O.P. Jindal Global UniversityA Private University Promoting Public Service

O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU) is a non-profit, philanthropic, multidisciplinary, research oriented university. Some of the important milestones that JGU has reached in the last five years since its founding in 2009 are:

Ÿ Established Five inter-disciplinary schools: Jindal Global Law School; Jindal Global Business School; Jindal School of International Affairs; Jindal School of Government and Public Policy and Jindal School of Liberal Arts & Humanities through a philanthropic initiative of over US$100 Million (approx. Rs. 500 crore) by the Founding Chancellor, Mr. Naveen Jindal in memory of his father, Mr. O.P. Jindal.

Ÿ Established the Jindal Institute of Behavioural Sciences (JIBS) as an institute that is engaged in fundamental research, knowledge creation, publications, training programmes, seminars and workshops and consultancies for understanding human behaviour from a multidisciplinary perspective, while promoting studies in behavioural, psycho-physiological, neuroscience, genetic, and psychometric assessment.

Ÿ Admitted as of August 2014, over 1650 full time students studying in various disciplines, while maintaining a 1:15 faculty-student ratio.

Ÿ Promoting access to education through the award of scholarships and fellowships to the tune of over US$ 2.5 Million/ 15 Crores every year with over 75% of the students at JGU studying with some form of merit or means based scholarship/studentship.

Ÿ Graduated as of August 2014, three batches of over 500 students from the LLB, LLM, MBA, M.A. (Diplomacy, Law & Business), MA (Public Policy) programmes from the Jindal Global Law School, Jindal Global Business School, Jindal School of International Affairs and the Jindal School of Government and Public Policy.

Ÿ Recruited over 140 full time faculty members to the five schools of JGU, including more than 25 graduates from some of the leading universities of the world that include, Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, Brown, Cornell, Johns Hopkins and Berkeley along with 3 Rhodes Scholars.

Ÿ Appointed over 20% of international faculty members and almost all Indian faculty members with strong international qualifications and experience.

Ÿ Published Over 500 peer reviewed articles, articles in journals and law reviews, research reports, policy papers, book chapters, and books by the faculty members of JGU.

Ÿ Hosted over 500 lectures, seminars, workshops, conferences including a conference on "The Future of Indian Universities" inaugurated by the President of India and a conference on "Federalisms and Localisms" inaugurated by the Vice President of India with participation by scholars and practitioner from India and around the world.

Ÿ Developed international collaborations with over 100 universities and institutions in 32 countries in the world implementing 10 different form of partnerships: faculty exchanges, student exchanges, joint teaching, joint research, joint conferences, joint publications, dual degree programmes, joint executive education programmes, summer and winter schools and study abroad programmes. Nearly 100 international students enrolled in various programmes.

Ÿ Implemented international collaborations with Universities around the world, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Michigan, Indiana, Cornell, University of California-Berkeley, University of California-Davis, Oxford, Cambridge, Sydney, Melbourne and other reputed universities in Africa, Middle East, Latin America, Europe, USA, Canada, South and South East Asia and Australia.

Ÿ Established the Jindal Institute of Leadership Development and Executive Education (JILDEE) that brings together all continuing and executive education, leadership development, training and capacity building initiatives across corporate and public sectors.

Ÿ Received grants and contracts for training, research and capacity development initiatives from various ministries of the Government of India, including for the training of senior IAS (Indian Administrative Service), IPS (Indian Police Service), Indian Revenue Service (IRS), Indian Trade Service (ITS) officers and officers of the Indian Army, Navy, Air Force and other police and para-military forces.

Ÿ Received grants and funding for research and capacity building initiatives from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations University (UNU), Afghanistan Civil Service Institute for training the Senior Civil Service Officers of the Government of Afghanistan and other governmental, intergovernmental and private sector organisations.

Ÿ Built over 80 acres of world-class infrastructure on campus in the National Capital Region of Delhi with full residency for all students of JGU and other academic blocks, student and faculty housing with constructed space of nearly 1 million square feet.

O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU) is a non-profit global university established by the Haryana Private Universities (Second Amendment) Act, 2009. JGU was established as a philanthropic initiative of Mr. Naveen Jindal, the Founding Chancellor in the memory of his father Mr. O.P. Jindal. The University Grants Commission has accorded its recognition to O.P. Jindal Global University. The vision of JGU is to promote global courses, global programmes, global curriculum, global research, global collaborations, and global interactions through global faculty. JGU is situated on a 80-acre state-of-the-art residential campus in the National Capital Region of Delhi. JGU is one of the few universities in Asia that maintain a 1:15 faculty-student ratio and appoint faculty members from different parts of the world with outstanding academic qualifications and experience. JGU has so far established five schools: Jindal Global Law School, Jindal Global Business School, Jindal School of International Affairs, Jindal School of Government and Public Policy and Jindal School of Liberal Arts & Humanities.www.jgu.edu.in

In 2009, JGU established India's first global law school, namely, Jindal Global Law School (JGLS). JGLS is recognised by the Bar Council of India and offers a three-year LL.B. programme, five-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) and B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) programmes and a one-year LL.M. programme. JGLS has research interests in a variety of key policy areas, including: Global Corporate and Financial Law and Policy; Women, Law, and Social Change; Penology, Criminal Justice and Police Studies; Human Rights Studies; International Trade and Economic Laws; Global Governance and Policy; Health Law, Ethics, and Technology; Intellectual Property Rights Studies; Public Law and Jurisprudence; Environment and Climate Change Studies; South Asian Legal Studies; International Legal Studies; Psychology and Victimology Studies and Clinical Legal Programmes. JGLS has established international collaborations with law schools around the world, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Michigan, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, Arizona, Oxford, Cambridge and Indiana. JGLS has also signed MoU with a number of reputed law firms in India and abroad, including White & Case, Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co., AZB & Partners, FoxMandal Little, Luthra and Luthra Law offices, Khaitan & Co. and Nishith Desai Associates.

www.jgls.edu.in

Jindal Global Business School (JGBS) offers an MBA programme and an integrated BBA-MBA programme. The vision of JGBS is to impart global business education to uniquely equip students, managers and professionals with the necessary knowledge, acumen and skills so that they can effectively tackle challenges faced by transnational business and industry. JGBS offers a multi-disciplinary global business education to foster academic excellence, industry partnerships and global collaborations. JGBS faculty is engaged in research on current issues including: Applied Finance, Business Policy, Decision Support Systems, Consumer Behavior, Globalization, Leadership and Change, Quantitative Methods, Information Systems, and Supply Chain & Logistics Management. JGBS has established international collaborations with several leading international schools including the Naveen Jindal School of Management, University of Texas at Dallas, USA, Kelley School of Business, Indiana, USA, European Business School, Germany and University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada.

www.jgbs.edu.in

www.jsia.edu.in

Jindal School of International Affairs (JSIA) India's first Global Policy school is enhancing Indian and international capacities to analyse and solve world problems. It intends to strengthen India's intellectual basein international relations and affiliated social science disciplines that have hitherto been largely neglectedby Indian academic institutions. JSIA offers a Master of Arts in Diplomacy, Law and Business [M.A.(DLB)]. The programme is the first of its kind in Asia, drawing upon the resources of global faculty in Jindal Global Law School, Jindal Global Business School, as well as the Jindal School of International Affairs to create a unique interdisciplinary pedagogy. The M.A. (DLB) is delivered on week days to residential students and on weekends for working professionals, including diplomats, based in the National Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi. JSIA has also launched a three-year B.A (Hons.) in Global Affairs. JSIA has established international collaborations with the United Nations University in Tokyo and the School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA) of Indiana University. JSIA hosts India's first Taiwan Education Centre, which has been established by National Tsing Hua University of Taiwan with the backing of the Ministry of Education, Government of Taiwan. JSIA publishes the Jindal Journal of International Affairs (JJIA), a critically acclaimed bi-annual academic journal featuring writings of Indian and international scholars and practitioners on contemporary world affairs.

Jindal School of Government and Public Policy (JSGP) offers India's first Master's Programme in Public Policy (MPP). MPP is inter-disciplinary and draws upon multiple disciplines. It is designed to equip students with capacity to grasp contemporary economic, political and social challenges, coherently and comprehensively and to find solutions to persistent problems. Our public policy graduates have mastery over a range of tools and techniques essential for evidence-based policy-making. They are well-versed in monitoring and evaluation methods. They are trained to understand diverse contexts and complexity. They can design policies which are implementable and deliver desired results. They will be an asset to development and policy-related institutions, both within government and in civil society. Think-tanks, policy research institutions, consulting companies, corporate social responsibility initiatives, international organisations and the media must value the unique combination of skills, leadership, imagination, and ethics which JSGP graduates possess. JSGP has an outstanding faculty to equip its students to pursue successful and adventurous careers in many spheres of public life. JSGP has international collaborations befitting a global programme of high quality. JSGP is a member of a select group of public policy schools (including Harvard University, Sciences Po, Oxford University, Central European University, and many others) for participating in the Open Society Foundation's Rights and Governance Internship Programme. JSGP has a dedicated Placement and Career Development Cell which helps its graduates to pursue careers best suited to their skills and aptitude.

www.jsgp.edu.in

The Jindal School of Liberal Arts & Humanities (JSLH) began its first academic session in 1 August 2014. It offers an interdisciplinary under-graduate degree programme leading to the award of B.A. (Hons.). An education in the liberal arts and humanities programme at Jindal School of Liberal Arts and Humanities (JSLH) in collaboration with Rollins College, Florida, is the ideal preparation for an intellect in action. JSLH offers a space for the expansion of young minds in a polyvalent education that mixes the classical and the contemporary in a new framework – the first of its kind in India. Our aim is to break down disciplinary boundaries and redefine what it means to study arts and humanities in an international context. At JSLH, our distinguished faculty aims to create world-class thinkers who are simultaneously innovators. We train students for intellectual mastery, democratic participation, self-expression and advanced life-long learning. Our curriculum has been carefully crafted and has a global orientation. Within this global framework, the B.A. (Hons.) includes an exciting opportunity to solidify Jindal's liberal arts and humanities programme through an extended period of study at Rollins College, Florida, USA, leading to the award of another undergraduate degree from the USA. JSLH seeks to become one of the places that will produce the next generation of leaders to confront our overarching problems. www.jslh.edu.in

India's First Transnational Humanities School

Jindal School of Liberal Arts & Humanities

The effort of the O.P. Jindal Global University to organize the Seminar and Panel Discussion on “Net Neutrality and The Future of Digital India” and publishing the proceedings of the event is an important initiative.

In light of the contemporary challenges faced, both in terms of governance, as well as the lack of certainty in interpretation and enforcement of laws and policies related to internet, the Indian Government is on a path to develop regulations on important internet related issues like net neutrality and bring about a renaissance in this domain. The Digital India

initiative is one such initiative which is indicative of the Indian Government's vision for the future. Accordingly, the objective of this Seminar and Panel Discussion is to address the existing issues and decrypt what the future holds for net neutrality and other internet related issues in India.

