We at the Esya Centre greatly appreciate the opportunity given to us by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy) to respond to the consultation whitepaper on the ‘Strategy for National Open Digital Ecosystems (NODE)’ (Whitepaper), which solicits public comments for developing a comprehensive national strategy on NODE. We appreciate that MEITy has identified design principles to develop a framework for digital governance through the Whitepaper, and that it has also identified key concerns that would need to be accounted for in developing the NODE framework. In answering the questions posed in the Whitepaper, we have focused our feedback on those relating to design principles, governance, and the potential risks of open digital ecosystems. We have approached this analysis from a broad, techno-legal perspective, and focusing on the rights and obligations of various stakeholders. Part I of this response will provide a brief snapshot of our recommendations under the relevant questions, which will thereafter be explored in detail in Part II. We hope that these discussions will prove instructive in a larger discourse about digital governance in India.
Comments on the: Personal Data Protection Bill (PDP Bill), 2019
The copyrightability of databases has been settled by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. DB Modak. Here, the question was whether the petitioner, a company which created databases of Supreme Court cases (which are in the public domain) could claim copyright protection for their databases. It was held by the Court that the petitioner’s input of independent skill, labour and capital, in editing and arranging the information as well as adding inferences from it in the form of headnotes, resulted in the database being a copyrightable work.
Response to the Draft Information Technology [Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules], 2018
We at the Esya Centre, greatly appreciate the opportunity given to us by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy) to respond to the draft ‘Information Technology [Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules], 2018’ (“Draft Rules”), which seek to replace the rules notified in 2011. We appreciate that MEITy has undertaken to reform and clarify issues on Internet governance through these rules. However, after a thorough analysis of these rules, we believe a more holistic understanding of evolving technologies, and global trends in Internet governance may be instructive for MEITy to take this discussion forward. As such, we have approached this analysis from a broad, technological perspective, highlighting the major thematic areas under each proposed rule, rooting our arguments in broader discourses on internet governance and the attendant rights and obligations of stakeholders. Therefore, Part I of this response will provide a brief snapshot of some of the proposed Rules, and how they can be revised to comply with prior legislative jurisprudence, and best practices. Part II will delve into a more detailed discussion on the broader principles of regulatory governance. We hope that these thematic discussions will prove instructive in a larger discourse about the growing Internet ecosystem in India.