Can Raghu Raman Deliver Natgrid Project On Time?

Intelligence infrastructure of India is in big mess. Whether it is legal framework or technological infrastructure, Indian intelligence agencies have none. However, even if there are no laws to justify the working of intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies in India yet their works and projects are well beyond the justifications provided under the constitution of India.

In short, intelligence agencies of India and projects related to them are working without constitutional sanction and parliamentary oversight. Even worst is the fact that they are openly violating privacy rights and civil liberties of Indians.

Take the example of Aadhar project of India or UID project of India. It is managed by Nandan Nilekani as the chairman of unique identification authority of India (UIDAI). Aadhar project is hiding truth from Indians and is a very dangerous and e-surveillances oriented project.

Another project is national intelligence grid (Natgrid) that is also not supported by any legal framework and is well beyond parliamentary scrutiny. Projects like Aadhar, NATGRID, Central Monitoring System (CMS), etc are not desirable without “Constitutionally Sounds Laws” supporting them, opines Praveen Dalal, managing partner of Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India. Till now none of these projects are governed by any Legal Framework and Parliamentary Scrutiny informs Dalal.

Now Raghu Raman, project coordinator of Natgrid, has barely got an extension of six months. However, it is doubtful that he can deliver results in such a short period of time. Further, there is an urgent need to establish e-surveillance policy of India as soon as possible.

Lacks of Privacy Safeguards have already stalled Natgrid Project. Irrespective what Indian Government claims, Natgrid Project of India is in troubled waters. Natgrid would remain in doldrums till it is properly planned and legally implemented, opines Dalal.

WIPO Patent Committee Discussed Tech Transfer And Public Health

Due to some technical problem, our article on similar topic has not appeared in Google news. We are reposting it here for our readers. Any inconvenience in this regard is highly regretted.

The article pertains to initiatives undertaken in the direction of Patents laws by WIPO Patent Committee. These initiatives are very important for both developed and developing countries. However, no consensus has been established in this regard so far.

World intellectual property organisation (WIPO) is the premier international organisation regarding intellectual property rights (IPRs). The sixteenth session of the WIPO’s Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) was recently conducted from 16th to 29th May, 2011.

The SCP discussed various far reaching issues like patents and public health, technology transfer, and exceptions and limitations to patents. Although these issues are most arguable ones yet some progress has been shown in this session of SCP.

Issues like Pharmaceuticals and Public Health, Data Exclusivity, Technology Transfer, etc are still to be resolved at the International Level, informs Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT Law Firm Perry4Law and a Panelist at WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre. We welcome the latest effort of SCP and consider it as the beginning of Future Negotiations, says Dalal.

Developing nations are still struggling to deal with technological issues and technology transfer is a must to successfully meet them. While developing countries are insisting upon effective technology transfers yet developed countries are not that enthusiastic regarding the same.

Similarly, the data exclusivity issues are also a bone of contention. European Union and developed countries are insisting upon the same while it is not covered by TRIPS Agreement.

Let us see how future negotiations in these crucial fields would take a shape that can be beneficial for both developed and developing countries.

WIPO Patent Committee Considered Public Health And Tech Transfer

World intellectual property organisation (WIPO) is the premier international organisation regarding intellectual property rights (IPRs). The sixteenth session of the WIPO’s Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) was recently conducted from 16th to 29th May, 2011.

The SCP discussed various far reaching issues like patents and public health, technology transfer, and exceptions and limitations to patents. Although these issues are most arguable ones yet some progress has been shown in this session of SCP.

Issues like Pharmaceuticals and Public Health, Data Exclusivity, Technology Transfer, etc are still to be resolved at the International Level, informs Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT Law Firm Perry4Law and a Panelist at WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre. We welcome the latest effort of SCP and consider it as the beginning of Future Negotiations, says Dalal.

Developing nations are still struggling to deal with technological issues and technology transfer is a must to successfully meet them. While developing countries are insisting upon effective technology transfers yet developed countries are not that enthusiastic regarding the same.

Similarly, the data exclusivity issues are also a bone of contention. European Union and developed countries are insisting upon the same while it is not covered by TRIPS Agreement.

Let us see how future negotiations in these crucial fields would take a shape that can be beneficial for both developed and developing countries.

Empanelment Of Neutrals At PTLB

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and online dispute resolution (ODR) are becoming popular these days. However, technology dispute resolution in India is the new field that arbitrators, mediators and neutrals must be looking forward.

However, there are very few technology dispute resolution providers in the world. Further, when it comes to techno legal dispute resolution services, there is none except Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB). PTLB is the exclusive techno legal ODR service provider of the world. It provides a wide variety of techno legal dispute resolution services.

PTLB is currently empanelling neutrals for its fast growing techno legal ADR and ODR services. A minimum five years experience in arbitration matters is required to be empanelled with PTLB. The empanelment would be for minimum of one year (1) and maximum of five (5) years.

The empanelment may be renewed at the discretion of PTLB and Perry4Law. The requisite Performa for Individuals can be downloaded from “Here”. The Firms, Companies, Institutions, etc can download the Performa from “Here”.

The application form must be accompanied with proper fees in order to be analysed. Perry4Law and PTLB have the sole discretion to accept or reject the empanelment requests.