At the heart of the net neutrality debate, lies the question of exploring the neutrality of internet as a public service for common good. Unfortunately, the existing debates on net neutrality in India have thrown more heat than light. Indeed, there is a need to better understand how private and public institutions the can meaningfully contribute and positively influence governance of India's digital future. Accordingly, the seminar and panel discussion is structured in a manner so that we can have a more informed deliberation on whether and how 'Over the Top' (OTT) services and applications should be governed so as to improve well-being of all Indians. All this augurs well for JGU's overall vision for nation building.

I appreciate the contribution of the scholars, internet activists, engineers, economists, policy makers and lawyers who have contributed to this timely seminar & panel discussion. I hope that this publication provides perspectives to people who are engaged in practice, research and policy work relating to internet and is widely disseminated.

i

Prof. (Dr.) C. Raj KumarVice ChancellorO.P. Jindal Global University andDean, Jindal Global Law School

Foreword

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in this document are those of the panelists and

do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of O.P Jindal

Global University. The document is a summary of the discussions

that took place between the panelists during the various sessions of

this seminar and the supporting presentations provided by them.

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in this document are those of the panelists and

do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of O.P Jindal

Global University. The document is a summary of the discussions

that took place between the panelists during the various sessions of

this seminar and the supporting presentations provided by them.

In the wake of debates related to net neutrality and other internet related issues in India, the O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU) organised a Seminar & Panel Discussion on – “Net Neutrality and the Future of

thDigital India” on 8 of May 2015. We thank and appreciate the support extended by various Centers of the Jindal Global Law School, namely, Center for Post Graduate Legal Studies, Center for International Trade and Economic Laws, and Center for Global Corporate and Financial Law and Policy to make this seminar a success.

No one could be more supportive than our honorable Vice Chancellor Professor (Dr.) C. Raj Kumar and Registrar, Prof (Dr.) Y.S.R.Murthy for their continuous guidance and motivation. The support extended by their offices made sure that an event of this complexity is organized seamlessly.

The support extended by our distinguished faculty members in making this conference a success is commendable. We extend our special thanks to Prof. Stephen Marks, Prof. R. Sudarshan, Prof. Shiv Visvanathan, Prof. Parkash Chander, Prof. Dabiru Sridhar Patnaik, Prof. James Nedumpara, Prof. Indranath Gupta, Prof. Arjya Majumdar, Prof Weatherly Schwab and Prof. Anuranjan Sethi. This event would not have been possible without the toil and intensity put in by all of the above mentioned.

The drafting of this report was not possible without the laborious task carried out by our students who served as rapporteurs during the conference. We thank and appreciate the hard work of our students Miss Ashu Lamba, Mr Pratik Dash Kumar, Miss Nehmat Kaur our intern Ms. Divya Patpatia and our research associate Mr. Saurav Sanyal.

Finally, this acknowledgment would be incomplete without appreciating the tireless and unwavering commitment of our administrative staff, in particular, Col(Retd)Ranjit Handa, Miss Kakul Rizvi, Mr. Vikas Chandok, Mr. Bivas Sen Gupta, Mr. Manoj Chabra, Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Rajeev Shukla.

Ÿ

Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law SchoolAssistant Director, Center for International Trade and Economic Laws

Ÿ

Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law SchoolAssistant Director, Center for Global Corporate and Financial Law and Policy

Ÿ

Research Associate,Office of the Vice ChancellorO. P. Jindal Global University

Avirup Bose

Vikas Kathuria

Prateek Pathak

Acknowledgments

v

In the wake of debates related to net neutrality and other internet related issues in India, the O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU) organised a Seminar & Panel Discussion on – “Net Neutrality and the Future of

thDigital India” on 8 of May 2015. We thank and appreciate the support extended by various Centers of the Jindal Global Law School, namely, Center for Post Graduate Legal Studies, Center for International Trade and Economic Laws, and Center for Global Corporate and Financial Law and Policy to make this seminar a success.

No one could be more supportive than our honorable Vice Chancellor Professor (Dr.) C. Raj Kumar and Registrar, Prof (Dr.) Y.S.R.Murthy for their continuous guidance and motivation. The support extended by their offices made sure that an event of this complexity is organized seamlessly.

The support extended by our distinguished faculty members in making this conference a success is commendable. We extend our special thanks to Prof. Stephen Marks, Prof. R. Sudarshan, Prof. Shiv Visvanathan, Prof. Parkash Chander, Prof. Dabiru Sridhar Patnaik, Prof. James Nedumpara, Prof. Indranath Gupta, Prof. Arjya Majumdar, Prof Weatherly Schwab and Prof. Anuranjan Sethi. This event would not have been possible without the toil and intensity put in by all of the above mentioned.

The drafting of this report was not possible without the laborious task carried out by our students who served as rapporteurs during the conference. We thank and appreciate the hard work of our students Miss Ashu Lamba, Mr Pratik Dash Kumar, Miss Nehmat Kaur our intern Ms. Divya Patpatia and our research associate Mr. Saurav Sanyal.

Finally, this acknowledgment would be incomplete without appreciating the tireless and unwavering commitment of our administrative staff, in particular, Col(Retd)Ranjit Handa, Miss Kakul Rizvi, Mr. Vikas Chandok, Mr. Bivas Sen Gupta, Mr. Manoj Chabra, Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Rajeev Shukla.

Ÿ

Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law SchoolAssistant Director, Center for International Trade and Economic Laws

Ÿ

Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law SchoolAssistant Director, Center for Global Corporate and Financial Law and Policy

Ÿ

Research Associate,Office of the Vice ChancellorO. P. Jindal Global University

Avirup Bose

Vikas Kathuria

Prateek Pathak

Acknowledgments

v

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Executive Summary 3

Inaugural Session 8-11

Session I India's internet: Voices for its 12-16Protection and Promotion

Session II Technology and Economics of 17-20Net Neutrality: Accessibility, Competition and Innovation

Session III Laws and Regulations on 21-24Net Neutrality: Creating a Conducive internet Eco-System

Distinguished Valedictory Address 25-28

Conclusion 29-31

Annexure 32

Annexure – I Invitation to “Net Neutrality and 33-34the Future of Digital India”

Annexure – II Recent Articles on Net Neutrality 34-38 and internet by JGLS Professors

Annexure – III JGU Publications 39-41

Annexure – IV Invitation to the launch of India’s First 42-46‘Do It Yourself’ Company Law Research Project

Annexure – V Previous conferences on 47-49Information Technology

vi

INTRODUCTION

The Indian net neutrality debate has seen some of the most acrimonious and passionate public involvement in Government policy making in recent Indian history. On the last count, some 4 million telephonic calls have been made and 1 million emails have been written, arguing for and against the debate.

In essence the debate started when Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) released a consultation paper on the growth of over-the-top (OTT) players, like WhatsApp or Skype and proposed the exploration of a suitable regulatory framework for such apps. The idea of regulating OTT apps emerge from the fact that Indian telecom companies have complained that these apps are riding on their networks for free and cannibalizing their business. Loss of revenue for the telecom companies would prevent them from investing in building the much-required telecom infrastructure in India, including competitively bidding for valuable spectrum. OTT players, on the other hand, insisted that their services were driving a lot more traffic to the telecoms' network and making such network more valuable and attractive to users.

The debate got further augmented by the proposal of Airtel and Facebook to launch their zero-rated platforms of 'Airtel Zero' and 'Internet.org', respectively – both of which allowed consumers to access a pre-selected boutique of online services/websites, offered for free to subscribers of a particular telecom company (usually these would be the services which the company had tied-up with).

Open internet activists have claimed that such zero-rated platforms are a form of 'internet racism' where some online services/websites would have prioritized access on the internet over others. They claim that such discriminating access will have vast implications – especially for startups, many of whom are dependent on the internet as a medium of communication and access to their customers. A neutral net would be a guarantee of a level playing field for such edge entrepreneurs and allow them to effectively compete against players with entrenched market presence.

Zero-rating enthusiasts, on the other hand, state that in a country like India, where many do not even have access to data or mobile internet (there are more than a billion Indians who are without any internet connection), given that such connection is expensive, zero ratings can provide telecom/internet companies with an innovative price discrimination model based on the affordability of the user, allowing the Indian internet industry to include the poor.

1

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Executive Summary 3

Inaugural Session 8-11

Session I India's internet: Voices for its 12-16Protection and Promotion

Session II Technology and Economics of 17-20Net Neutrality: Accessibility, Competition and Innovation

Session III Laws and Regulations on 21-24Net Neutrality: Creating a Conducive internet Eco-System

Distinguished Valedictory Address 25-28

Conclusion 29-31

Annexure 32

Annexure – I Invitation to “Net Neutrality and 33-34the Future of Digital India”

Annexure – II Recent Articles on Net Neutrality 34-38 and internet by JGLS Professors

Annexure – III JGU Publications 39-41

Annexure – IV Invitation to the launch of India’s First 42-46‘Do It Yourself’ Company Law Research Project

Annexure – V Previous conferences on 47-49Information Technology

vi

INTRODUCTION

The Indian net neutrality debate has seen some of the most acrimonious and passionate public involvement in Government policy making in recent Indian history. On the last count, some 4 million telephonic calls have been made and 1 million emails have been written, arguing for and against the debate.

In essence the debate started when Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) released a consultation paper on the growth of over-the-top (OTT) players, like WhatsApp or Skype and proposed the exploration of a suitable regulatory framework for such apps. The idea of regulating OTT apps emerge from the fact that Indian telecom companies have complained that these apps are riding on their networks for free and cannibalizing their business. Loss of revenue for the telecom companies would prevent them from investing in building the much-required telecom infrastructure in India, including competitively bidding for valuable spectrum. OTT players, on the other hand, insisted that their services were driving a lot more traffic to the telecoms' network and making such network more valuable and attractive to users.

The debate got further augmented by the proposal of Airtel and Facebook to launch their zero-rated platforms of 'Airtel Zero' and 'Internet.org', respectively – both of which allowed consumers to access a pre-selected boutique of online services/websites, offered for free to subscribers of a particular telecom company (usually these would be the services which the company had tied-up with).

Open internet activists have claimed that such zero-rated platforms are a form of 'internet racism' where some online services/websites would have prioritized access on the internet over others. They claim that such discriminating access will have vast implications – especially for startups, many of whom are dependent on the internet as a medium of communication and access to their customers. A neutral net would be a guarantee of a level playing field for such edge entrepreneurs and allow them to effectively compete against players with entrenched market presence.

Zero-rating enthusiasts, on the other hand, state that in a country like India, where many do not even have access to data or mobile internet (there are more than a billion Indians who are without any internet connection), given that such connection is expensive, zero ratings can provide telecom/internet companies with an innovative price discrimination model based on the affordability of the user, allowing the Indian internet industry to include the poor.

1

In response to the debate the Indian Department of Telecommunications (DOT) set up a six member panel to look into the issue and the panel has submitted its report to the Communications and IT minister. The report is expected to be made public soon. TRAI is also reviewing the public comments received in response to its consultation paper and is expected to provide its recommendations to the Government. Even the Competition Commission of India, is examining concerns of alleged anti-competitive practices arising from the launch of free data access plans by dominant telecom operators.

