency and rationalize resources. Whether technology will be appropriated to facilitate a more equitable justice system is unknown, but it is certain that such will require a coherent national reform strategy with long-term political backing. Short-shorted technological fixes may improve India's judicial efficiency in the short term, but may, however, overshadow opportunities to bring about a more transparent and accountable system in the long-term.

Notes

1. This was a notion emphasized often throughout the seminar.

2. Where these estimates were drawn is unknown.

3. For a concise account of how the use of ICT may be misappropriated in the judicial reform process, see E-Justice: Towards a Strategic Use of ICT in Judicial Reform by Waleed H. Malik

4. For an interesting account of India's judicial system, see "The Rise of Judicial Sovereignty" by Pratap Bhanu Mehta in "The State of India's Democracy", Oxford University Press, 2009.

5. Pratap Bhanu Mehta.

6. Ibid.

Information and livelihoods

Radha Rao — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:11:15 +0530

Introduction

We live in a divided world where far too many people live in abject poverty. To help these people get out of poverty is good for the world as a whole, for great disparities in wealth will lead to violence and terrorism and no one can live in peace and harmony. None of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) can be achieved if we fail to address the problem of poverty and ensure livelihood security for the majority of the poor.

A vast majority of the poor live in the rural areas of developing countries and are dependent on agriculture or fishing for a living. They need information directly relevant to their livelihoods. Agriculture-related information is often one of the most immediate needs, since small-scale agriculture is very important to household incomes in rural areas. Information on current crop prices, fertiliser and pesticide costs, and the availability of improved seeds and low-cost improvements in farm technology can help farmers buy farm inputs and equipment of good quality at the right price, or help them successfully obtain credit.[1] Information on government entitlements and training programmes, opportunities for developing new products, and markets for environmental goods[2] is also useful. Without such information, poor families find it hard to take advantage of new opportunities for generating income and increasing their assets.

Many asset-less poor migrate to cities far and near and are constantly on the lookout for opportunities to work in construction sites, ports, factories and wherever they can be employed. They are often exploited and work in conditions far from satisfactory. They will be happy to have information on where work is available and wages are good.

This report looks at a few examples of how access to information helps improve the lives of people and how new technologies are being used in getting information to those who need it.

Small catch but big impact

About twelve years ago scientists at the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) started working with fishing communities in coastal villages of southern India. The major thrust of the project, funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), was to look at how emerging information and communications technologies (ICTs) could be used to make a difference to these people’s lives. But the project managers took a holistic perspective and put people and their needs before technology: they went beyond merely providing online access to information through their internet-enabled Village Knowledge Centres (VKCs). They were concerned about fisherpeople losing their catches, nets, boats and even their lives on days when the sea turned rough. Lives could be saved if only one could have advance knowledge of weather conditions. After some investigation, the MSSRF researchers found that United States (US) Navy satellites were collecting weather and wave height information for the Bay of Bengal, and the Navy website released forecasts based on these data twice daily. The VKC volunteers started downloading this information and made it available to the fisherpeople in their local language through notice boards and a public address system. Ever since this service commenced not a single death in mid-sea has been reported from these villages.

The need for innovation

Suddenly, the US Navy stopped providing this information and something needed to be done. MSSRF joined hands with Qualcomm, Tata Teleservices and Astute Systems Technology,[3] and these companies came up with an innovative mobile application called Fisher Friend based on third-generation code division multiple access (3G CDMA) technology. With Fisher Friend, the VKCs provide fisherpeople with real-time information on things like fish prices in different markets, weather, wave heights, satellite scan data on the location of fish shoals, and news flashes while they are at mid-sea. Access to these, as well as other information such as relevant government schemes, has improved market transparency and the earnings of smaller fisherpeople. Qualcomm is working on incorporating global positioning system (GPS) capability in the phones, so their exact location can be tracked. This would make rescue operations much easier.

Timely access to relevant information can not only improve the standards of living of a community, but also save lives.

Real evidence, not just anecdotal

Much of the evidence of the benefits of access to information and the use of technology to facilitate access so far has been anecdotal. In a recent paper in the Quarterly Journal of Economics Robert Jensen of Harvard University has quantified the benefits.[4] He showed that the adoption of mobile phones by fisherpeople and wholesalers in Kerala in southern India had led to a dramatic reduction in price dispersion (the mean coefficient of variation of price across markets over a stretch of 150 kilometres came down from 60%-70% to less than 15%); the complete elimination of waste (from 5%-8% to virtually nil); and near perfect adherence to the Law of One Price.[5] In addition, fisherpeople’s profits increased by 8%, while consumer prices declined by 4% (directly driving a 20 rupee/person/month consumer surplus, the equivalent of a 2% increase in per capita GDP from this one market alone). Sardine consumption increased by 6%. The advent of mobile phones also led to a 6% increase in school enrolment and a 5% increase in the probability of using healthcare when sick. All this with no government programmes, and no new funding requirements.[6]

Several other initiatives involve mobile technology. Nokia recently launched Life Tools in India, a fee-based service, with a view to impacting on the daily lives of people, especially farmers. Life Tools offers timely online access to information that will be of great relevance to farmers, students and the lay public. Nokia has partnered with the Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board (to gather commodity prices from 291 markets), Reuters Market Light, Syngenta and Skymet,[7] among others. It has plans to introduce Life Tools to other developing countries before the end of the year.

Online access to information through mobile phones and through telecentres has also helped shop owners, traders and the self-employed increase their earnings in many countries. The mobile phone is becoming the primary connectivity tool. With significant computing power, it will soon be the primary internet connection, providing information in a portable, well-connected form at a relatively low price, pushing aside the personal computer.

Conclusion

Today the “bottom” three-quarters of the world’s population accounts for at least 50% of all people with internet access, says a Pew report.[8] As Turner pointed out in 2007, investment in telecom, which facilitates easy access to information, is more productive than investment in other kinds of infrastructure.[9] The impact is particularly noticeable in developing nations.

ICTs are not a technical solution on their own but are enablers in a process of local prioritisation and problem solving. This report has highlighted initiatives that use mobile technology. But mobile solutions are obviously not the only useful ones. For instance, LabourNet in Bangalore connects employers and casual labourers through an online database that is updated constantly.[10] Thanks to LabourNet, workers, especially at construction sites, get decent pay, training, insurance and safety measures at the workplace. However, the information supplied is more at the administrative level than the grassroots level.

The success lies in embedding ICTs in a holistic approach encompassing a diverse range of development initiatives. The trick is not to emphasise technology but to put people and their needs before technology. Sustainable livelihood approaches need to be people-centred, recognising the capital assets of the poor and the influence of policies and institutions on their livelihood strategies.[11]

Also, the mere ability to access information cannot take one far. What is important is what one can do with that information. Often one would need to have additional skills and capital to take advantage of the information. That is why efforts to provide improved access to information should go hand in hand with efforts to enhance skills through training programmes, and efforts to enhance access to finance through microfinance and the formation of self-help groups.

Rural livelihoods involve a wide range of strategies both within and outside the farming sector. Often farming communities need to augment their income through non-farming enterprises, and here the women and youth could play a role in enhancing household income.

It will be good to remember that a large number of ICT-enabled development pilot projects have remained just that – pilot projects that did not scale up.

References

Chapman, R., Slaymaker, T. and Young, J. (2003) Livelihoods Approaches to Information and Communication in Support of Rural Poverty Elimination and Food Security, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Chapman, R. (2005) ICT enabled knowledge centres and learning in the global village, in The Third MSSRF South-South Exchange Travelling Workshop (MSSRF/PR/05/59), M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai.
Jensen, R. (2007) The digital provide: Information (technology), market performance, and welfare in the South Indian fisheries sector, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122 (August), p. 879-924.
Quitney Anderson, J. and Rainie, L. (2008) The Future of the Internet III, Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington. www.future-internet.eu/fileadmin/documents/prague_documents/oc-meetings/PIP_FutureInternet3.pdf

Chapman, R., Slaymaker, T. and Young, J. (2003) Livelihoods Approaches to Information and Communication in Support of Rural Poverty Elimination and Food Security, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Good examples of environmental goods are handicrafts made from locally available material (plant or mineral-based material) and organic products.
Qualcomm is a US-based multinational that designs and make chips for telecom equipment. Tata Teleservices is a leading mobile service provider, and Astute Systems Technology is a software company writing applications for the chips.
Jensen, R. (2007) The digital provide: Information (technology), market performance, and welfare in the South Indian fisheries sector, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122 (August), p. 879-924.
An economic law which states that in an efficient market, all identical goods must have only one price. In other words, variations in fish prices caused by differences in demand and supply at different locations disappeared once both buyers and sellers started using mobile phones.
Turner, B. (2007) Cellphones & Development — Evidence, not anecdotes.
blogs.nmss.com/communications/2007/02/cellphones_deve.html
Syngenta is a multinational company. One of its corporate goals is to help farmers maximise the potential of their resources. Towards this end it provides technological solutions, as well as information relating to agronomy, land use, etc. Skymet provides weather-related services that allow clients to adapt to a changing environment.
Quitney Anderson, J. and Rainie, L. (2008) The Future of the Internet III, Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington.
www.future-internet.eu/fileadmin/documents/prague_documents/oc-meetings/PIP_FutureInternet3.pdf
Turner (2007) op. cit.
LabourNet matches the skills sets of people available for work with the needs of those who use their services, similar to headhunters who match the skills of executives and managers and place them in the right companies at the right levels, Only LabourNet deals with the poor.
Chapman, R. (2005) ICT enabled knowledge centres and learning in the global village, in The Third MSSRF South-South Exchange Travelling Workshop (MSSRF/PR/05/59), M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai..