For all those arbitrators and mediators who wish to expand their practice to international markets, this is a golden opportunity. If a neutral has dealt with domain name disputes or other similar technology related disputes, he/she may prefer to empanel with PTLB. Contact PTLB with the prescribed fees and application form in this regard.

Should Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Be Changed?

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has formulated the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) long before. It has stood the test of the time. However, with the passage of time, new challenges and issues have also arisen.

This has forced the GNSO Council to consider a revision of UDRP norms. The UDRP has not been reviewed by the GNSO Council since its inception. ICANN has come up with a preliminary issue report on the current state of UDRP. This report is seeking inputs from UDRP specialists and public at large for the desirability to bring necessary changes in the UDRP policy.

According to Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT Law firm Perry4Law and a Panelist at WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre, ICANN has been taking many pro active steps for streamlining the Domain Name world. For instance, recently ICANN and INTERPOL have agreed to work in the direction of Securing Internet, informs Dalal. Now a Preliminary Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP has been released by ICANN to gather popular opinions of Stakeholders, informs Dalal.

There is opinion for both in favour of and against such revision. WIPO’s Erik Wilbers is not in favour of bringing changes in the present UDRP scheme. In fact, WIPO has written a letter to ICANN advising it against revising the UDRP. WIPO argues that the UDRP has proven to be flexible and fair; that this is in any event the wrong time to revise it given expansion of the domain name system and introduction of new rights-protection mechanisms; that review would probably end up overburdening the UDRP; and that any review should be preceded by an analysis of cybersquatting.

As far as India is concerned, technological issues of IPRs in India are still not popular. For instance, we do not have a Dedicated Law on Domain Name Protection in India, informs Dalal. Domain Name Protection in India is needed and in order to do so we need a Dedicated Domain Name Law, suggests Dalal. It would be better if India makes its choice and opinion regarding the Report very clear opines Dalal.

While none can doubt that UDRP is far from perfect yet whether it must be amended or not have to be decided only after analysing the opinions of both sides.

WIPO Must Strengthen Its Technology Dispute Resolution Services

World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is a well known name in the fields of intellectual property rights (IPRs) and dispute resolution. WIPO has its own Arbitration and Mediation Centre (AMC) that provides world renowned dispute resolution services.

WIPO also provides world class domain name dispute resolution services. Parties to the dispute can draw upon a growing database of over 1,500 independent WIPO arbitrators, mediators and experts from 70 countries. The candidates on the WIPO List of Neutrals range from seasoned dispute resolution generalists to highly specialized practitioners and experts covering the entire legal and technical spectrum of intellectual property. Their geographical diversity suits the international character of many disputes. The general WIPO List of Neutrals is not made available as such to the public. However, the WIPO Center does publish its specific list of WIPO Domain Name Panelists.

One area that WIPO must pay special attention is Dispute Resolution of Cross Border Technology Transactions and E-Commerce Disputes, suggests Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT law firm Perry4Law and a Neutral at WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre. The future disputes would be Techno Legal in nature and WIPO must be well prepared to deal with the same, suggests Dalal.

Although WIPO is world renowned for its domain name dispute resolution services yet in areas like cyber law disputes, cyber forensics disputes, e-discovery related disputes, etc, WIPO is still establishing itself.

WIPO must establish a “Separate and Dedicated List” of Panelists who can manage the Techno Legal Disputes in an effective manner, suggests Dalal. This List must be made Public so that the expertise of Panelists of WIPO is well known in advance, suggests Dalal.

This seems to be a good suggestion that WIPO must seriously consider. Its present list of domain name specialists is not reflective enough upon its true capabilities. With growing competition from other international institutions and organisations like European Union (EU), United Nationals Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), etc, WIPO cannot afford to take it lightly.

Even at the national level, ODR services providers like Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) have been working hard in his regard. In fact, Perry4Law and PTLB have recently provided the first Technology Dispute Resolution Policy of India and ODR Policy of India.

Bilateral agreements between various countries may also be beneficial in this regard. EU India has lots in common in this regard and we must engage in an EU India ODR Development Dialogue, suggests Dalal. Let us see how the techno legal ADR and ODR dispute resolution services would take a shape in the future.

EU India Cross Border Consumer Disputes Resolution

International organisations and stakeholders like United Nations, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), European Union Commission (EU Commission), World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), World Trade Organisation (WTO), etc have been stressing hard on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) for resolving various disputes.

However there is no bridge between EU Commission and India in this regard. Thanks to the initiatives of Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) that ODR Policy of India and Technology Dispute Resolution Policy of India has finally been suggested.

Now EU Commission has considered use of ADR and ODR for Cross Border Consumer Disputes. As far as India is concerned, Cross Border Dispute Resolution, especially Cross Border Technology Transactions Dispute Resolution, is still at the infancy stage.

Even the basic level ODR in India is facing sever legal roadblocks. There is no Dedicated Legal Framework for ODR in India, informs Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based ICT law firm Perry4Law and CEO of exclusive techno legal ODR service provider centre of India. Even the Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 needs urgent Amendments so that it may not contribute for further increase in backlog of cases in India, suggests Dalal.

EU has been working in the direction of use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for effective Dispute Resolution and it must work in association with countries like India in this regard, suggests Dalal. There is an urgent need of EU India ODR Development Dialogue, suggests Dalal.

Even the Law Ministry of India in general and Veerappa Moily in particular must seriously consider changing the ADR and ODR environment of India. The present legal and judicial setup of India is not conducive for the same.