Given the acrimony of the debate and appreciating how difficult it is to frame policies amidst such noise, the O.P. Jindal Global University organized a day-long seminar and panel discussion on May 8th 2015 on 'Net Neutrality and the Future of Digital India'. This event aimed to promote a discussion and debate on the substantial legal, regulatory and policy issues surrounding the ongoing debate on net neutrality in India. The seminar provided a platform to various stakeholders for initiating a multi-stakeholder, inter-disciplinary discussion among experts to promote ideas for bettering governance of India's digital future.

This research report, which compiles all the key opinions shared and presentations made at the conference, is a humble effort to promote a better understanding of various concepts/issues related to the Indian net neutrality debate.

Ÿ Avirup Bose

Ÿ Vikas Kathuria

Ÿ Prateek Pathak

Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School

Assistant Director, Center for International Trade and Economic Laws

Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School

Assistant Director, Center for Global Corporate and Financial Law and Policy

Research Associate,

Office of the Vice Chancellor,

O. P. Jindal Global University

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In response to the debate the Indian Department of Telecommunications (DOT) set up a six member panel to look into the issue and the panel has submitted its report to the Communications and IT minister. The report is expected to be made public soon. TRAI is also reviewing the public comments received in response to its consultation paper and is expected to provide its recommendations to the Government. Even the Competition Commission of India, is examining concerns of alleged anti-competitive practices arising from the launch of free data access plans by dominant telecom operators.

Given the acrimony of the debate and appreciating how difficult it is to frame policies amidst such noise, the O.P. Jindal Global University organized a day-long seminar and panel discussion on May 8th 2015 on 'Net Neutrality and the Future of Digital India'. This event aimed to promote a discussion and debate on the substantial legal, regulatory and policy issues surrounding the ongoing debate on net neutrality in India. The seminar provided a platform to various stakeholders for initiating a multi-stakeholder, inter-disciplinary discussion among experts to promote ideas for bettering governance of India's digital future.

This research report, which compiles all the key opinions shared and presentations made at the conference, is a humble effort to promote a better understanding of various concepts/issues related to the Indian net neutrality debate.

Ÿ Avirup Bose

Ÿ Vikas Kathuria

Ÿ Prateek Pathak

Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School

Assistant Director, Center for International Trade and Economic Laws

Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School

Assistant Director, Center for Global Corporate and Financial Law and Policy

Research Associate,

Office of the Vice Chancellor,

O. P. Jindal Global University

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The seminar and panel discussion on 'Net Neutrality and the Future of Digital India' was successfully organized by the O.P. Jindal Global University on 8th May, 2015. The following paragraphs summarize the views expressed and the key recommendations made by the distinguished speakers who graced the day-long program.

In the inaugural session, Dr. Shashi Tharoor, stressed that net neutrality is an issue of urgent public importance in the Indian political sphere. He felt that the issue is not settled as the debate is complex and existing moral outrage as well as the intellectual extremism over it is misplaced. He emphasized the need for internet to be free and yet felt the need to understand the challenges of developing India's telecom infrastructure. Dr. Tharoor concluded his presidential address, by stating that in his opinion, in a democracy the net neutrality debate would end up only in one way – a user must pay for data packet and not for choice of applications/services within the packet. Dr. Govind, in his keynote address emphasized how the net-neutrality debate is critical for realization of 'Digital India' and for bridging India's existing digital divide. Based on the experiences of USA's Federal Communication Commission (FCC), in dealing with net-neutrality issues, Dr. Govind suggested that Indian network management practices must support reasonable network management, ban paid prioritization without blocking lawful content. In his special address, Prof. Shiv Vishwanathan, stressed the need to look at the net-neutrality debate in a border context of problems emerging due to co-existence of oral, written and digital traditions of Indian democracy and how it has led to a crisis in narrative and a crisis in democracy. In his opinion, understanding internet as 'digital commons' will help Indian policy makers adjudicate between the interest of different stakeholders and in developing credible policies for safeguarding the rights of future generations.

The first thematic session, was chaired by Prof. Professor Stephen P. Marks and was entitled 'India's Internet: Voices for its Protection and Promotion'. During the session, Dr. Anja Kovaces cautioned the audience of the fear of killing the internet as a cheap, easy and convenient means of mass communication, if the economic arguments of telcos are given unnecessary weightage while developing the network neutrality regulations. She articulated the need to evaluate the performance of India's telco's in investing in creating digital infrastructures in rural areas, before the advent of OTT players and challenged that the argument made by teleco's of revenue losses, should be evaluated for their evidence. Dr. Geeta Gouri analyzed the issue of net-neutrality through the lens of

competition law and regulatory economics. She emphasized that in a country with love for regulatory and bureaucratic control and a deep suspicion for markets, a solution to the net-neutrality debate will require an uncomfortable blending between dynamic economics and static laws. Mr. Jiten Jain, an ethical hacker, informed the audience that the net-neutrality debate, if settled incorrectly, can neutralize the emancipatory nature of the internet. He urged the telecom companies to innovate and improve their quality of services rather than lobby for revenue sharing models which will make the consumers pay for their incompetence. Dr. Mahesh Uppal informed the audience that the apparent consensus on the net-neutrality debate is misleading as it means different things to the stakeholders who are on the same side of the debate. In his presentation, Dr. Uppal differentiated the ISP market in India and the US, stressing how the Indian market is price sensitive and less quality conscious, resulting in different market incentives for the Indian players as compared to their US counterparts. Prof. Avirup Bose suggested that in order to enhance digital inclusion within India's internet eco-system, a 'Chota Recharge' model for the internet is necessary, where every internet user will pay for a low cost data pack wherein he gets access to a limited list of applications. Prof. Bose suggested that those who demonize zero rating plans as 'internet racism' fail to consider their potential to become a narrative of inclusive internet growth.

The second thematic session was entitled 'Technology and Economics of Net Neutrality: Accessibility, Competition and Innovation' and was chaired by Prof. Parkash Chander. In this session Dr. Anindya Chaudhuri explained that the debate on net-neutrality exists because of a lack of understanding on the rationale behind the design of the internet. He explained that non-neutrality was built into the heart of the internet system and urged people to understand the internet in terms of chewing and scheduling theory, which in his opinion, can provide useful insights into the rationale of internet's network design. Mr. Nandan Kamath stressed the need to look at the internet through the perspective of innovation theory. He also stressed on the importance to understand the nature of path-dependence in network economics, where initial lock-ins, in the form of websites like 'Internet.Org' can lock in Indian users and effectively determine the future of internet in India. Dr. Naveneet Sharma explained, how in his opinion, discrimination is the essence of governance in India and neutrality or competitive neutrality is the hallmark of the competition debate. He predicted that a net neutrality policy which promoted disruptive technologies will be the key to India's

4 5

The seminar and panel discussion on 'Net Neutrality and the Future of Digital India' was successfully organized by the O.P. Jindal Global University on 8th May, 2015. The following paragraphs summarize the views expressed and the key recommendations made by the distinguished speakers who graced the day-long program.

In the inaugural session, Dr. Shashi Tharoor, stressed that net neutrality is an issue of urgent public importance in the Indian political sphere. He felt that the issue is not settled as the debate is complex and existing moral outrage as well as the intellectual extremism over it is misplaced. He emphasized the need for internet to be free and yet felt the need to understand the challenges of developing India's telecom infrastructure. Dr. Tharoor concluded his presidential address, by stating that in his opinion, in a democracy the net neutrality debate would end up only in one way – a user must pay for data packet and not for choice of applications/services within the packet. Dr. Govind, in his keynote address emphasized how the net-neutrality debate is critical for realization of 'Digital India' and for bridging India's existing digital divide. Based on the experiences of USA's Federal Communication Commission (FCC), in dealing with net-neutrality issues, Dr. Govind suggested that Indian network management practices must support reasonable network management, ban paid prioritization without blocking lawful content. In his special address, Prof. Shiv Vishwanathan, stressed the need to look at the net-neutrality debate in a border context of problems emerging due to co-existence of oral, written and digital traditions of Indian democracy and how it has led to a crisis in narrative and a crisis in democracy. In his opinion, understanding internet as 'digital commons' will help Indian policy makers adjudicate between the interest of different stakeholders and in developing credible policies for safeguarding the rights of future generations.

The first thematic session, was chaired by Prof. Professor Stephen P. Marks and was entitled 'India's Internet: Voices for its Protection and Promotion'. During the session, Dr. Anja Kovaces cautioned the audience of the fear of killing the internet as a cheap, easy and convenient means of mass communication, if the economic arguments of telcos are given unnecessary weightage while developing the network neutrality regulations. She articulated the need to evaluate the performance of India's telco's in investing in creating digital infrastructures in rural areas, before the advent of OTT players and challenged that the argument made by teleco's of revenue losses, should be evaluated for their evidence. Dr. Geeta Gouri analyzed the issue of net-neutrality through the lens of

competition law and regulatory economics. She emphasized that in a country with love for regulatory and bureaucratic control and a deep suspicion for markets, a solution to the net-neutrality debate will require an uncomfortable blending between dynamic economics and static laws. Mr. Jiten Jain, an ethical hacker, informed the audience that the net-neutrality debate, if settled incorrectly, can neutralize the emancipatory nature of the internet. He urged the telecom companies to innovate and improve their quality of services rather than lobby for revenue sharing models which will make the consumers pay for their incompetence. Dr. Mahesh Uppal informed the audience that the apparent consensus on the net-neutrality debate is misleading as it means different things to the stakeholders who are on the same side of the debate. In his presentation, Dr. Uppal differentiated the ISP market in India and the US, stressing how the Indian market is price sensitive and less quality conscious, resulting in different market incentives for the Indian players as compared to their US counterparts. Prof. Avirup Bose suggested that in order to enhance digital inclusion within India's internet eco-system, a 'Chota Recharge' model for the internet is necessary, where every internet user will pay for a low cost data pack wherein he gets access to a limited list of applications. Prof. Bose suggested that those who demonize zero rating plans as 'internet racism' fail to consider their potential to become a narrative of inclusive internet growth.

The second thematic session was entitled 'Technology and Economics of Net Neutrality: Accessibility, Competition and Innovation' and was chaired by Prof. Parkash Chander. In this session Dr. Anindya Chaudhuri explained that the debate on net-neutrality exists because of a lack of understanding on the rationale behind the design of the internet. He explained that non-neutrality was built into the heart of the internet system and urged people to understand the internet in terms of chewing and scheduling theory, which in his opinion, can provide useful insights into the rationale of internet's network design. Mr. Nandan Kamath stressed the need to look at the internet through the perspective of innovation theory. He also stressed on the importance to understand the nature of path-dependence in network economics, where initial lock-ins, in the form of websites like 'Internet.Org' can lock in Indian users and effectively determine the future of internet in India. Dr. Naveneet Sharma explained, how in his opinion, discrimination is the essence of governance in India and neutrality or competitive neutrality is the hallmark of the competition debate. He predicted that a net neutrality policy which promoted disruptive technologies will be the key to India's

4 5

digital future. Prof. Vikas Kathuria explained how consumers will benefit if India's does not adopt a strict net-neutrality principle and advocated for a balanced approach where only those who can pay should be charged. He stressed that ISPs and OTTs have a complementary position in the market and need each other for their survival.