Link to the article

IPv6 in India: The promises and challenges

Pranesh Prakash — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:33:06 +0530

Reports suggest that the global pool of IPv4 addresses will run dry by 2011, and thus the shift to IPv6 is imminent. But what does that mean? There are excellent resources that explain this in technical language. Below I shall try to do so in non-technical language.

What is IPv6?

Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) is a standard defined in 1981, which is central to the Internet, allowing vastly different computers on vastly different kinds of networks to communicate with each other. (Think of how diplomatic protocols enables diplomats from vastly different cultures to communicate effectively by agreement on certain common minimums (such as a handshake, etc.).) IPv4 was defined when there were relatively few computers, and even fewer connected to networks. Many things have changed since then, with one of the most important change being the burgeoning of the Internet and the World Wide Web. Each computer on the Internet has something known as an IP address. Each 'packet' of data transmitted over the Internet must have associated from and to IP addresses (which can sometimes be ranges of addresses). IPv4 can accommodate 4,294,967,296 (2^32) unique IP addresses, whereas IPv6 can handle 340 undecillion (2^128) unique addresses. When you consider that every device with Internet connectivity has an IP address (from laptops to Blackberries to even alarm clocks), a lot of IP addresses are required. Since the early 1990s, people have been talking about some of the limitations of IPv4, the primary one being the lack of expandability of IPv4.

Benefits of IPv6

Greater number of computers on the Internet, as it uses more
Better reliability and security, as IPSec, a protocol for authenticating and securing all IP data, is built into IPv6 as a default.
More efficient and thus faster than IPv4. Despite carrying much more data, IPv6 packets are simpler to route (just as addresses with pincodes are easier for post offices to handle).
More features can be added more easily. If at a later point of time more features are required, those can be added without a whole new protocol being designed.

What all does IPv6 require?

IPv6-capable Internet Service Providers providing consumers IPv6 addresses
IPv6-capable networking hardware (modems, routers)
IPv6-capable operating systems on consumer devices (smartphones, computers, etc.)
IPv6-capable websites, which depends on (1)

The shift to IPv6

Apart from IPv6 capability, at some point the shift to IPv6 must happen, since IPv4 and IPv6 are not compatible. Translators, which allow an IPv6 address to be understood by a computer using IPv4, do exist, but they are quite expensive to deploy. Currently, it is estimated that around 1% of the world's Internet traffic is conducted using IPv6. The most successful example of IPv6 being used on a large scale was the 2008 Olympics where all network operations (from security camera transmissions to a special IPv6 website). So why haven't more ISPs shifted to IPv6? Because of network externalities. While telephones make sense, being the only person in the world with a telephone doesn't. Similarly, while IPv6 is the way for the future, it only makes economic sense for ISPs to shift (or even prepare for the shift, by using translators) when there are plenty of others using IPv6. While some ISPs (like Sify) are already prepared for the shift, others need to gear up. Importantly, the government step in to encourage (and, perhaps, at some point, mandate) this transition. Following the governments of the US, EU, and China, the Indian government too sees the immensity of this shift, and has tasked the Telecommunication Engineering Centre (TEC) of the Department of Telecommunications to take the lead in this. The TEC has convened meetings with experts, and thus India seems to be on the right track.

What does all this mean for you?

Perhaps a lot or not very much, depending on how you look at things. Most modern modems and routers (which are usually provided by your ISP) support IPv6, but are, by default, configured for IPv4. Many smartphones don't work on IPv6, but generally phones have a shorter shelf life and chances are that market forces will goad manufacturers to support IPv6 by the time the IPv6 Internet becomes more popular. Thus, while IPv4 addresses might be find themselves near the end of their natural life within one to three years, they will live on thanks to various mechanisms that translate IPv4 to IPv6 (which won't work well with certain applications such as peer-to-peer file-sharing). Eventually, even those translators will have to be abandoned if we are to embrace a brave new Internet.

Access Beyond Developmentalism: Technology and the Intellectual Life of the Poor

Radha Rao — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:25:00 +0530

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.

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.

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”

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.”

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.

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?

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’.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lawrence Liang is founder of the Alternative Law Forum and a Distinguished Fellow with the Centre for Internet and Society.

Link to the original article

Link to related article

The ICANN-US DOC 'Affirmation of Commitments' - A Step Forward?

Anja Kovacs — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:50:00 +0530

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.

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]). 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.

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.

1] For more information, please see http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/ncuc-letter-to-icann-board-of, http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/top-10-myths-about-civil, and http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/10/2/4338930.html.

ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದ - ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನ್ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ

Radha Rao — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:30:00 +0530

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನ್ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದದ ತಾಣದಿಂದ ಡೌನ್ ಲೋಡ್ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ: http://krushi.sampada.net

ನಿಮ್ಮ ಅನಿಸಿಕೆ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿಗಳನ್ನು ಕೃಷಿಸಂಪದ ತಂಡಕ್ಕೆ ಇ-ಮೈಲ್ ಮೂಲಕ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿ ಕೊಡಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ: krushi@sampada.net

Information and Communication Technology For Improving Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods

Radha Rao — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:35:00 +0530

(ಮೈಕೇಲ್‌ ರಿಗ್ಸ್. ವಿಶ್ವ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ಆಹಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಘಟನೆಯ ಜ್ಞಾನ ಮತ್ತು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ. ಐ.ಸಿ.ಟಿ. (ಇನ್‌ಫರ್ಮೇಶನ್ ಅಂಡ್ ಕಮ್ಯನಿಕೇಶನ್‌ ಟೆಕ್ನಾಲಜಿ) ಅಂದರೆ, ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಮತ್ತು ದೂರಸಂಪರ್ಕ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನವನ್ನು ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿಗೆ ಬಳಸಲು ಪ್ರೇರೇಪಿಸುವುದು ಅವರ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರಿ. ಆಗಸ್ಟ್ ಕೊನೆಯ ವಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿಗೆ ಬಂದಿದ್ದ ರಿಗ್ಸ್ ಕನಿಂಗ್‌ಹ್ಯಾಮ್‌ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ದಿ ಸೆಂಟರ್ ಫಾರ್ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಅಂಡ್ ಸೊಸೈಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಷಣ ಮಾಡಿದರು. ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ನೆರವಿನಿಂದ ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಸುಲಭ ಎಂಬುದು ಅವರ ಮಾತಿನ ಸಾರಾಂಶ. ಆ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಜರಿದ್ದ ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದ ತಂಡ ಗ್ರಹಿಸಿದ ವಿವರ ಇಲ್ಲಿದೆ)
ಒಂದು ಸರಳ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸಾಧನವೊಂದು ನಮ್ಮ ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಪ್ರದೇಶದ ಬದುಕನ್ನೇ ಪ್ರಗತಿಯತ್ತ ಕೊಂಡೊಯ್ಯಬಲ್ಲುದೆ? ವಿಶ್ವ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ಆಹಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಘಟನೆಯ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ ಮೈಕೇಲ್ ರಿಗ್ಸ್ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಅದು ಖಂಡಿತ ಸಾಧ್ಯ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಅವರು ನೀಡುವ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ ಮೊಬೈಲ್.
ಮೊಬೈಲ್‌ ಯಂತ್ರದ ಬಳಕೆಯ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆಗಳು ಅಪಾರ ಅಂತಾರೆ ರಿಗ್ಸ್. ಇದರಿಂದ ರೈತ ಮತ್ತು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಭಂಡಾರದ ನಡುವಿನ ದೂರ ಇಲ್ಲವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ರೈತನಿಗೆ ಬೇಕಾದ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಅಥವಾ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ತಕ್ಷಣ ಅವರಿಗೆ ತಲುಪಿಸಬಹುದು. ಬರ, ಅತಿವೃಷ್ಟಿ, ಕೀಟಬಾಧೆ, ಬೆಲೆ ಏರಿಳಿತ, ಯಾವ ಪ್ರದೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ಯಾವ ಬೆಳೆ ಸೂಕ್ತ, ಬಿತ್ತನೆ ಹೇಗೆ, ಕಾಲಕಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ಅನುಸರಿಸಬೇಕಾದ ಬೇಸಾಯ ಕ್ರಮಗಳಾವವು, ಯಾವ ಮಣ್ಣಿಗೆ ಎಂಥ ಬೆಳೆ ಸೂಕ್ತ- ಹೀಗೆ ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಬಂಧಿ ವಿಷಯಗಳೆಲ್ಲವನ್ನೂ ಮೊಬೈಲ್‌ ಮೂಲಕ ಅಪ್‌ಡೇಟ್ ಮಾಡುತ್ತ ಹೋಗಬಹುದು. ಒಂದೇ ಸಂದೇಶವನ್ನು ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಎಲ್ಲ ರೈತರಿಗೂ ಏಕಕಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ತಲುಪಿಸುವುದು ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಮೂಲಕ ಸುಲಭ. ಅಷ್ಟೇ ಅಲ್ಲ, ರೈತರೈತರ ನಡುವೆ ಕೂಡ ಇದು ಸಂಪರ್ಕ ಸಾಧನವಾಗಿ, ಮಾಹಿತಿ ವಿನಿಮಯಕ್ಕೆ ನೆರವಾಗಬಲ್ಲುದು.
ಇಂಥದೇ ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ ವಿಡಿಯೋ ಕಾನ್ಫೆರೆನ್ಸಿಂಗ್. ರೈತನ ಹೊಲದ ವಾಸ್ತವ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಏನೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ತಕ್ಷಣ ಅರಿಯಬಹುದು. ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ರೈತರೊಂದಿಗೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ನೇರವಾಗಿ ಮಾತನಾಡಿ, ಸೂಕ್ತ ಪರಿಹಾರ ಕ್ರಮಗಳನ್ನು ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದು. ಇದರಿಂದ ಹಣ ಮತ್ತು ಸಮಯದ ಅಪಾರ ಉಳಿತಾಯವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪರಿಹಾರ ಕೂಡ ಶೀಘ್ರವಾಗಿ ಲಭಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಅಂತಾರೆ ಮೈಕೇಲ್‌ ರಿಗ್ಸ್.
ಈ ಎಲ್ಲ ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗಳು ಕೇವಲ ಆದರ್ಶಗಳಲ್ಲ. ವಿಶ್ವಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ಆಹಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ವಿವಿಧ ದೇಶಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಇದನ್ನು ಯಶಸ್ವಿಯಾಗಿ ಪ್ರಯೋಗಿಸಿದೆ. ರೈತರೆಂದರೆ ಏನೂ ಗೊತ್ತಿರದ ಜನ ಎಂಬ ಭ್ರಮೆಯನ್ನು ಬದಿಗಿಟ್ಟು, ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನವನ್ನು ಅವರ ಕೈಗೆ ತಲುಪಿಸಿದರೆ ಪ್ರಗತಿ ಖಂಡಿತ. ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಪ್ರದೇಶದ ಜನ ಹೇಗೆ ಬದುಕುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂಬ ಕಲ್ಪನೆಯೇ ಬಹಳಷ್ಟು ಕಡೆ ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟವಾಗಿಲ್ಲ. ಹೀಗಿರುವಾಗ, ಅವರಿಗಾಗಿ ರೂಪಿಸುವ ಯೋಜನೆಗಳು ಅವರನ್ನು ತಲುಪುವುದಾದರೂ ಹೇಗೆ ಎಂಬುದು ರಿಗ್ಸ್ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ.
ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನವನ್ನು ಬಳಸಿ, ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಪ್ರದೇಶವನ್ನು ಕಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಗಳನ್ನು ಅರಿತುಕೊಳ್ಳಿ. ನಂತರ, ಅವನ್ನು ನಿವಾರಿಸುವ ಕುರಿತು ಯೋಜನೆಗಳನ್ನು ರೂಪಿಸಿ. ಅವುಗಳ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದವರಿಗೆ ತಲುಪಿಸಿ. ಅವರೂ ಈ ಕಾರ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಕ್ರಿಯವಾಗಿ ಪಾಲ್ಗೊಳ್ಳುವಂತೆ ಉತ್ತೇಜಿಸಿ. ಮೊಬೈಲ್‌ ಕಂಪನಿಗಳು ಕೂಡ ಈ ಕೆಲಸಕ್ಕೆ ಕೈಜೋಡಿಸಬಲ್ಲವು. ಆಗ ಯಾವೊಂದು ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಯೂ ಅಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಉಳಿದುಬಿಡದೇ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಗಮನಕ್ಕೆ ಬರುತ್ತದೆ. ಆಗ ಪರಿಹಾರ ಸುಲಭ. ಹಲವಾರು ಬುದ್ಧಿಜೀವಿಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞರು ಸೇರಿ ರೂಪಿಸಿದ್ದು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಮತ್ತು ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ ಬಳಕೆಯ ಈ ಐಡಿಯಾ. ಹಿಂದುಳಿದ ದೇಶವಾದ ಕೋಸ್ಟರಿಕ, ಭೂತಾನ್‌, ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿಶೀಲ ದೇಶಗಳಾದ ಶ್ರೀಲಂಕಾ, ಮಲೇಷ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಪ್ರಯೋಗ ಯಶಸ್ವಿಯಾಗಿದೆ ಅಂತಾರೆ ರಿಗ್ಸ್.
'ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಪ್ರದೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ರವಾನಿಸುವುದು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಕಾಲದಲ್ಲೂ ಎದುರಾಗಿರುವ ದೊಡ್ಡ ಸವಾಲು. ಇವತ್ತಿಗೂ ತುಂಬ ಜನ ಇದು ಕಷ್ಟಕರ ಎಂದೇ ಭಾವಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅವರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಅಕ್ಷರರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುವಂಥದು. ವೆಬ್‌ಸೈಟ್, ದಿನಪತ್ರಿಕೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಬರುವ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ರೈತ ಓದಬಲ್ಲನೆ? ಎಂಬುದು ಅವರ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ. ನಿಜ, ರೈತನಿಗೆ ವೆಬ್‌ಸೈಟ್‌ ನೋಡಲು ಆಗಲಿಕ್ಕಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ, ಸರ್ಕಾರ ನೋಡಬಹುದಲ್ಲ? ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ನೋಡಬಹುದು. ಅಲ್ಲಿಂದ ಹೆಕ್ಕಿದ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ರೈತನಿಗೆ ತಲುಪಿಸುವುದಷ್ಟೇ ಮುಂದಿನ ಕೆಲಸ. ಮೊಬೈಲ್‌ ಆ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ವೇಗವಾಗಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪರಿಣಾಮಕಾರಿಯಾಗಿ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು. ರೇಡಿಯೋದಂತೆ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಒಮ್ಮುಖ ಸಂಪರ್ಕ ಇಲ್ಲ. ರೈತ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ನೇರ ಸಂವಾದ ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿರುವುದರಿಂದ, ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ ಬೇಗ ಪರಿಹಾರ ಕಾಣಬಲ್ಲುದು' ಎಂಬುದು ಮೈಕೇಲ್‌ ರಿಗ್ಸ್ ವಾದ.
ಹೀಗಾಗಿ, ವಿಶ್ವಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ಆಹಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ನೆರವಿನಿಂದ ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಪ್ರದೇಶಗಳ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿಗೆ ಮುಂದಾಗಿದೆ. ಅದರಲ್ಲೂ ವೇಗವಾಗಿ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಹೊಂದುತ್ತಿರುವ ಭಾರತದಂಥ ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ, ಪ್ರಗತಿಯ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆಗಳು ಅಪಾರ. ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಮೊಬೈಲ್‌ ದರ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಕಡಿಮೆ. ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿ ಹೆಚ್ಚು. ಹಲವಾರು ಕಂಪನಿಗಳು ಕಣದಲ್ಲಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಸ್ಪರ್ಧಾತ್ಮಕ ದರದಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇವೆ ಸಿಗುತ್ತದೆ. ರೈತರ ಯೋಜನೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಇನ್ನೂ ರಿಯಾಯಿತಿ ಪಡೆಯಬಹುದು. ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಮನಸ್ಸು ಮಾಡಿದರೆ, ಖಂಡಿತವಾಗಿ ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಕೆಲಸ ತೀವ್ರಗೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂಬುದು ರಿಗ್ಸ್ ಮಾತಿನ ಸಾರಾಂಶ.
ಇಷ್ಟೊಂದು ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ ಬಂದಿದೆ. ಆದರೂ ಹಸಿವೆಯನ್ನು ಹೋಗಲಾಡಿಸಲು ಆಗಿಲ್ಲ. ಎಲ್ಲ ಪ್ರದೇಶಗಳಿಗೂ ಒಂದೇ ರೀತಿಯ ಯೋಜನೆ ರೂಪಿಸುವ ಸಾಂಪ್ರದಾಯಿಕ ವಿಧಾನಗಳಿಂದ ಉಪಯೋಗವಿಲ್ಲ. ಮೊಬೈಲ್‌ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನವೊಂದನ್ನೇ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಂಡರೂ ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು ಹಳ್ಳಿಗೆ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಬೇಕಾದ ರೀತಿಯ ಪರಿಹಾರ ಕ್ರಮಗಳನ್ನು ರೂಪಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯ. ಆಗ ಭೂಮಿಯ ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಮೂಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ರೈತನೊಂದಿಗೆ ಇಲ್ಲಿಯ ರೈತ ಸಂಪರ್ಕ ಹೊಂದಲು, ಮಾಹಿತಿ ವಿನಿಮಯ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯ. ಹೊಸ ವಿಚಾರ, ವಿಧಾನ ಆತನಿಗೆ ದಕ್ಕುತ್ತವೆ. ರೈತನೊಳಗೊಬ್ಬ ಕ್ರಿಯಾಶೀಲ ವಿಜ್ಞಾನಿ, ಕೆಲಸಗಾರ ಕಣ್ತೆರೆಯುತ್ತಾನೆ. ಹೊಸ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ಹರಿದಾಡುವುದರಿಂದ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ವೇಗವಾಗಿ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತದೆ. ನನ್ನ ಎಂಟು ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಅನುಭವ ಹೇಳುವುದಾದರೆ, ಜಗತ್ತಿನ ಎಲ್ಲ ಗ್ರಂಥಾಲಯಗಳನ್ನು ಜೋಡಿಸಿದಾಗ ಸಿಗುವ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಿಂತ ನಮ್ಮ ಹತ್ತಿರ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸಂಗ್ರಹವಾಗಬಲ್ಲುದು ಅಂತಾರೆ ರಿಗ್ಸ್.
ಸಮುದಾಯಗಳನ್ನು ಸ್ಥಾಪಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ಇಪ್ಪತ್ತರಿಂದ ನೂರು ಜನರಿರುವ ಸಣ್ಣ ಸಣ್ಣ ತಂಡಗಳನ್ನು ರಚಿಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ನಾವು ಗುರಿಯನ್ನು ಸುಲಭವಾಗಿ ತಲುಪಬಹುದು. ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು ಸಮುದಾಯವೂ ದೂರ ಸಂಪರ್ಕ ಸಾಧನಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ ಪರಸ್ಪರ ಸಂಪರ್ಕ ಹೊಂದಬೇಕು. ವಿಚಾರ ವಿನಿಮಯವಾಗಬೇಕು. ರೈತರ ಇಂಥ ಸಮುದಾಯ ಜಗತ್ತಿನ ಎಲ್ಲ ಭಾಗಗಳ ಜನರನ್ನು ಒಳಗೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ಏಕೆಂದರೆ, ಜಗತ್ತಿನ ಎಲ್ಲ ರೈತರ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ಪರಿಹಾರಗಳೂ ಒಂದೇ ಆಗಿವೆ. ಏಕದಿಂದ ಅನೇಕ (ಒನ್‌ ಟು ಮೆನಿ) ನೀತಿಯಿಂದ ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ರೈತರು ಪರಸ್ಪರ ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಬಲ್ಲರು, ಮಾಹಿತಿ ವಿನಿಮಯ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಲ್ಲರು. ಒಂದು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸಾವಿರಾರು ಜನರನ್ನು ತಲುಪಬಲ್ಲುದು. ಕಳೆದ ಎಂಟು ವರ್ಷಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಕಂಡುಕೊಂಡ ಯಶಸ್ಸಿನ ಗುಟ್ಟಿದು ಎಂದರು ರಿಗ್ಸ್.
ಸಿಐಎಸ್‌ (ಸೆಂಟರ್ ಫಾರ್ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್‌ ಸೊಸೈಟಿ) ಈ ಕೆಲಸಕ್ಕೆ ಮುಂದಾಗಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಆಶಿಸಿದ ರಿಗ್ಸ್, ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಜನತೆಯನ್ನು ತಲುಪುವ ಕೆಲಸ ನಿಮ್ಮಿಂದ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭವಾಗಲಿ ಎಂದರು. ಜಗತ್ತಿನ ಯಾವೊಂದು ಸಮುದಾಯವೂ ತನ್ನ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಯನ್ನು ತಾನೊಂದೇ ಪೂರ್ತಿಯಾಗಿ ಪರಿಹರಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ. ಹೀಗಾಗಿ, ಸಮುದಾಯದ ಪಾಲ್ಗೊಳ್ಳುವಿಕೆ ಮುಖ್ಯವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಹೀಗಾಗಿ, ಎಲ್ಲರೂ ಜೊತೆಯಾಗಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡೋಣ. ಆಗ, ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಗಳು ಹಗುರವಾಗುತ್ತವೆ. ಲಾಭ ದುಪ್ಪಟ್ಟಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರು.
ಮೈಕೇಲ್‌ ರಿಗ್ಸ್ ಹೊಸ ರೀತಿಯ ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ಹಾಗೂ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಪ್ರಗತಿಯ ಕನಸನ್ನು ಬಿತ್ತುತ್ತ ನಡೆದಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅದನ್ನು ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಪ್ರದೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ತಲುಪಿಸುವ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರಿ ನಮ್ಮೆಲ್ಲರದು.