The third session was chaired by Professor R. Sudarshan and was entitled 'Laws and Regulations on Net Neutrality: Creating a Conducive Internet Eco-system'. Mr. Abhishek Malhotra discussed if existing laws are sufficient to address the challenge of net-neutrality. He felt that the law of torts and law of contracts can provide an important starting point to study the nature of discrimination associated with net-neutrality. As per Ms. Jyoti Parwar, considering the fact that internet penetration in India is low, there are many emerging issues which need consideration (e.g., data privacy, cyber-security) contemporaneously with the issue of net-neutrality. Mr. Yogesh Singh emphasized that the objective of any net-neutrality regulation for India's better digital future, must provide for internet access to amateur internet users and digital have-nots. According to him, any proposed model for net-neutrality regulation must consider the key principles of non-discrimination and reasonable network management. Prof. Indranath Gupta informed the audience about the rise of user generated content and how it has changed the shape of the net-neutrality debate. He emphasized that, in today's internet markets, providing access is much more critical, as users have now become producers as well as consumers of information. Mr. Rajan S Mathews emphasized the need to understand net-neutrality and develop subsequent regulations from a country specific perspective, rather than imitating similar developments in advanced nations. He asked the audience to situate the net-neutrality debate in the broader context of internet governance. If the Government stands by its commitment for a multilateral governance model for internet governance, then we cannot expect the internet to be truly neutral.

The conference concluded with the 'Distinguished Valedictory Address' given by Dr. Rahul Khullar, former Chairman of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Dr. Khullar began with the clarification that, at no point of time, when TRAI issued the consultation paper, was it the intention of the regulatory agency to start policing the internet. He emphasized the need to facilitate evidence –based decision making on internet policies and stressed that the solution to the debate must be achieved from India's public policy angle. He articulated certain unexceptional principles that need to be included within any net-

neutrality regulation – (a) no blocking, (b) transparency and (c) no throttling and said that on these three principles, there simply cannot be any debate. Finally, he emphasized that the regulator has to agree on certain principles which should stand the test of time and which should be applicable for making consistent policy decisions. He further stated that such principles need to be deliberated by all stakeholders.

6 7

digital future. Prof. Vikas Kathuria explained how consumers will benefit if India's does not adopt a strict net-neutrality principle and advocated for a balanced approach where only those who can pay should be charged. He stressed that ISPs and OTTs have a complementary position in the market and need each other for their survival.

The third session was chaired by Professor R. Sudarshan and was entitled 'Laws and Regulations on Net Neutrality: Creating a Conducive Internet Eco-system'. Mr. Abhishek Malhotra discussed if existing laws are sufficient to address the challenge of net-neutrality. He felt that the law of torts and law of contracts can provide an important starting point to study the nature of discrimination associated with net-neutrality. As per Ms. Jyoti Parwar, considering the fact that internet penetration in India is low, there are many emerging issues which need consideration (e.g., data privacy, cyber-security) contemporaneously with the issue of net-neutrality. Mr. Yogesh Singh emphasized that the objective of any net-neutrality regulation for India's better digital future, must provide for internet access to amateur internet users and digital have-nots. According to him, any proposed model for net-neutrality regulation must consider the key principles of non-discrimination and reasonable network management. Prof. Indranath Gupta informed the audience about the rise of user generated content and how it has changed the shape of the net-neutrality debate. He emphasized that, in today's internet markets, providing access is much more critical, as users have now become producers as well as consumers of information. Mr. Rajan S Mathews emphasized the need to understand net-neutrality and develop subsequent regulations from a country specific perspective, rather than imitating similar developments in advanced nations. He asked the audience to situate the net-neutrality debate in the broader context of internet governance. If the Government stands by its commitment for a multilateral governance model for internet governance, then we cannot expect the internet to be truly neutral.

The conference concluded with the 'Distinguished Valedictory Address' given by Dr. Rahul Khullar, former Chairman of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Dr. Khullar began with the clarification that, at no point of time, when TRAI issued the consultation paper, was it the intention of the regulatory agency to start policing the internet. He emphasized the need to facilitate evidence –based decision making on internet policies and stressed that the solution to the debate must be achieved from India's public policy angle. He articulated certain unexceptional principles that need to be included within any net-

neutrality regulation – (a) no blocking, (b) transparency and (c) no throttling and said that on these three principles, there simply cannot be any debate. Finally, he emphasized that the regulator has to agree on certain principles which should stand the test of time and which should be applicable for making consistent policy decisions. He further stated that such principles need to be deliberated by all stakeholders.

6 7

INAUGURAL SESSION9:30 am – 10:45 am

In his Presidential address, stressed that net neutrality is an

issue of urgent public importance in the Indian pol i t ica l sphere with both Government and opposition vouching their commitment for it. But he still felt that the issue is not settled as the debate is complex and existing moral outrage as well as intellectual extremism over it is misplaced.

He went on to articulate the viewpoints of both sides of debate. The advocates of the net

neutrality view internet as a free, open and a readily available resource wherein access to different online services should not be priced differently as espoused by Airtel Zero Plan. Dr. Tharoor stressed that rather than manipulating their revenue models via revenue sharing with OTTs, telcos should innovate, fix their revenue models and provide world class quality services to Indian consumers. However, he felt that there is also a need to understand the challenges faced by telcos who have already invested heavily in infrastructure and subsequent upgrades without any explicit revenue support from the application providers who use this infrastructure.

He raised three important questions which TRAI and other policy organizations advising the Government on net neutrality must consider

1. Whether internet should follow the highway model (different toll prices for different vehicles on same road) or the phone model (same call charges irrespective of the end users)?

2. Why spectrum is rationed in minuscule quantities to telcos? Is this policy fair and sustainable?

3. How should we create a ‘level playing field’ which promotes digital entrepreneurship, competition and innovation in Indian internet eco-system?

He concluded his speech by stressing the need to understand technical and practical matters in this existing debate. If the subsequent net neutrality policy adopted by the Government still causes moral outrage, it won't be sustained by the Parliament. In his opinion, the debate would end up only in one way in a democracy- a user must pay for the data packet itself and not for choice of applications/services within the packet.

Dr. Shashi Tharoor

Dr. Shashi TharoorMember of Parliament (Lok Sabha) and Chairman, Parliamentary StandingCommittee on External Affairs

9

INAUGURAL SESSION9:30 am – 10:45 am

In his Presidential address, stressed that net neutrality is an

issue of urgent public importance in the Indian pol i t ica l sphere with both Government and opposition vouching their commitment for it. But he still felt that the issue is not settled as the debate is complex and existing moral outrage as well as intellectual extremism over it is misplaced.

He went on to articulate the viewpoints of both sides of debate. The advocates of the net

neutrality view internet as a free, open and a readily available resource wherein access to different online services should not be priced differently as espoused by Airtel Zero Plan. Dr. Tharoor stressed that rather than manipulating their revenue models via revenue sharing with OTTs, telcos should innovate, fix their revenue models and provide world class quality services to Indian consumers. However, he felt that there is also a need to understand the challenges faced by telcos who have already invested heavily in infrastructure and subsequent upgrades without any explicit revenue support from the application providers who use this infrastructure.

He raised three important questions which TRAI and other policy organizations advising the Government on net neutrality must consider

1. Whether internet should follow the highway model (different toll prices for different vehicles on same road) or the phone model (same call charges irrespective of the end users)?

2. Why spectrum is rationed in minuscule quantities to telcos? Is this policy fair and sustainable?

3. How should we create a ‘level playing field’ which promotes digital entrepreneurship, competition and innovation in Indian internet eco-system?

He concluded his speech by stressing the need to understand technical and practical matters in this existing debate. If the subsequent net neutrality policy adopted by the Government still causes moral outrage, it won't be sustained by the Parliament. In his opinion, the debate would end up only in one way in a democracy- a user must pay for the data packet itself and not for choice of applications/services within the packet.

Dr. Shashi Tharoor

Dr. Shashi TharoorMember of Parliament (Lok Sabha) and Chairman, Parliamentary StandingCommittee on External Affairs

9

Dr. Govind in his keynote address admitted that the topic of net neutrality has gone viral in India. He gave a brief overview of the ‘Digital India’ initiative whose vision is to transform India into a knowledge society by empowering Indians through an open and accessible internet. In his view, net neutrality (i.e. an open, accessible and non-discriminatory internet) is critical for realization of the ‘Digital India’ programme as India embarks upon the challenge to

bridge its existing digital divide through mobile platforms which provide support for content in regional languages as well.

He informed the audience that the Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) architecture allows the internet to be free, open and add value to all users. He stressed the importance of net neutrality in creation of Facebook, Google and other existing internet based technology giants. Based on USA's Federal Communication Commission (FCC)’s, experience of dealing with net neutrality issues in US, he suggested that Indian network management practices must support reasonable network management, ban paid prioritization and should not block/throttle lawful content.

According to him, internet should be priced like electricity i.e., a user should be charged for the amount of his internet consumption, irrespective of the nature of the internet consumption. He feels that selective bundling by ISPs will affect Indian internet ecosystem in the long run. Rather than tweaking internet access; realization of an open internet and quality broadband penetration by appropriate investment in Network R&D will be critical for all forms of socio-economic development in India.

Dr. GovindChief Executive OfficerNational Internet Exchange of India

In his special address, Professor Visvanathan stressed the need to look at the problem of net neutrality in the broader context of problems emerging due to co-existence of the oral, written and digital democracies. Similar to technological problems in bio-technology and nuclear technology, he pointed out that the real causality of information revolution brought about by the internet are the crises of language, crises of narrative and crises of democracy.

Professor Shiv VisvanathanVice DeanJindal School of Government and Public Policy (JSGP)

10

Net neutrality has induced a crisis in language as the term itself means different things to different stakeholders. With different stakeholders espousing different interests, claims and visions for internet, it has led to a crisis in narrative. It has also led to a crisis in democracy as it has led to new notions of citizenship within the digital commons and supplemented the existing customer-citizen-network paradigm with the network-public-digital commons paradigm.

He emphasized the need to contextualize this crisis in Indian context. This requires an articulation of the need to understand the conventions of trust and responsibility within the tacit constitutions of technology and appreciate the role of disorderliness as an indicator of reinvention of technology mediated democracy in the Indian context. In his opinion, understanding internet as digital commons will help Indian policymakers adjudicate between interests of different stakeholders. It will also help them in developing credible policies for safeguarding rights of future generation by better engagement with existing notions of digital access, digital infrastructure and institutional infrastructure.

11

Dr. Govind in his keynote address admitted that the topic of net neutrality has gone viral in India. He gave a brief overview of the ‘Digital India’ initiative whose vision is to transform India into a knowledge society by empowering Indians through an open and accessible internet. In his view, net neutrality (i.e. an open, accessible and non-discriminatory internet) is critical for realization of the ‘Digital India’ programme as India embarks upon the challenge to

bridge its existing digital divide through mobile platforms which provide support for content in regional languages as well.

He informed the audience that the Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) architecture allows the internet to be free, open and add value to all users. He stressed the importance of net neutrality in creation of Facebook, Google and other existing internet based technology giants. Based on USA's Federal Communication Commission (FCC)’s, experience of dealing with net neutrality issues in US, he suggested that Indian network management practices must support reasonable network management, ban paid prioritization and should not block/throttle lawful content.

According to him, internet should be priced like electricity i.e., a user should be charged for the amount of his internet consumption, irrespective of the nature of the internet consumption. He feels that selective bundling by ISPs will affect Indian internet ecosystem in the long run. Rather than tweaking internet access; realization of an open internet and quality broadband penetration by appropriate investment in Network R&D will be critical for all forms of socio-economic development in India.

Dr. GovindChief Executive OfficerNational Internet Exchange of India

In his special address, Professor Visvanathan stressed the need to look at the problem of net neutrality in the broader context of problems emerging due to co-existence of the oral, written and digital democracies. Similar to technological problems in bio-technology and nuclear technology, he pointed out that the real causality of information revolution brought about by the internet are the crises of language, crises of narrative and crises of democracy.

Professor Shiv VisvanathanVice DeanJindal School of Government and Public Policy (JSGP)

10

Net neutrality has induced a crisis in language as the term itself means different things to different stakeholders. With different stakeholders espousing different interests, claims and visions for internet, it has led to a crisis in narrative. It has also led to a crisis in democracy as it has led to new notions of citizenship within the digital commons and supplemented the existing customer-citizen-network paradigm with the network-public-digital commons paradigm.

He emphasized the need to contextualize this crisis in Indian context. This requires an articulation of the need to understand the conventions of trust and responsibility within the tacit constitutions of technology and appreciate the role of disorderliness as an indicator of reinvention of technology mediated democracy in the Indian context. In his opinion, understanding internet as digital commons will help Indian policymakers adjudicate between interests of different stakeholders. It will also help them in developing credible policies for safeguarding rights of future generation by better engagement with existing notions of digital access, digital infrastructure and institutional infrastructure.

11

SESSION I INDIA'S INTERNET: VOICES FOR ITS

PROTECTION AND PROMOTION11:00 am – 1:00 pm

Dr. Anja Kovacs started her session with a story of the emancipatory promise of radio as a cheap, easy and convenient medium of mass communication. Unfortunately, regulation killed the radio and the internet as a new practise might meet the same fate if the economic arguments of telcos are given unnecessary weightage in network neutrality regulations. According to her, arguments made by telcos for loss in their revenues should be evaluated for their evidence. She

inquired if slow-down in voice revenues haven’t been compensated by increase in data revenues for most of these telcos? We must also evaluate whether telcos actually fulfilled their regulatory obligations to invest in creating digital infrastructures in rural areas before the advent of OTT players? Further, there is a need for more clarity on how net neutrality regulations will impact the access to online apps and services developed for marginal sections of the Indian population. If we want to liberalise the application layer of the underlying TCP/IP protocol which most of these OTT players work with, then she opined that there is also a need to liberalise the network and data layers within the internet protocol stack wherein most of telcos and ISPs operate

Chair: Professor Stephen P. Marks, Professor, Harvard University, USA and Distinguished Visiting Professor, JGLS

Dr. Anja KovacsDirectorInternet Democracy Project, India

Dr. Geeta Gouri analysed the issue of net neutrality through the lens of competition economics and regulatory economics. In her view the rise of neural networks and their t rans ient phase requires a bet ter understanding of markets developed without bricks and mortar. In a country with love for regulatory and bureaucratic control and deep suspicion of markets, this will require an uncomfortable blending between dynamic economics and static laws.

She stressed the need to understand the implications of terms used to define net neutrality like 'non- discrimination of internet packets' in practise and consider some of the following questions.

Dr. Geeta GouriFormer MemberCompetition Commission of India

13

SESSION I INDIA'S INTERNET: VOICES FOR ITS

PROTECTION AND PROMOTION11:00 am – 1:00 pm

Dr. Anja Kovacs started her session with a story of the emancipatory promise of radio as a cheap, easy and convenient medium of mass communication. Unfortunately, regulation killed the radio and the internet as a new practise might meet the same fate if the economic arguments of telcos are given unnecessary weightage in network neutrality regulations. According to her, arguments made by telcos for loss in their revenues should be evaluated for their evidence. She

inquired if slow-down in voice revenues haven’t been compensated by increase in data revenues for most of these telcos? We must also evaluate whether telcos actually fulfilled their regulatory obligations to invest in creating digital infrastructures in rural areas before the advent of OTT players? Further, there is a need for more clarity on how net neutrality regulations will impact the access to online apps and services developed for marginal sections of the Indian population. If we want to liberalise the application layer of the underlying TCP/IP protocol which most of these OTT players work with, then she opined that there is also a need to liberalise the network and data layers within the internet protocol stack wherein most of telcos and ISPs operate

Chair: Professor Stephen P. Marks, Professor, Harvard University, USA and Distinguished Visiting Professor, JGLS

Dr. Anja KovacsDirectorInternet Democracy Project, India

Dr. Geeta Gouri analysed the issue of net neutrality through the lens of competition economics and regulatory economics. In her view the rise of neural networks and their t rans ient phase requires a bet ter understanding of markets developed without bricks and mortar. In a country with love for regulatory and bureaucratic control and deep suspicion of markets, this will require an uncomfortable blending between dynamic economics and static laws.

She stressed the need to understand the implications of terms used to define net neutrality like 'non- discrimination of internet packets' in practise and consider some of the following questions.

Dr. Geeta GouriFormer MemberCompetition Commission of India

13

1. Would we be fine if a discrimination of internet packets is efficient and welfare enhancing?

2. What if reasonable network non-neutrality features are the only way to get more people on the board?

3. Who shall provide subsidy for providing access to the unconnected?

4. How do we deal with non-network based techniques like Search Engine Optimization which compromise network neutrality?

She questioned whether there are competition laws which will deal with dominant players in emerging digital space and check their abuse without basing them on outdated economics? Further, she informed the audience that regulatory advisory bodies working on these issues must not demonstrate expansionary tendencies and protect the interests of consumers than those of the competing market players. Codifying net neutrality in terms of reasonable transparency, non-discrimination and access with appropriate incentives for innovation can be an important starting point in this regard.

Mr Jiten Jain, an ethical hacker, informed the audience that the net neutrality debate is contesting the basic nature of the internet and subsequent policy decisions will either keep the internet neutral or neutralize the emancipatory potential of the internet. Drawing parallels from China's successful internet business model eco-system, he asserted that access to internet must be open for young Indian start-ups. He urged the telcos to innovate and improve their quality

of services (QOS) rather than lobby for revenue sharing models which will make the consumer pay for their incompetence. He argued that telcos must come up with pro-active disclosures on their part to quell the suspicion that they want to enter and capture OTT market through manipulation of net neutrality principles. He complained that TRAI is acting in best interests of telcos and urged it to work for the long term benefits of Indian consumers. Considering that Parliament and Indian Government had given a standing commitment to net neutrality, he opined that TRAI should withdraw its consultation paper.

Mr. Jiten JainChief Executive OfficerIndian Infosec Consortium

14

Dr. Mahesh Uppal informed the audience that notion of net neutrality has been over-simplified in the Indian context and the consensus on net neutrality is misleading as it means different things to set of stakeholders who are on the same side of debate. For example, MNCs like Facebook, Google etc., support net neutrality differently than organizations like ‘Save the Internet’. Additionally, many libertarians, some minority groups and even Nobel Prize

winning economists are against regulations to make the internet 'neutral'. He stressed the difference between operation of the network player in the the Indian and US context. He argued that ISP market in India is more competitive and flexible. Further, he pointed out that India is a price sensitive market which results in different market incentives to Indian players as compared as to their US counterparts. Most importantly, Indian telcos are heavily dependent on wireless networks as compared to fixed line networks of their US conterparts which makes it more vulnerable to inefficiencies in India's existing spectrum rationing policies.

He believed that a policy on net neutrality must consider special cases and exceptions which are essential for public policy. Further, the subsequent regulations must be technology neutral i.e., OTTs like Watsapp must be subjected to similar regulations as compared to Short Message Service offered by telcos.

Dr. Mahesh UppalDirector, ComFirst

Professor Avirup Bose asked the audience to imagine that they were all regulators from TRAI who had decided to adjudicate the issue of net neutrality based upon e-mail submissions made by a million netizen. He asked them to reflect whether their decision would be fair as they had implicitly excluded the viewpoints of the digital have-nots. To promote inclusion of these digital have-nots within India’s internet eco-system, Professor Bose proposes a model of 'chotta recharge' similar to the one offered by Tata Sky i.e. every

internet user will pay for a low cost data pack wherein he gets access to

Professor Avirup BoseAssistant Professor & Assistant DirectorCentre for International Trade and Economic Laws, JGLS andFormer Expert Consultant to the Competition Commission of India

15

1. Would we be fine if a discrimination of internet packets is efficient and welfare enhancing?

2. What if reasonable network non-neutrality features are the only way to get more people on the board?

3. Who shall provide subsidy for providing access to the unconnected?

4. How do we deal with non-network based techniques like Search Engine Optimization which compromise network neutrality?

She questioned whether there are competition laws which will deal with dominant players in emerging digital space and check their abuse without basing them on outdated economics? Further, she informed the audience that regulatory advisory bodies working on these issues must not demonstrate expansionary tendencies and protect the interests of consumers than those of the competing market players. Codifying net neutrality in terms of reasonable transparency, non-discrimination and access with appropriate incentives for innovation can be an important starting point in this regard.

Mr Jiten Jain, an ethical hacker, informed the audience that the net neutrality debate is contesting the basic nature of the internet and subsequent policy decisions will either keep the internet neutral or neutralize the emancipatory potential of the internet. Drawing parallels from China's successful internet business model eco-system, he asserted that access to internet must be open for young Indian start-ups. He urged the telcos to innovate and improve their quality

of services (QOS) rather than lobby for revenue sharing models which will make the consumer pay for their incompetence. He argued that telcos must come up with pro-active disclosures on their part to quell the suspicion that they want to enter and capture OTT market through manipulation of net neutrality principles. He complained that TRAI is acting in best interests of telcos and urged it to work for the long term benefits of Indian consumers. Considering that Parliament and Indian Government had given a standing commitment to net neutrality, he opined that TRAI should withdraw its consultation paper.

Mr. Jiten JainChief Executive OfficerIndian Infosec Consortium

14

Dr. Mahesh Uppal informed the audience that notion of net neutrality has been over-simplified in the Indian context and the consensus on net neutrality is misleading as it means different things to set of stakeholders who are on the same side of debate. For example, MNCs like Facebook, Google etc., support net neutrality differently than organizations like ‘Save the Internet’. Additionally, many libertarians, some minority groups and even Nobel Prize

winning economists are against regulations to make the internet 'neutral'. He stressed the difference between operation of the network player in the the Indian and US context. He argued that ISP market in India is more competitive and flexible. Further, he pointed out that India is a price sensitive market which results in different market incentives to Indian players as compared as to their US counterparts. Most importantly, Indian telcos are heavily dependent on wireless networks as compared to fixed line networks of their US conterparts which makes it more vulnerable to inefficiencies in India's existing spectrum rationing policies.