Value Added Services of Information & Communication Technology- Mobile Telephony for Farmers Benefit

Radha Rao — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:55:00 +0530

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

'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 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.

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

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.

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.

A Comment on the 2009 IGF Draft Programme Paper

Anja Kovacs — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:25:00 +0530

The comment submitted reads as follows:

Re: IGF Draft Programme Paper, August 2009

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.

Signatories:

Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore

Association for Progressive Communications

IP Justice

Bytesforall, Pakistan

Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Jacques Berleur

Ginger Paque

Fouad Bajwa

Milton L Mueller

Willie Currie

Michael Gurstein

Jeanette Hofmann

Eric Dierker

Jeffrey A Williams

Charity Gamboa, chairperson Internet Governance Working Group, ISOC Philippines

Ian Peter

Tracy F. Hackshaw

Shaila Rao Mistry, Internet Rights and Principles

Lee W McKnight

Jeremy Malcolm

Tapani Tarvainen

Shahzad Ahmad, ICT Policy Monitors Network

Carlos Afonso

Dina Hovakmian

Rui Correia

Lisa Horner

Deirdre Williams

Jaco Aizenman

Nyangkwe Agien Aaron

Siranush Vardanyan, Armenia

Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong

Linda D. Misek-Falkoff

Baudouin Schombe

Stefano Trumpy

IT Act and Commerce

Pranesh Prakash — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:40:00 +0530

This post analyses the amendments brought about to the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act 2000”) through the recent 2008 amendments (“IT Act 2008”).

Definitions

The IT Act 2008 has introduced a few additional definitions to the list of definitions originally included in the IT Act 2000. These definitions have either amplified the existing provisions or been introduced in order to address new issues required to be defined in the context of the newly introduced provisions in the statute. Some of the significant definitions have been discussed below:

Computer Network

The definition of “computer network” has been amended to specifically include the wireless interconnection of computers. While wireless technology did fall within the scope of the IT Act under the rather generic head of “other communication media”, the Amendment Act clarifies the scope of the IT Act by expressly including the term “wireless”.

Communication Devices

The IT Amendment Bill, 2006, had provided an explanation for “communication devices” under Section 66A. This definition has been moved into the definition section and now applies across all sections of the IT Act 2008. “Communication devices” is defined to mean “a cell phone, personal digital assistance (PDA) device or combination of both or any device used to communicate, send or transmit any text, video, audio or image”.

There has been case law even under the IT Act that has held mobile phones to fall within the ambit of the IT Act, as a result of which all the provisions of the Act that apply to computers are equally applicable to mobile phones. This amendment only makes that position more explicit.

Electronic Signatures

One of the major criticisms of the IT Act 2000 was the fact that it was not a technology neutral legislation. This was specifically so in relation to the provisions in the IT Act 2000 relating to the use of digital signatures for the purpose of authentication of electronic records. The statute made specific reference to the use of asymmetric cryptosystem technologies in the context of digital signatures, and, in effect, any authentication method that did not use this technology was not recognised under the IT Act 2000.

The IT Act 2008 has attempted to make this more technology neutral. In doing so, the attempt has been to bring the law in line with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Electronic Signatures (“Model Law”).

Replacement of Digital Signatures

The first significant change in the IT Act 2008 is the replacement of the term “digital signatures” with “electronic signatures” in almost all the provisions in the IT Act 2000. In some provisions, reference continues to be made to digital signatures, but the net effect of the amendments is to treat digital signatures as a subset (or an example of one type) of electronic signatures.

Electronic signatures have been defined as the authentication of an electronic record using the authentication techniques specified in the 2nd Schedule to the Act, provided they are reliable.

The reliability criterion has been introduced, very much along the lines of the Model Law. However, the contents of the 2nd Schedule are yet to be stipulated, which means that despite the existence of a reliability standard, the only authentication method available at this point in time is the digital signature regime.

Dual Requirement

One significant implication of this amendment is the introduction of a dual requirement – to meet the reliability standard as well as to be included in the 2nd Schedule. However, structuring the authentication procedures in this manner offsets the objective tests of neutrality borrowed from the Model Law, since an authentication method may meet the reliability test but will not be deemed to be legally enforceable unless it is notified in the 2nd Schedule.

Additionally, there will be grounds for challenging electronic signatures that are notified to the 2nd Schedule, if it can be shown that the signature so notified is not reliable under the terms of the reliability criteria. This can act as an impediment to the recognition of electronic signatures by notification.

Emphasis on Digital Signatures

Another concern is the treatment of digital signatures in the post amendment statute. The IT Act 2008 continues to retain all the provisions relating to digital signatures within the main body of the statute. The term “digital signature” has not been uniformly substituted with “electronic signature” throughout the statute. In certain provisions this leads to a certain amount of absurdity, such as in those relating to representations made as to the issuance, suspension or revocation of digital signature certificates; due to the lack of uniformity, these principles now apply only to digital signatures and not to all types of electronic signatures.

It would have been preferable if the provisions relating to digital signatures had been moved in their entirety to the 2nd Schedule. Then, digital signatures would have become just another class of electronic signatures listed in the Schedule. By omitting to do this, the authors ensure that digital signature-specific provisions remaining in the main body of the statute challenge the technology neutrality of the statute.