He believed that a policy on net neutrality must consider special cases and exceptions which are essential for public policy. Further, the subsequent regulations must be technology neutral i.e., OTTs like Watsapp must be subjected to similar regulations as compared to Short Message Service offered by telcos.

Dr. Mahesh UppalDirector, ComFirst

Professor Avirup Bose asked the audience to imagine that they were all regulators from TRAI who had decided to adjudicate the issue of net neutrality based upon e-mail submissions made by a million netizen. He asked them to reflect whether their decision would be fair as they had implicitly excluded the viewpoints of the digital have-nots. To promote inclusion of these digital have-nots within India’s internet eco-system, Professor Bose proposes a model of 'chotta recharge' similar to the one offered by Tata Sky i.e. every

internet user will pay for a low cost data pack wherein he gets access to

Professor Avirup BoseAssistant Professor & Assistant DirectorCentre for International Trade and Economic Laws, JGLS andFormer Expert Consultant to the Competition Commission of India

15

limited list of pre-choosen applications. This will ensure that digital have-nots like poor Indian farmers will be connected to the internet on a limited but daily basis. He maintained that allowing telcos to calibrate internet access prices bassed on user affordability would help to energize the internet markets at bottom of the digital pyramid. Concurring with ‘Digital India's’ vision to make all Indian citizens as netizens, Prof Bose proposed that Airtel Zero plan can also be considered as a model of inclusive growth rather than one of internet racism. Although there is a credible fear that Indian start-ups will suffer from anti –competitive practices of dominant multinational players, Professor Bose felt that regulaters like CCI can play an active role in addressing such fears.

16

SESSION II TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS OF NET NEUTRALITY: ACCESSIBILITY, COMPETITION AND INNOVATION

2:00 pm – 4:00 pm

limited list of pre-choosen applications. This will ensure that digital have-nots like poor Indian farmers will be connected to the internet on a limited but daily basis. He maintained that allowing telcos to calibrate internet access prices bassed on user affordability would help to energize the internet markets at bottom of the digital pyramid. Concurring with ‘Digital India's’ vision to make all Indian citizens as netizens, Prof Bose proposed that Airtel Zero plan can also be considered as a model of inclusive growth rather than one of internet racism. Although there is a credible fear that Indian start-ups will suffer from anti –competitive practices of dominant multinational players, Professor Bose felt that regulaters like CCI can play an active role in addressing such fears.

16

SESSION II TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS OF NET NEUTRALITY: ACCESSIBILITY, COMPETITION AND INNOVATION

2:00 pm – 4:00 pm

Dr. Anindya Chaudhuri felt that the debate on net neutrality exists because of lack of understanding on the rationale behind the design of the internet. According to him, non- neutrality was built in to the heart of TCP/IP protocol based packet switching networks. Unlike circuit switching networks of erstwhile telephone networks, there was no guarantee that all the packets will be

transmitted and prioritization has always been practised. Thus, discrimination lies at the heart of internet systems and IEFT RFC 791 codifies this idea. Understanding the working of internet in terms of chewing and scheduling theory can provide useful insights into rationale of this network design.

With appropriate graphs, Dr. Chaudhari was able to illustrate that telcos in India have outsourced their R&Ds and are only adding superficial value to their networks. Indeed, there is need for substantive innovation in telecom as well as policy space in India. Money raised through spectrum allocations can be meaningfully utilized for funding this innovation.

He concluded his talk by stressing on the importance of long term innovation over short term monetary benefits for India's better digital future. He acknowledged that the debate is quite complex and needs a better understanding of engineering, mathematics and economics.

Chair: Professor Parkash Chander, Professor, Jindal School of

Government and Public Policy (JSGP)

Dr. Anindya ChaudhuriGlobal Development Network

18

Mr. Nandan Kamath stressed the need to look at the internet through the perspective of innovation theory. He highlighted an interesting fact about contradictory stance taken by ISPs within law i.e., Indian ISPs want to be 'smart' when they want to discriminate with respect to content provided by OTT players but want to remain 'dumb' when they are accused of infringing copyrights due to nature of content transmitted by the same OTT players. He also

stressed on the importance of understanding the nature of path dependence in network economics. As initial lock-ins will determine the

Mr. Nandan KamathPrincipal LawyerThe Law Offices of Nandan Kamath

Dr. Navneet Sharma accepted that the fact that there is no universally accepted definition of net neutrality. But he articulated four principles which are essential for net neutrality- transparency, no blocking of lawful content, no unreasonable discriminatory practises and reasonable network management practises.

He felt that discrimination is the essence of governance in India. Neutrality or competitive neutrality is the hallmark of the competition debate. Exploring internet as a

public good, he raised the following three questions to better deal with issue of net neutrality in India from a competition law perspective.

1. Whether loss of net neutrality should be considered as an instance of regulatory failure and whether it will impact competition (i.e. prices, ability of players to compete).

2. Who should be charged? What will be its impact of these pricing mechanisms on market failure and ability of existing market players to compete?

Dr. Navneet SharmaAssociate ProfessorSchool of Competition Law,Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs

19

nature of future of technology, he opined that ‘Internet.Org’ can lock in Indian users and effectively determine the future of internet in India. Thus, any technology regulator must consider the following two questions –

1. When to intervene in the market?

2. How to ensure that entrenched player focusses on innovation rather than relying on regulatory capture or lock-in effects to protect the market share of its online service/application?

He admitted that the issue of net neutrality is complex and expressed his sympathy for task undertaken by India technology regulators by comparing them to a giant who is 'blind' (i.e. without ability to prognosticate the welfare of future netizens) but has great powers to shape the future. He concluded his speech by predicting that the future of India's digital economy will depend on how our net neutrality policies are able to provide access to internet in India without high lock-in or switching costs.

Dr. Anindya Chaudhuri felt that the debate on net neutrality exists because of lack of understanding on the rationale behind the design of the internet. According to him, non- neutrality was built in to the heart of TCP/IP protocol based packet switching networks. Unlike circuit switching networks of erstwhile telephone networks, there was no guarantee that all the packets will be

transmitted and prioritization has always been practised. Thus, discrimination lies at the heart of internet systems and IEFT RFC 791 codifies this idea. Understanding the working of internet in terms of chewing and scheduling theory can provide useful insights into rationale of this network design.

With appropriate graphs, Dr. Chaudhari was able to illustrate that telcos in India have outsourced their R&Ds and are only adding superficial value to their networks. Indeed, there is need for substantive innovation in telecom as well as policy space in India. Money raised through spectrum allocations can be meaningfully utilized for funding this innovation.

He concluded his talk by stressing on the importance of long term innovation over short term monetary benefits for India's better digital future. He acknowledged that the debate is quite complex and needs a better understanding of engineering, mathematics and economics.

Chair: Professor Parkash Chander, Professor, Jindal School of

Government and Public Policy (JSGP)

Dr. Anindya ChaudhuriGlobal Development Network

18

Mr. Nandan Kamath stressed the need to look at the internet through the perspective of innovation theory. He highlighted an interesting fact about contradictory stance taken by ISPs within law i.e., Indian ISPs want to be 'smart' when they want to discriminate with respect to content provided by OTT players but want to remain 'dumb' when they are accused of infringing copyrights due to nature of content transmitted by the same OTT players. He also

stressed on the importance of understanding the nature of path dependence in network economics. As initial lock-ins will determine the

Mr. Nandan KamathPrincipal LawyerThe Law Offices of Nandan Kamath

Dr. Navneet Sharma accepted that the fact that there is no universally accepted definition of net neutrality. But he articulated four principles which are essential for net neutrality- transparency, no blocking of lawful content, no unreasonable discriminatory practises and reasonable network management practises.

He felt that discrimination is the essence of governance in India. Neutrality or competitive neutrality is the hallmark of the competition debate. Exploring internet as a

public good, he raised the following three questions to better deal with issue of net neutrality in India from a competition law perspective.

1. Whether loss of net neutrality should be considered as an instance of regulatory failure and whether it will impact competition (i.e. prices, ability of players to compete).

2. Who should be charged? What will be its impact of these pricing mechanisms on market failure and ability of existing market players to compete?

Dr. Navneet SharmaAssociate ProfessorSchool of Competition Law,Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs

19

nature of future of technology, he opined that ‘Internet.Org’ can lock in Indian users and effectively determine the future of internet in India. Thus, any technology regulator must consider the following two questions –

1. When to intervene in the market?

2. How to ensure that entrenched player focusses on innovation rather than relying on regulatory capture or lock-in effects to protect the market share of its online service/application?

He admitted that the issue of net neutrality is complex and expressed his sympathy for task undertaken by India technology regulators by comparing them to a giant who is 'blind' (i.e. without ability to prognosticate the welfare of future netizens) but has great powers to shape the future. He concluded his speech by predicting that the future of India's digital economy will depend on how our net neutrality policies are able to provide access to internet in India without high lock-in or switching costs.

Professor Kathuria elaborated the following three points in his talk:

1. ISPs and OTTs have a complementary position in market and need each other for their survival. There is need to improve the efficiency of India’s spectrum allocation and promote digital innovation with relevant investments in digital infrastructure.

2. Competition Law is not the right remedy for net neutrality debate as there are no dominant players in India's ISP market.

3. Consumers will benefit if India doesn’t adopt a strict nation of net neutrality as the ISPs can then survive by only charging OTTs

with deep pockets to raise funds for infrastructure investment and prevent the 'waterbed effect' in the economy. Thus, only those who can pay should be charged.

Professor Vikas KathuriaAssistant Professor and Assistant DirectorMichigan-Jindal Centre for Global Corporate andFinancial Law and Policy, JGLS

20

3. Will early entrants affect the ability of late entrants to compete? Will companies with deep pockets eventually win?

Dr. Sharma didn't provide any explicit answers but predicted that a net neutrality policy which promotes disruptive technologies will be the key to India's digital future.

SESSION IIILAWS AND REGULATIONS ON NET NEUTRALITY: CREATING

A CONDUCIVE INTERNET ECO-SYSTEM4:15 pm – 6:15 pm

Professor Kathuria elaborated the following three points in his talk:

1. ISPs and OTTs have a complementary position in market and need each other for their survival. There is need to improve the efficiency of India’s spectrum allocation and promote digital innovation with relevant investments in digital infrastructure.

2. Competition Law is not the right remedy for net neutrality debate as there are no dominant players in India's ISP market.

3. Consumers will benefit if India doesn’t adopt a strict nation of net neutrality as the ISPs can then survive by only charging OTTs

with deep pockets to raise funds for infrastructure investment and prevent the 'waterbed effect' in the economy. Thus, only those who can pay should be charged.

Professor Vikas KathuriaAssistant Professor and Assistant DirectorMichigan-Jindal Centre for Global Corporate andFinancial Law and Policy, JGLS

20

3. Will early entrants affect the ability of late entrants to compete? Will companies with deep pockets eventually win?

Dr. Sharma didn't provide any explicit answers but predicted that a net neutrality policy which promotes disruptive technologies will be the key to India's digital future.

SESSION IIILAWS AND REGULATIONS ON NET NEUTRALITY: CREATING

A CONDUCIVE INTERNET ECO-SYSTEM4:15 pm – 6:15 pm

Ms. Jyoti Pawar asked the audience whether there is a need for network neutrality regulation in India? Considering the fact that internet penetration in India is low and that there are many emerging issues which still need to be considered (e.g. data privacy of users, nature of commercial agreements between different players), she feels that a regulatory framework is the best way forward. According to her, some of the aspects which the proposed regulatory framework for net neutrality must consider

including, cyber-security, data privacy and minimum QOS.

Mr. Abhishek Malhotra raised an important question as to whether existing legal regime is sufficient to address the challenge raised by net neutrality i.e., providing access to end user on non discriminatory basis. He feels that law of torts and law of contracts can provide an important starting point to study the nature of discrimination associated with net neutrality. Studying issues related to net neutrality debate in other countries and laws governing other broadcasting media will be

useful as well. He articulated the following three principles of net neutrality in India- no unfavourable blocking, no throttling and no favourable access for more money.

Chair: Professor R. Sudarshan, Dean, Jindal School of Government

and Public Policy (JSGP)

Mr. Abhishek MalhotraManaging PartnerTMT Law Practice

Ms. Jyoti PawarPartnerEconomic Laws Practice

Mr. Yogesh Singh classified different players in the net neutrality debate-telcos, OTT, professional internet users and amateur internet users. He felt that the objective of net neutrality regulation for India's better digital future must provide access to amateur internet users and non-users. He emphasized that enhancing access to internet improves GDP by 1.4% [World B a n k e s t i m a t e ] . T h i s w i l l r e q u i r e

Mr. Yogesh SinghPartner, Trilegal

22

preservation of openness of internet without compromising access over it in an evolving Indian internet industry. It will also require a better understanding of laws pertaining to India’s constitution, competition and consumer protection. According to him, any proposed model for net neutrality regulation must consider the key principles of no discrimination and reasonable network management. He feels that users must pay only for the apps that they use and certain apps must be made freely available to every user.

Professor Gupta informed the audience about how rise of ‘User Generated Content’ (i.e. UGC) in today’s world has changed the shape of net neutrality debate. Providing access is much more critical as the users have now become a source of information in information based internet markets. He outlined a trajectory for the future of internet with more revenue sharing models due to rise in number of users and UGC. He feels that the users should pay only for data packs and nothing more. He concluded his talk by

informing the audience that law should, wait for some time, understand all issues and then decide the parameters of India’s not net neutrality policy.

Professor Indranath GuptaAssociate ProfessorJGLS

Mr. Rajan S. Mathews commenced his talk by convincingly pointing out to the audience on how the decision of network operators to provide costless, seamless, integration of their networks contributed to rise of world wide network. Originally conceptualized as an intra-university knowledge network to be subsidized by the Government, the rise of online market aggregators with their own server on subsequent World Wide Web gave rise to commercial internet. He then articulated the

need to understand net neutrality and develop subsequent regulations from a country specific perspective. Unlike other developed countries which have five high capacity networks - fixed land line, satellite, mobility, cable and Government networks; India is majorly dependent on spectrum constrained mobile networks. Accordingly, Mr. Mathews articulated the following three expectations from network neutrality regulations in India:

Rajan S. MathewsDirector GeneralCellular Operators Association of India

23

Ms. Jyoti Pawar asked the audience whether there is a need for network neutrality regulation in India? Considering the fact that internet penetration in India is low and that there are many emerging issues which still need to be considered (e.g. data privacy of users, nature of commercial agreements between different players), she feels that a regulatory framework is the best way forward. According to her, some of the aspects which the proposed regulatory framework for net neutrality must consider

including, cyber-security, data privacy and minimum QOS.

Mr. Abhishek Malhotra raised an important question as to whether existing legal regime is sufficient to address the challenge raised by net neutrality i.e., providing access to end user on non discriminatory basis. He feels that law of torts and law of contracts can provide an important starting point to study the nature of discrimination associated with net neutrality. Studying issues related to net neutrality debate in other countries and laws governing other broadcasting media will be

useful as well. He articulated the following three principles of net neutrality in India- no unfavourable blocking, no throttling and no favourable access for more money.

Chair: Professor R. Sudarshan, Dean, Jindal School of Government

and Public Policy (JSGP)

Mr. Abhishek MalhotraManaging PartnerTMT Law Practice

Ms. Jyoti PawarPartnerEconomic Laws Practice

Mr. Yogesh Singh classified different players in the net neutrality debate-telcos, OTT, professional internet users and amateur internet users. He felt that the objective of net neutrality regulation for India's better digital future must provide access to amateur internet users and non-users. He emphasized that enhancing access to internet improves GDP by 1.4% [World B a n k e s t i m a t e ] . T h i s w i l l r e q u i r e

Mr. Yogesh SinghPartner, Trilegal

22

preservation of openness of internet without compromising access over it in an evolving Indian internet industry. It will also require a better understanding of laws pertaining to India’s constitution, competition and consumer protection. According to him, any proposed model for net neutrality regulation must consider the key principles of no discrimination and reasonable network management. He feels that users must pay only for the apps that they use and certain apps must be made freely available to every user.

Professor Gupta informed the audience about how rise of ‘User Generated Content’ (i.e. UGC) in today’s world has changed the shape of net neutrality debate. Providing access is much more critical as the users have now become a source of information in information based internet markets. He outlined a trajectory for the future of internet with more revenue sharing models due to rise in number of users and UGC. He feels that the users should pay only for data packs and nothing more. He concluded his talk by

informing the audience that law should, wait for some time, understand all issues and then decide the parameters of India’s not net neutrality policy.

Professor Indranath GuptaAssociate ProfessorJGLS

Mr. Rajan S. Mathews commenced his talk by convincingly pointing out to the audience on how the decision of network operators to provide costless, seamless, integration of their networks contributed to rise of world wide network. Originally conceptualized as an intra-university knowledge network to be subsidized by the Government, the rise of online market aggregators with their own server on subsequent World Wide Web gave rise to commercial internet. He then articulated the

need to understand net neutrality and develop subsequent regulations from a country specific perspective. Unlike other developed countries which have five high capacity networks - fixed land line, satellite, mobility, cable and Government networks; India is majorly dependent on spectrum constrained mobile networks. Accordingly, Mr. Mathews articulated the following three expectations from network neutrality regulations in India:

Rajan S. MathewsDirector GeneralCellular Operators Association of India

23

1. Same services should be subjected to same regulations. For example, Facebook can give social networking services free of cost but it should pay for Facebook Messenger as it is similar to SMS provided by telcos.

2. OTTs should be lightly regulated to realise the potential of the mobile internet

3. Situate net neutrality in the broader context of internet governance. If Government of India stands by its commitment for a multilateral governance model for internet governance, then we can't expect the internet to be truly neutral.

24

DISTINGUISHED VALEDICTORY ADDRESS

(Transcript)

6:15 pm – 7:00 pm

1. Same services should be subjected to same regulations. For example, Facebook can give social networking services free of cost but it should pay for Facebook Messenger as it is similar to SMS provided by telcos.

2. OTTs should be lightly regulated to realise the potential of the mobile internet

3. Situate net neutrality in the broader context of internet governance. If Government of India stands by its commitment for a multilateral governance model for internet governance, then we can't expect the internet to be truly neutral.

24

DISTINGUISHED VALEDICTORY ADDRESS

(Transcript)

6:15 pm – 7:00 pm

Esteemed Vice-Chancellor, Information Commissioner, other esteemed Guests, students, gentleman and respectable audience!

Let me begin with some caveats and some clarifications.

The caveat is that the process of consultation on net neutrality is still under way. Although the last comments will come in today, it does not mean that consultation is over! Thereafter we will still have open house

discussions and so the process of consultation continues. This implies that I am not in a position to give you any views- my views, the regulatory authority's views or anything on this matter. However, this will not constrain me from drawing on material which is already in the public domain.

The second point I want to make in terms of clarification is that, at no point of time, when the authority issued any paper on the matter, was it the intention of TRAI to start policing the internet. It was not our idea that we would regulate the internet. Unfortunately, what has happened is that people have conflated ideas- some out of confusion and some purely out of mischief. Indeed, India needs to seriously debate on the issue of net neutrality to facilitate evidence based decision making and then only should we make up our minds rather than the other way round.

Let me begin with what are the sources of the problem in two aspects –first, there are Over the Top (OTT) players and some of them are in the same business as telecom service providers. So the question arises that if an OTT application is going to provide voice and text services, then how is it any different from our TSPs? And if there is no difference in terms of functionality of services then shouldn't we have a level playing field with same regulatory compliance so that the same regulatory cost is borne by OTTs and TSPs?

The second aspect of the problem arose because there are huge number of OTT applications which are data hungry and they have congested the network creating a congestion externality. Now standard congestion externality is dealt in a standard way in economics textbook-the one who creates it also cleans it up. Hence, the congestor of network should pay for congestion. This is an unexceptionable principle.

Having understood the source of the problem, the question that now confronts us is how we are going to solve this problem in the Indian context. Assume that audience on my right (say 100 million people) are the only bunch of people who have access to internet at 512 kbps and rest of us (say 900 million) are not connected. What will happen if these 900

Dr. Rahul KhullarFormer ChairmanTelecom Regulatory Authority of India

26

million people get connected to the net? Will all of us still get access to internet at 512 kbps? Indeed, broadband works like money in bank i.e., not all people can use it at the same time.

Now let me go back to the general problem and ask - How have other jurisdictions dealt with the issue of net neutrality? In spite of a 20 year history, US still doesn't have a public law on internet and FCC didn't have legal authority to deal with these issues. In Europe, each country made a make-shift arrangement. For instance, most countries including Germany and France treat communication based OTT, as separate class of electronic communications and they are subjected to a light licensing requirement. In UK, the regulator favored TSPS to get back their return on investments. On the other hand, Netherlands and Slovenia passed a law mandating net neutrality. In finale, I wish to inform you that in no country in the world do you have any clear definition of what constitutes net neutrality, nor do you have any clear idea about how to deal with this problem.

Let me close this business on what others have tried and done because I will come at it right at the end. I think throughout the day you must have heard arguments on both sides. Both sides have very compelling arguments. On one side - Who is the TSP to decide what I will choose or what I will not choose? Why is TSP throttling innovation? Why is TSP throttling creativity? Why do you want to try and police something that is working fine without policing? Why are you being ham handed in terms of regulations? OTTs and finally I pay for connections- big deal? Why I need to pay anymore? The other sides of the argument are - Do you seriously think I can run a system that provides service without traffic management? Who is going to pay for infrastructure? Who is going to pay for spectrum? Who is going to pay for towers? Who going to pay for roll out? Indeed, you have extremely strong and passionate arguments on both sides.

thNow I want to stress on the public policy angle of this problem. On 5 of May the Minister of Parliament said that:

(I) We are committed to an open internet for all, “emphasis all”

(ii) Public Policy is about including everybody, bridging the digital divide, broadband for all etc.