Certifying Authorities

The IT Act 2008 has made the certifying authority the repository of all electronic signatures issued under the statute. Given that there are, at present, multiple certifying authorities, this provision is impractical. Instead, the statute should have either referred to the Controller of Certifying Authorities or should have been worded to state that each certifying authority would be the repository for all electronic signature certificates issued by it.

Impact on Other Statutes

Since the enactment of the IT Act 2000, amendments have been carried out in other statutes, relying on the concept of digital signatures. For instance, the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, makes the use of a digital signature essential for an electronic cheque.1 While the IT Act 2008 has expanded the scope of the available authentication measures, by introducing the technologically neutral concept of electronic signatures, corresponding amendments in other statutes like the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, will need to be carried out, so that they are not limited in their application to digital signatures.

Data Protection

Prior to the passing of the IT Act 2008, the concept of 'data protection' was not recognised in India. The amendments have now introduced some amount of legal protection for data stored in the electronic medium. This chapter analyses the changes sought to be introduced and their impact on data protection law in India.

Data under the IT Act 2000

The only provision under the IT Act 2000, which dealt with unauthorised access and damage to data, was Section 43. Under that section, penalties were prescribed in respect of any person who downloads copies or extracts data from a computer system, introduces computer contaminants or computer viruses into a computer system or damages any data residing in a computer system.

Data under the IT Act 2008

Under the IT Act 2008, far-reaching changes have been made in relation to data. Two sections have been inserted specifically for that purpose – Sections 43-A and 72-A, one dealing with the civil and the other with the criminal remedies in relation to the breach of data related obligations.

The Civil Remedies for Data Protection

The newly introduced Section 43-A reads as follows:

Compensation for failure to protect data - Where a body corporate, possessing, dealing or handling any sensitive personal data or information in a computer resource which it owns, controls or operates, is negligent in implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices and procedures and thereby causes wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any person, such body corporate shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation, to the person so affected.

Explanation - For the purposes of this section:

(i) “Body Corporate” means any company and includes a firm, sole proprietorship or other association of individuals engaged in commercial or professional activities;

(ii) “Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures” means security practices and procedures designed to protect such information from unauthorised access, damage, use, modification, disclosure or impairment, as may be specified in an agreement between the parties or as may be specified in any law for the time being in force and in the absence of such agreement or any law, such reasonable security practices and procedures, as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with such professional bodies or associations as it may deem fit; and

(iii) “Sensitive Personal Data or Information” means such personal information as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with such professional bodies or associations as it may deem fit.

While at first this provision appears to address several long standing concerns relating to data protection in India, there are several insidious flaws that could affect the development of a data protection jurisprudence in the country.

Non-Electronic Data

In the first instance, there is no mention, under this provision, of non-electronic data. Most international data protection statutes recognise and protect data stored in any electronic medium or a relevant filing system (including, for instance, a salesperson's diary). The newly introduced provisions of the IT Act 2008 do not provide any protection for data stored in a non-electronic medium.

It could be argued that given the legislative focus of this statute (it has been called the Information Technology Act with a reason), it would be inappropriate to include within this statute protection for forms of data that do not relate to the digital or electronic medium. While that argument is valid to many who look to the new provisions introduced in the IT Act 2008 as the answer to the data protection concerns that the country has been facing all these years, their enthusiasm must be tempered as these new provisions merely provide solutions for electronic data.

Classification of Data

Most international data protection statutes distinguish between different levels of personal data – specifying difference levels of protection for personal information and sensitive personal information. Depending on whether the data can be classified as one or the other, they have different levels of protection, as loss, unauthorised access or disclosure of sensitive personal information is considered to have a deeper impact on the data subject.

The new provisions of the IT Act 2008 make no such distinction. Section 43-A applies to all “sensitive personal data or information” but does not specify how personal data not deemed to be sensitive is to be treated. In essence, personal information and sensitive personal information do not appear to be differentially treated in the context of data protection.

Consequences

Under most international data protection statutes, the person in “control” of the data is liable for the consequences of disclosure, loss or unauthorised access to such information. This ensures that liability is restricted to those who actually have the ability to control the manner in which the data is treated.

However, under the new provisions of the IT Act 2008, the mere possession of information and its subsequent misuse would render any person who possesses this data liable to damages. While there is likely to be a debate on what constitutes possession and how this differs from control, there can be little doubt that by referring to “possession” in addition to “operation” and “control”, the IT Act 2008 appears to have widened the net considerably.

Negligence in Implementing Security Practices

Section 43-A specifically places liability on a body corporate only if such body corporate has been negligent in implementing its security practices and procedures in relation to the data possessed, controlled or handled by it. The choice of language here is significant. The statute specifically refers to the term “negligence” in relation to the security practices and procedures as opposed to stipulating a clear, pass-fail type obligation to conform.

There is a significant difference between the terms “negligence to implement” and “failure to implement”. The former can only result in a breach if the body corporate that was required to follow reasonable security practices with regard to the data in its possession or control does not perform the required action and it can be proved that a reasonable man in the same circumstances would have performed the required action. If a body corporate is to be made liable under the provisions of this Section, it is not enough to demonstrate that security procedures were not followed; it has to be proved in addition that the body corporate was negligent.

Wrongful Loss and Gain

The Section appears to have been constructed on the basis that a breach has occurred in the event that any “wrongful gain” or “wrongful loss” was suffered. These terms have not been defined either under statutes or through any judicial precedents in the civil context. However, these terms do have a definition under criminal law in India. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), defines “Wrongful Gain” to mean gain, by unlawful means, of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled; and “Wrongful Loss” to mean the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.

There does not appear to be any greater significance in the use of these terms even though they are typically found in criminal statutes. Therefore, apart from the slight ambiguity as to purpose, their use in the IT Act does not appear to have any great significance.

Limitation on Liability

The provisions of Section 43 originally had the total liability for a breach capped at Rs. 5,00,00,000 (five crore rupees). The original text of Section 43-A had the same limitation of liability in respect of its data protection provisions. Before the bill was passed into law, this limitation was removed and now a breach of Section 43-A is not subject to any limitation of liabilities.

Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures

Section 43-A makes a reference to “reasonable security practices and procedures” and stipulates that a breach has been caused only if such practices and procedures have not been followed. There are three methods by which reasonable security practices and procedures can be established:

By agreement;
By law; and
By prescription by the Central Government.

As there is no law in India which sets out an appropriate definition for the term and since it will be some time before which the Central Government comes out with necessary regulations, it would appear that the only option available is for the parties to arrive at an agreement as to how the sensitive personal data and information exchanged under their contract is to be handled.

As a corollary, till such time as the government establishes the necessary rules in relation to these security practices and procedures, if a body corporate does not enter into an agreement with the person providing the information as to the reasonable security practices and procedures that would apply, the body corporate cannot be brought within the purview of this section for any loss or damage to data.

The Criminal Remedies for Unlawful Disclosure of Information

In addition to the civil remedies spelled out in such detail in Section 43-A, the newly introduced provisions of Section 72-A of the IT Act 2008 could be used to impose criminal sanctions against any person who discloses information in breach of a contract for services. While not exactly a data protection provision in the same way that Section 43-A is, there are enough similarities in purpose to achieve the same result.

Section 72-A reads:

Punishment for Disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract - Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person including an intermediary who, while providing services under the terms of lawful contract, has secured access to any material containing personal information about another person, with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain discloses, without the consent of the person concerned, or in breach of a lawful contract, such material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with a fine which may extend to Rupees five lakh, or with both.

In substance, this provision appears to be focused on providing criminal remedies in the context of breach of confidentiality obligations under service contracts; given that the section specifically refers to the disclosure of personal information obtained under that service contract, it is fair to classify this as a provision that addresses data protection issues.

Personal Information

The IT Act 2008 does not define “personal information”. Equally, there are no judicial precedents that provide any clarity on the term. The Right to Information Act, 2005 does provide a definition for “personal information”, but that definition is inappropriate in the context of the IT Act 2008. In the absence of a useable definition for the term “personal information”, it becomes difficult to assess the scope and ambit of the provision and in particular to understand the extent to which it is enforceable.

"Willful"

The section would only apply to persons who willfully disclose personal information and cause wrongful loss or gain. Hence, in order to make a person liable it has to be proved that the person disclosing the personal information did so with an intention to cause wrongful loss or gain. It would be a valid defense to claim that any loss caused was unintentional.

Service Contracts

The section appears to be particular about the fact that it only applies in the context of personal information obtained under a contract for services. This appears to rule out confidential information (that is not of a personal nature) that has been received under any other form of agreement (including, for example, a technology license agreement). The section is clearly intended to protect against the misuse of personal information and cannot be adapted to provide a wider level of protection against all breaches of confidential information. That said, employers now have a much stronger weapon against employees who leave with the personal records of other fellow employees.

Consent

This section also clearly applies only to those disclosures of personal information with the intent to cause wrongful loss or gain which have taken place without the consent of the person whose personal information is being disclosed. What remains to be seen is how the law will deal with situations where a general consent for disclosures has been obtained at the time of recruitment.

Such clauses are made effective around the world by including opt in and opt out clauses, to allow the employee to either expressly agree to the disclosure of his personal information or to specifically exclude himself from the ambit of any such disclosures.

Media of Material

This section, unlike several other provisions of the IT Act 2008, deals with all manner of materials without requiring them to be digital. However, while disclosure of information stored in the non-electronic medium has been recognised, in the absence of a clear definition of personal information, it is difficult to ascertain the application and enforcement of this section.

What’s Missing

In order to be a truly effective data protection statute, the IT Act 2008 must include provisions relating to the collection, circumstances of collection, control, utilisation and proper disposal of data. At present the statute is silent about these aspects. In many ways, the statute addresses the particular concerns of companies or corporate entities looking for protection in relation to data outsourced to any other corporate entity for processing. Within these specific parameters the statute works well. However it does little to protect the average citizen of the country from the theft of personal data. Until we have statutory recognition of these issues, we will not be able to say that we have an effective data protection law in India.

Primer on the New IT Act

Pranesh Prakash — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:50:00 +0530

The latest amendments to the Information Technology Act 2000, passed in December 2008 by the Lok Sabha, and the draft rules framed under it contain several provisions that can be abused and misused to infringe seriously on citizens' fundamental rights and basic civil liberties. We have already written about some of the problems with this Act earlier. With this information bulletin, drafted by Chennai-based advocate Ananth Padmanabhan, we wish to extend that analysis into the form of a citizens' dialogue highlighting ways in which the Act and the rules under it fail. Thus, we invite your comments, suggestions, and queries, as this is very much a work in progress. We will eventually consolidate this dialogue and follow up with the government on the concerns of its citizens.

Intermediaries beware

Internet service providers, webhosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online auction sites, online market places, and cyber cafes are all examples of “intermediaries” under this Act. The Government can force any of these intermediaries to cooperate with any interception, monitoring or decryption of data by stating broad and ambiguous reasons such as the “interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India”, “defence of India”, “security of the State”, “friendly relations with foreign States”, “public order” or for “preventing incitement to” or “investigating” the commission of offences related to those. This power can be abused to infringe on the privacy of intermediaries as well as to hamper their constitutional right to conduct their business without interference.

If a Google search on “Osama Bin Laden” throws up an article that claims to have discovered his place of hiding, the Government of India can issue a direction authorizing the police to monitor Google’s servers to find the source of this information. While Google can, of course, establish that this information cannot be attributed directly to the organization, making the search unwarranted, that would not help it much. While section 69 grants the government these wide-ranging powers, it does not provide for adequate safeguards in the form of having to show due cause or having an in-built right of appeal against a decision by the government. If Google refused to cooperate under such circumstances, its directors would be liable to imprisonment of up to seven years.

Pre-censorship

The State has been given unbridled power to block access to websites as long as such blocking is deemed to be in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, and other such matters.

Thus, if a web portal or blog carries or expresses views critical of the Indo-US nuclear deal, the government can block access to the website and thus muzzle criticism of its policies. While some may find that suggestion outlandish, it is very much possible under the Act. Since there is no right to be heard before your website is taken down nor is there an in-built mechanism for the website owner to appeal, the decisions made by the government cannot be questioned unless you are prepared to undertake a costly legal battle.

Again, if an intermediary (like Blogspot or an ISP like Airtel) refuses to cooperate, its directors may be personally liable to imprisonment for up to a period of seven years. Thus, being personally liable, the intermediaries are rid of any incentive to stand up for the freedom of speech and expression.

We need to monitor your computer: you have a virus

The government has been vested with the power to authorize the monitoring and collection of traffic data and information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource. This provision is much too widely-worded.

For instance, if the government feels that there is a virus on your computer that can spread to another computer, it can demand access to monitor your e-mails on the ground that such monitoring enhances “cyber security” and prevents “the spread of computer contaminants”.

Think before you click "Send"

If out of anger you send an e-mail for the purpose of causing “annoyance” or “inconvenience”, you may be liable for imprisonment up to three years along with a fine. While that provision (section 66A(c)) was meant to combat spam and phishing attacks, it criminalizes much more than it should.

A new brand of "cyber terrorists"

The new offence of “cyber terrorism” has been introduced, which is so badly worded that it borders on the ludicrous. If a journalist gains unauthorized access to a computer where information regarding corruption by certain members of the judiciary is stored, she becomes a “cyber terrorist” as the information may be used to cause contempt of court. There is no precedent for any such definition of cyberterrorism. It is unclear what definition of terrorism the government is going by when even unauthorized access to defamatory material is considered cyberterrorism.

Comments on the Draft Rules under the Information Technology Act

Pranesh Prakash — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:55:00 +0530

Comments on the Draft Rules under the Information Technology Act as Amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008

Submitted by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore

Prepared by Ananth Padmanabhan, Advocate in the Madras High Court

Interception, Monitoring and Decryption

Section 69

The section says:

Where the Central Government or a State Government or any of its officer specially authorised by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource.
The procedure and safeguards subject to which such interception or monitoring or decryption may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed.
The subscriber or intermediary or any person in-charge of the computer resource shall, when called upon by any agency referred to in sub-section (1), extend all facilities and technical assistance to-

(a) provide access to or secure access to the computer resource generating transmitting, receiving or storing such information; or

(b) intercept, monitor, or decrypt the information, as the case may be; or

The subscriber or intermediary or any person who fails to assist the agency referred to in sub-section (3) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Recommendation #1
Section 69(3) should be amended and the following proviso be inserted:

Provided that only those intermediaries with respect to any information or computer resource that is sought to be monitored, intercepted or decrypted, shall be subject to the obligations contained in this sub-section, who are, in the opinion of the appropriate authority, prima facie in control of such transmission of the information or computer resource. The nexus between the intermediary and the information or the computer resource that is sought to be intercepted, monitored or decrypted should be clearly indicated in the direction referred to in sub-section (1) of this section.

Reasons for the Recommendation
In the case of any information or computer resource, there may be more than one intermediary who is associated with such information. This is because “intermediary” is defined in section 2(w) of the amended Act as,

“with respect to any electronic record means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record, including telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, webhosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes”.

The State or Central Government should not be given wide-ranging powers to enforce cooperation on the part of any such intermediary without there being a clear nexus between the information that is sought to be decrypted or monitored by the competent authority, and the control that any particular intermediary may have over such information.

To give an illustration, merely because some information may have been posted on an online portal, the computer resources in the office of the portal should not be monitored unless the portal has some concrete control over the nature of information posted in it. This has to be stipulated in the order of the Central or State Government which authorizes interception of the intermediary.

Recommendation #2
Section 69(4) should be repealed.

Reasons for the Recommendation
The closest parallels to Section 69 of the Act are the provisions in the Telegraph Rules which were brought in after the decision in PUCL v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301, famously known as the telephone tapping case.

Section 69(4) fixes tremendous liability on the intermediary for non-cooperation. This is violative of Article 14. Similar provisions in the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, which demand cooperation from members of the public as regards production of documents, letters etc., and impose punishment for non-cooperation on their part, impose a maximum punishment of one month. It is bewildering why the punishment is 7 years imprisonment for an intermediary, when the only point of distinction between an intermediary under the IT Act and a member of the public under the IPC and CrPC is the difference in the media which contains the information.

Section 69(3) is akin to the duty cast upon members of the public to extend cooperation under Section 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by way of providing information as to commission of any offence, or the duty, when a summons is issued by the Court or the police, to produce documents under Sections 91 and 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The maximum punishment for non-cooperation prescribed by the Indian Penal Code for omission to cooperate or wilful breach of summons is only a month under Sections 175 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code. Even the maximum punishment for furnishing false information to the police is only six months under Section 177 of the IPC. When this is the case with production of documents required for the purpose of trial or inquiry, it is wholly arbitrary to impose a punishment of six years in the case of intermediaries who do not extend cooperation for providing access to a computer resource which is merely apprehended as being a threat to national security etc. A mere apprehension, however reasonable it may be, should not be used to pin down a liability of such extreme nature on the intermediary.

This would also amount to a violation of Articles 19(1)(a) as well as 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, not to mention Article 20(3). To give an example, much of the information received from confidential sources by members of the press would be stored in computer resources. By coercing them, through the 7 year imprisonment threat, to allow access to this computer resource and thereby part with this information, the State is directly infringing on their right under Article 19(1)(a). Furthermore, if the “subscriber” is the accused, then section 69(4) goes against Article 20(3) by forcing the accused to bear witness against himself.

Draft Rules under Section 69

Rule 3
Directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource under sub- section (2) of section 69 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) shall not be issued except by an order made by the concerned competent authority who is Union Home Secretary in case of Government of India; the Secretary in-charge of Home Department in a State Government or Union Territory as the case may be. In unavoidable circumstances, such order may be made by an officer, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who has been duly authorised by the Union Home Secretary or by an officer equivalent to rank of Joint Secretary to Government of India duly authorised by the Secretary in-charge of Home Department in the State Government or Union Territory, as the case may be:

Provided that in emergency cases –
(i) in remote areas, where obtaining of prior directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of information is not feasible; or
(ii) for operational reasons, where obtaining of prior directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource is not feasible;

the required interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource shall be carried out with the prior approval of the Head or the second senior most officer of the Security and Law Enforcement Agencies (hereinafter referred to as the said Security Agencies) at the Central Level and the officers authorised in this behalf, not below the rank of Inspector General of Police or an officer of equivalent rank, at the State and Union Territory level. The concerned competent authority, however, shall be informed of such interceptions or monitoring or decryption by the approving authority within three working days and that such interceptions or monitoring or decryption shall be got confirmed by the concerned competent authority within a period of seven working days. If the confirmation from the concerned competent authority is not received within the stipulated seven working days, such interception or monitoring or decryption shall cease and the same information shall not be intercepted or monitored or decrypted thereafter without the prior approval of the concerned competent authority, as the case may be.

Recommendation #3
In Rule 3, the following proviso may be inserted:

“Provided that in the event of cooperation by any intermediary being required for the purpose of interception, monitoring or decryption of such information as is referred to in this Rule, prior permission from a Supervisory Committee headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Courts shall be obtained before seeking to enforce the Order mentioned in this Rule against such intermediary.”

Reasons for the Recommendation
Section 69 and the draft rules suffer from absence of essential procedural safeguards. This has come in due to the blanket emulation of the Telegraph Rules. Additional safeguards should have been prescribed to ensure that the intermediary is put to minimum hardship when carrying on the monitoring or being granted access to a computer resource. Those are akin to a raid, in the sense that it can stop an online e-commerce portal from carrying out operations for a day or even more, thus affecting their revenue. It is therefore recommended that in any situation where cooperation from the intermediary is sought, prior judicial approval has to be taken. The Central or State Government cannot be the sole authority in such cases.

Furthermore, since access to the computer resource is required, an executive order should not suffice, and a search warrant or an equivalent which results from a judicial application of the mind (by the Supervisory Committee, for instance) should be required.

Recommendation #4
The following should be inserted after the last line in Rule 22:

The Review Committee shall also have the power to award compensation to the intermediary in cases where the intermediary has suffered loss or damage due to the actions of the competent authority while implementing the order issued under Rule 3.

Reasons for the Recommendation
The Review Committee should be given the power to award compensation to the loss suffered by the intermediary in cases where the police use equipment or software for monitoring/decryption that causes damage to the intermediary’s computer resources / networks. The Review Committee should also be given the power to award compensation in the case of monitoring directions which are later found to be frivolous or even worse, borne out of mala fide considerations. These provisions will act as a disincentive against the abuse of power contained in Section 69.

Blocking of Access to Information

Section 69A

The section provides for blocking of websites if the government is satisfied that it is in the interests of the purposes enlisted in the section. It also provides for penalty of up to seven years for intermediaries who fail to comply with the directions under this section.
The rules under this section describe the procedure which have to be followed barring which the review committee may, after due examination of the procedural defects, order an unblocking of the website.

Section 69A(3)
The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine.

Recommendation #5
The penalty for intermediaries must be lessened.

Reasons for Recommendations
The penal provision in this section which prescribes up to seven years imprisonment and a fine on an intermediary who fails to comply with the directions so issued is also excessively harsh. Considering the fact that various mechanisms are available to escape the blocking of websites, the intermediaries must be given enough time and space to administer the block effectively and strict application of the penal provisions must be avoided in bona fide cases.

The criticism about Section 69 and the draft rules in so far as intermediary liability is concerned, will also apply mutatis mutandis to these rules as well as Section 69A.

Draft Rules under Section 69A

Rule 22: Review Committee
The Review Committee shall meet at least once in two months and record its findings whether the directions issued under Rule (16) are in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 69A of the Act. When the Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions referred to above, it may set aside the directions and order for unblocking of said information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource for public access.

Recommendation #6
A permanent Review Committee should be specially for the purposes of examining procedural lapses.

Reasons for Recommendation
Rule 22 provides for a review committee which shall meet a minimum of once in every two months and order for the unblocking of a site of due procedures have not been followed. This would mean that if a site is blocked, there could take up to two months for a procedural lapse to be corrected and it to be unblocked. Even a writ filed against the policing agencies for unfair blocking would probably take around the same time. Also, it could well be the case that the review committee will be overborne by cases and may fall short of time to inquire into each. Therefore, it is recommended that a permanent Review Committee be set up which will monitor procedural lapses and ensure that there is no blocking in the first place before all the due procedural requirements are met.

Monitoring and Collection of Traffic Data

Draft Rules under Section 69B

The section provides for monitoring of computer networks or resources if the Central Government is satisfied that conditions so mentioned are satisfied.

The rules provide for the manner in which the monitoring will be done, the process by which the directions for the same will be issued and the liabilities of the intermediaries and monitoring officers with respect to confidentiality of the information so monitored.

Grounds for Monitoring
Rule 4
The competent authority may issue directions for monitoring and collection of traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource for any or all of the following purposes related to cyber security:
(a) forecasting of imminent cyber incidents;
(b) monitoring network application with traffic data or information on computer resource;
(c) identification and determination of viruses/computer contaminant;
(d) tracking cyber security breaches or cyber security incidents;
(e) tracking computer resource breaching cyber security or spreading virus/computer contaminants;
(f) identifying or tracking of any person who has contravened, or is suspected of having contravened or being likely to contravene cyber security;
(g) undertaking forensic of the concerned computer resource as a part of investigation or internal audit of information security practices in the computer resource;
(h) accessing a stored information for enforcement of any provisions of the laws relating to cyber security for the time being in force;
(i) any other matter relating to cyber security.

Rule 6
No direction for monitoring and collection of traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource shall be given for purposes other than those specified in Rule (4).

Recommendation #7
Clauses (a), (b), (c), and (i) of Rule 4 must be repealed.

Reasons for Recommendations
The term “cyber incident” has not been defined, and “cyber security” has been provided a circular definition. Rule 6 clearly states that no direction for monitoring and collection of traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource shall be given for purposes other than those specified in Rule 4. Therefore, it may prima facie appear that the government is trying to lay down clear and strict safeguards when it comes to monitoring at the expense of a citizens' privacy. However, Rule 4(i) allows the government to monitor if it is satisfied that it is “any matter related to cyber security”. This may well play as a ‘catch all’ clause to legalise any kind of monitoring and collection and therefore defeats the purported intention of Rule 6 of safeguarding citizen’s interests against arbitrary and groundless intrusion of privacy. Also, the question of degree of liability of the intermediaries or persons in charge of the computer resources for leak of secret and confidential information remains unanswered.

Rule 24: Disclosure of monitored data
Any monitoring or collection of traffic data or information in computer resource by the employee of an intermediary or person in-charge of computer resource or a person duly authorised by the intermediary, undertaken in course of his duty relating to the services provided by that intermediary, shall not be unlawful, if such activities are reasonably necessary for the discharge his duties as per the prevailing industry practices, in connection with :
(vi) Accessing or analysing information from a computer resource for the purpose of tracing a computer resource or any person who has contravened, or is suspected of having contravened or being likely to contravene, any provision of the Act that is likely to have an adverse impact on the services provided by the intermediary.

Recommendation #8
Safeguards must be introduced with respect to exercise of powers conferred by Rule 24(vi).

Reasons for Recommendations
Rule 24(vi) provides for access, collection and monitoring of information from a computer resource for the purposes of tracing another computer resource which has or is likely to contravened provisions of the Act and this is likely to have an adverse impact on the services provided by the intermediary. Analysis of a computer resource may reveal extremely confidential and important data, the compromise of which may cause losses worth millions. Therefore, the burden of proof for such an intrusion of privacy of the computer resource, which is first used to track another computer resource which is likely to contravene the Act, should be heavy. Also, this violation of privacy should be weighed against the benefits accruing to the intermediary. The framing of sub rules under this clearly specifying the same is recommended.

The disclosure of sensitive information by a monitoring agency for purposes of ‘general trends’ and ‘general analysis of cyber information’ is uncalled for as it dissipates information among lesser bodies that are not governed by sufficient safeguards and this could result in outright violation of citizen’s privacy.

Manner of Functioning of CERT-In

Draft Rules under Section 70B(5)

Section 70B provides for an Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) which shall serve as a national agency for performing duties as prescribed by clause 4 of this section in accordance to the rules as prescribed.
The rules provide for CERT-In’s authority, composition of advisory committee, constituency, functions and responsibilities, services, stakeholders, policies and procedures, modus operandi, disclosure of information and measures to deal with non compliance of orders so issued. However, there are a few issues which need to be addressed as under:

Definitions
In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires, “Cyber security incident” means any real or suspected adverse event in relation to cyber security that violates an explicit or implied security policy resulting in unauthorized access, denial of service/ disruption, unauthorized use of a computer resource for processing or storage of information or changes to data, information without authorization.

Recommendation #9
The words ‘or implied’’ must be excluded from rule 2(g) which defines ‘cyber security incident’, and the term ‘security policy’ must be qualified to state what security policy is being referred to.

Reasons for Recommendation
“Cyber security incident” means any real or suspected adverse event in relation to cyber security that violates an explicit or implied security policy resulting in unauthorized access, denial of service/disruption, unauthorized use of a computer resource for processing or storage of information or changes to data, information without authorization.

Thus, the section defines any circumstance where an explicit or implied security policy is contravened as a ‘cyber security incident’. Without clearly stating what the security policy is, an inquiry into its contravention is against an individual’s civil rights. If an individual’s actions are to be restricted for reasons of security, then the restrictions must be expressly defined and such restrictions cannot be said to be implied.

Rule 13(4): Disclosure of Information
Save as provided in sub-rules (1), (2), (3) of rule 13, it may be necessary or expedient to so to do, for CERT-In to disclose all relevant information to the stakeholders, in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence relating to cognizable offence or enhancing cyber security in the country.

Recommendation #10
Burden of necessity for disclosure of information should be made heavier.

Reasons for the Recommendation
Rule 13(4) allows the disclosure of information by CERT-In in the interests of ‘enhancing cyber security’. This enhancement however needs to be weighed against the detriment caused to the individual and the burden of proof must be on the CERT-In to show that this was the only way of achieving the required.

Rule 19: Protection for actions taken in Good Faith
All actions of CERT-In and its staff acting on behalf of CERT-In are taken in good faith in fulfillment of its mandated roles and functions, in pursuance of the provisions of the Act or any rule, regulations or orders made thereunder. CERT-In and its staff acting on behalf of CERT-In shall not be held responsible for any unintended fallout of their actions.

Recommendation #11
CERT-In should be made liable for their negligent action and no presumption of good faith should be as such provided for.

Reasons for the Recommendation
Rule 19 provides for the protection of CERT-In members for the actions taken in ‘good faith’. It defines such actions as ‘unintended fallouts’. Clearly, if information has been called for and the same is highly confidential, then this rule bars the remedy for any leak of the same due to the negligence of the CERT-In members. This is clearly not permissible as an agency that calls for delicate information should also be held responsible for mishandling the same, intentionally or negligently. Good faith can be established if the need arises, and no presumption as to good faith needs to be provided.

Draft Rules under Section 52

These rules, entitled the “Cyber Appellate Tribunal (Salary, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2009” are meant to prescribe the framework for the independent and smooth functioning of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. This is so because of the specific functions entrusted to this Appellate Tribunal. Under the IT Act, 2000 as amended by the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008, this Tribunal has the power to entertain appeals against orders passed by the adjudicating officer under Section 47.

Recommendation #12
Amend qualifications Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003, to require judicial training and experience.

Reasons for the Recommendation
It is submitted that an examination of these rules governing the Appellate Tribunal cannot be made independent of the powers and qualifications of Adjudicating Officers who are the original authority to decide on contravention of provisions in the IT Act dealing with damage to computer system and failure to furnish information. Even as per the Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003, persons who did not possess judicial experience and training, such as those holding the post of Director in the Central Government, were qualified to perform functions under Section 46 and decide whether there has been unauthorized access to a computer system. This involves appreciation of evidence and is not a merely administrative function that could be carried on by any person who has basic knowledge of information technology.

Viewed from this angle, the qualifications of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal members should have been made much tighter as per the new draft rules. The above rules when read with Section 50 of the IT Act, as amended in 2008, do not say anything about the qualification of the technical members apart from the fact that such person shall not be appointed as a Member, unless he is, or has been, in the service of the Central Government or a State Government, and has held the post of Additional Secretary or Joint Secretary or any equivalent post. Though special knowledge of, and professional experience in, information technology, telecommunication, industry, management or consumer affairs, has been prescribed in the Act as a requirement for any technical member.

Draft Rules under Section 54

These Rules do not suffer any defect and provide for a fair and reasonable enquiry in so far as allegations made against the Chairperson or the members of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal are concerned.

Penal Provisions

Section 66A

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,
    (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
    (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,
    (c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.
Sec. 32 of the 2008 Act inserts Sec. 66A which provides for penal measures for mala fide use of electronic resources to send information detrimental to the receiver. For the section to be attracted the ‘information’ needs to be grossly offensive, menacing, etc. and the sender needs to have known it to be false.

While the intention of the section – to prevent activities such as spam-sending – might be sound and even desirable, there is still a strong argument to be made that words is submitted that the use of words such as ‘annoyance’ and ‘inconvenience’ (in s.66A(c)) are highly problematic. Further, something can be grossly offensive without touching upon any of the conditions laid down in Article 19(2). Without satisfying the conditions of Article 19(2), this provision would be ultra vires the Constitution.

Recommendation #13
The section should be amended and words which lead to ambiguity must be excluded.

Reasons for the Recommendation
A clearer phrasing as to what exactly could convey ‘ill will’ or cause annoyance in the electronic forms needs to be clarified. It is possible in some electronic forms for the receiver to know the content of the information. In such circumstances, if such a possibility is ignored and annoyance does occur, is the sender still liable? Keeping in mind the complexity of use of electronic modes of transmitting information, it can be said that several such conditions arise which the section has vaguely covered. Therefore, a stricter and more clinical approach is necessary.

Recommendation #14
A proviso should be inserted to this section providing for specific exceptions to the offence contained in this section for reasons such as fair comment, truth, criticism of actions of public officials etc.

Reasons for the Recommendation
The major problem with Section 66A lies in clause (c) as per which any electronic mail or electronic mail message sent with the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience is covered within the ambit of offensive messages. This does not pay heed to the fact that even a valid and true criticism of the actions of an individual, when brought to his notice, can amount to annoyance. Indeed, it may be brought to his attention with the sole purpose of causing annoyance to him. When interpreting the Information Technology Act, it is to be kept in mind that the offences created under this Act should not go beyond those prescribed in the Indian Penal Code except where there is a wholly new activity or conduct, such as hacking for instance, which is sought to be criminalized.

Offensive messages have been criminalized in the Indian Penal Code subject to the conditions specified in Chapter XXII being present. It is not an offence to verbally insult or annoy someone without anything more being done such as a threat to commit an offence, etc. When this is the case with verbal communications, there is no reason to make an exception for those made through the electronic medium and bring any electronic mail or message sent with the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience within the purview of an offensive message.

Section 66F

The definition of cyber-terrorism under this provision is too wide and can cover several activities which are not actually of a “terrorist” character.
Section 66F(1)(B) is particularly harsh and goes much beyond acts of “terrorism” to include various other activities within its purview. As per this provision,
“[w]hoever knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons for the security of the State or foreign relations, or any restricted information, data or computer database, with reasons to believe that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause or is likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of individuals or otherwise, commits the offence of cyber terrorism.”

This provision suffers from several defects and hence ought to be repealed.

Recommendation #15
Section 66F(1)(B) has to be repealed or suitably amended to water down the excessively harsh operation of this provision. The restrictive nature of the information that is unauthorisedly accessed must be confined to those that are restricted on grounds of security of the State or foreign relations. The use to which such information may be put should again be confined to injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order. A mere advantage to a foreign nation cannot render the act of unauthorized access one of cyber-terrorism as long as such advantage is not injurious or harmful in any manner to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order. A mens rea requirement should also be introduced whereby mere knowledge that the information which is unauthorisedly accessed can be put to such uses as given in this provision should not suffice for the unauthorised access to amount to cyber-terrorism. The unauthorised access should be with the intention to put such information to this use. The amended provision would read as follows:

“[w]hoever knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons for the security of the State or foreign relations, with the intention that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, commits the offence of cyber terrorism.”

Reasons for the Recommendation
The ambit of this provision goes much beyond information, data or computer database which is restricted only on grounds of security of the State or foreign relations and extends to “any restricted information, data or computer database”. This expression covers any government file which is marked as confidential or saved in a computer used exclusively by the government. It also covers any file saved in a computer exclusively used by a private corporation or enterprise. Even the use to which such information can be put need not be confined to those that cause or are likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, or friendly relations with foreign States. Information or data which is defamatory, amounting to contempt of court, or against decency / morality, are all covered within the scope of this provision. This goes way beyond the idea of a terrorist activity and poses serious questions. While there is no one globally accepted definition of cyberterrorism, it is tough to conceive of slander as a terrorist activity.

To give an illustration, if a journalist managed to unauthorisedly break into a restricted database, even one owned by a private corporation, and stumbled upon information that is defamatory in character, he would have committed an act of “cyber-terrorism.” Various kinds of information pertaining to corruption in the judiciary may be precluded from being unauthorisedly accessed on the ground that such information may be put to use for committing contempt of court. Any person who gains such access would again qualify as a cyber-terrorist. The factual situations are numerous where this provision can be put to gross misuse with the ulterior motive of muzzling dissent or freezing access to information that may be restricted in nature but nonetheless have a bearing on probity in public life etc. It is therefore imperative that this provision may be toned down as recommended above.

Letter to ICANN on NCSG

Pranesh Prakash — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:30:00 +0530

Dear Sir or Madam,

Greetings from the Centre for Internet and Society - Bangalore. We are a Bangalore based research and advocacy organisation promoting consumer and citizen rights on the Internet. We currently focus on IPR reform, IPR alternatives and electronic accessibility by the disabled. Please see our website <http://cis-india.org> for more information about us and our activities.

It has come to our attention that ICANN is imposing the ICANN staff-drafted charter for a Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and ignoring the version drafted by civil society. As you know, the civil society version was drafted using a consensus process and more than 80 international noncommercial organizations, including mine, support it.

This is an unacceptable situation since the governance structures contained within the NCSG charter determine how effectively noncommercial users can influence policy decisions at ICANN in years to come. On behalf of Internet users in India - I would strongly urge you to reject the staff drafted version of the charter and adopt the version drafted and endorsed by civil society.

Best wishes,

Sunil Abraham
Executive Director
Centre for Internet and Society