(iii) This has to be no one's arguments; it's not as clear cut as people are seen to be making out of it.

(iv) there shall always be situations when regulator will be required (e.g. traffic management, security of the state and law and behold infrastructure).But the problem is –how do you conceive any potential solution? In a country where every citizen still doesn't have access to electricity and safe, drinking water- how critical is accessibility to internet? Indeed, the way to solve any public policy problem is how do we conceptualize a solution and internet can't be different.

27

Esteemed Vice-Chancellor, Information Commissioner, other esteemed Guests, students, gentleman and respectable audience!

Let me begin with some caveats and some clarifications.

The caveat is that the process of consultation on net neutrality is still under way. Although the last comments will come in today, it does not mean that consultation is over! Thereafter we will still have open house

discussions and so the process of consultation continues. This implies that I am not in a position to give you any views- my views, the regulatory authority's views or anything on this matter. However, this will not constrain me from drawing on material which is already in the public domain.

The second point I want to make in terms of clarification is that, at no point of time, when the authority issued any paper on the matter, was it the intention of TRAI to start policing the internet. It was not our idea that we would regulate the internet. Unfortunately, what has happened is that people have conflated ideas- some out of confusion and some purely out of mischief. Indeed, India needs to seriously debate on the issue of net neutrality to facilitate evidence based decision making and then only should we make up our minds rather than the other way round.

Let me begin with what are the sources of the problem in two aspects –first, there are Over the Top (OTT) players and some of them are in the same business as telecom service providers. So the question arises that if an OTT application is going to provide voice and text services, then how is it any different from our TSPs? And if there is no difference in terms of functionality of services then shouldn't we have a level playing field with same regulatory compliance so that the same regulatory cost is borne by OTTs and TSPs?

The second aspect of the problem arose because there are huge number of OTT applications which are data hungry and they have congested the network creating a congestion externality. Now standard congestion externality is dealt in a standard way in economics textbook-the one who creates it also cleans it up. Hence, the congestor of network should pay for congestion. This is an unexceptionable principle.

Having understood the source of the problem, the question that now confronts us is how we are going to solve this problem in the Indian context. Assume that audience on my right (say 100 million people) are the only bunch of people who have access to internet at 512 kbps and rest of us (say 900 million) are not connected. What will happen if these 900

Dr. Rahul KhullarFormer ChairmanTelecom Regulatory Authority of India

26

million people get connected to the net? Will all of us still get access to internet at 512 kbps? Indeed, broadband works like money in bank i.e., not all people can use it at the same time.

Now let me go back to the general problem and ask - How have other jurisdictions dealt with the issue of net neutrality? In spite of a 20 year history, US still doesn't have a public law on internet and FCC didn't have legal authority to deal with these issues. In Europe, each country made a make-shift arrangement. For instance, most countries including Germany and France treat communication based OTT, as separate class of electronic communications and they are subjected to a light licensing requirement. In UK, the regulator favored TSPS to get back their return on investments. On the other hand, Netherlands and Slovenia passed a law mandating net neutrality. In finale, I wish to inform you that in no country in the world do you have any clear definition of what constitutes net neutrality, nor do you have any clear idea about how to deal with this problem.

Let me close this business on what others have tried and done because I will come at it right at the end. I think throughout the day you must have heard arguments on both sides. Both sides have very compelling arguments. On one side - Who is the TSP to decide what I will choose or what I will not choose? Why is TSP throttling innovation? Why is TSP throttling creativity? Why do you want to try and police something that is working fine without policing? Why are you being ham handed in terms of regulations? OTTs and finally I pay for connections- big deal? Why I need to pay anymore? The other sides of the argument are - Do you seriously think I can run a system that provides service without traffic management? Who is going to pay for infrastructure? Who is going to pay for spectrum? Who is going to pay for towers? Who going to pay for roll out? Indeed, you have extremely strong and passionate arguments on both sides.

thNow I want to stress on the public policy angle of this problem. On 5 of May the Minister of Parliament said that:

(I) We are committed to an open internet for all, “emphasis all”

(ii) Public Policy is about including everybody, bridging the digital divide, broadband for all etc.

(iii) This has to be no one's arguments; it's not as clear cut as people are seen to be making out of it.

(iv) there shall always be situations when regulator will be required (e.g. traffic management, security of the state and law and behold infrastructure).But the problem is –how do you conceive any potential solution? In a country where every citizen still doesn't have access to electricity and safe, drinking water- how critical is accessibility to internet? Indeed, the way to solve any public policy problem is how do we conceptualize a solution and internet can't be different.

27

Everybody talked about some principles which ought to constitute net neutrality and I think there are certain unexceptionable principles. These unexceptional principles should not be questioned - a) no blocking b) transparency c) no throttling. On these three principles, there simply can't be any debate. This requires public disclosure of pricing and traffic management priorities as well as a better understanding of platform markets.

If both sides of platform are not willing to put in cash for investment in infrastructure – will the Government then stump up the cash? However, we must realize that beyond a point our financially constrained Government exchequer is incapable of stumping up the cash for this - you have to depend upon the private sector and develop ways and means to do it transparently and in a manner which does not allow them to manipulate prices under the pretext of high moral grounds. Rather than micro-managing regulations- we need to lay down some rules, some do's and some don't, what's acceptable and what's not acceptable.

As a last point, let me propose a way forward. In most countries, what has happened is that every regulator has beaten his head against this wall and has not come up with any successful solution. As Dean Sudarshan pointed out - India is land of ancient knowledge. If somewhere in that ancient knowledge you can pull something out, then please tell me- I have got no solution! The only lesson I have learnt is that as a regulator we have to agree on certain principles which should stand the test of time and apply them in different contexts for making consistent policy decisions. These principles have to be deliberated by all stakeholders.

My counsel to all of you who are going to grapple with this public policy issue as we move forward, is that - don't try to deal with this matter by passing some detailed public policy or going to Parliament and wasting their time with some comprehensive legislation. As informed to us, 76 out of 84 countries have not done it. If they have not done it, why do we want to be the first? The more sensible thing is stand back, think, think slowly and deliberate on what we want and what we don't want.

The quicker we get to the rules of the game, which are not codified as regulation or rules, but accepted by all stakeholders as practice, the quicker we get to a solution, the quicker we will roll out the investment for delivering broadband to all, the quicker we will achieve it. My understanding of this regulation for the last three years is that- the more regulation you make, the more micro management you try to do, the worse you make the problem. Simpler the rules, the simpler the compliance, the easier is the way things move forward. With grand ambitions of 'Broadband for all' and 'Digital India', it is high time for those of us in a position to influence public policy to start thinking of the investment which is required in this sector and start thinking of creative solutions on how it will get done.

Thank you for your patience, Ladies and Gentleman

28

CONCLUSION

Everybody talked about some principles which ought to constitute net neutrality and I think there are certain unexceptionable principles. These unexceptional principles should not be questioned - a) no blocking b) transparency c) no throttling. On these three principles, there simply can't be any debate. This requires public disclosure of pricing and traffic management priorities as well as a better understanding of platform markets.

If both sides of platform are not willing to put in cash for investment in infrastructure – will the Government then stump up the cash? However, we must realize that beyond a point our financially constrained Government exchequer is incapable of stumping up the cash for this - you have to depend upon the private sector and develop ways and means to do it transparently and in a manner which does not allow them to manipulate prices under the pretext of high moral grounds. Rather than micro-managing regulations- we need to lay down some rules, some do's and some don't, what's acceptable and what's not acceptable.

As a last point, let me propose a way forward. In most countries, what has happened is that every regulator has beaten his head against this wall and has not come up with any successful solution. As Dean Sudarshan pointed out - India is land of ancient knowledge. If somewhere in that ancient knowledge you can pull something out, then please tell me- I have got no solution! The only lesson I have learnt is that as a regulator we have to agree on certain principles which should stand the test of time and apply them in different contexts for making consistent policy decisions. These principles have to be deliberated by all stakeholders.

My counsel to all of you who are going to grapple with this public policy issue as we move forward, is that - don't try to deal with this matter by passing some detailed public policy or going to Parliament and wasting their time with some comprehensive legislation. As informed to us, 76 out of 84 countries have not done it. If they have not done it, why do we want to be the first? The more sensible thing is stand back, think, think slowly and deliberate on what we want and what we don't want.

The quicker we get to the rules of the game, which are not codified as regulation or rules, but accepted by all stakeholders as practice, the quicker we get to a solution, the quicker we will roll out the investment for delivering broadband to all, the quicker we will achieve it. My understanding of this regulation for the last three years is that- the more regulation you make, the more micro management you try to do, the worse you make the problem. Simpler the rules, the simpler the compliance, the easier is the way things move forward. With grand ambitions of 'Broadband for all' and 'Digital India', it is high time for those of us in a position to influence public policy to start thinking of the investment which is required in this sector and start thinking of creative solutions on how it will get done.

Thank you for your patience, Ladies and Gentleman

28

CONCLUSION

30

The seminar and panel discussion on 'Net Neutrality and the Future of Digital India' was successfully conducted by O. P. Jindal Global University at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi on 8th May 2015.The objective of this timely seminar was to better understand the nature of issues concerning net neutrality in India as well as generate meaningful insights on issues/policies related to the governance of India's digital future. The seminar witnessed participation from a diverse set of professionals (including parliamentarians, government officials, regulators, internet activists, engineers, economists, academics, scholars, mathematicians, policymakers, media professionals and lawyers) who deliberated the various issues related to India's net neutrality debate. Their valuable thought leadership and expert advice is summarized below.

First, there is a need for an appropriate articulation of the term 'net neutrality' for the Indian context. It was discussed by several panelists that the existing consensus on net neutrality is misleading, as the term means different things for different stakeholders of the Indian society. Further, several panelists agreed that deliberations over the articulation of the term 'net neutrality' should place emphasis on the principles of accessibility, competition and innovation.

Second, it was emphasized by several panelists that the net neutrality debate is still evolving and that the Government/regulators should not 'jump the gun' and come up with a definitive, extensive and rigid 'clear-cut' policy on net neutrality for India. They must acknowledge the fact that internet based technologies are quite dynamic by nature and there is a very limited public understanding of how these technologies will roll out in Indian context. They must wait for all possible factors to play out, understand how practices are evolving at the ground level and then develop certain broad regulatory principles/framework which would serve as a guide in developing consistent public-policy based solutions to India's internet governance issues.

Third, the Government's policy stance on net neutrality must adhere to the following six core principles:

(i) User is the king and user choice cannot be compromised. However, the interests of future generation of internet users cannot be compromised for short term interests of the current generation of internet users.

(ii) Same type of services should be subject to same threshold of regulations.

(iii) There should be no blocking, no throttling or inexplicable slowing down of lawful sites/services/applications by network intermediaries.

(iv) There should be no conflict of interest between content carrier and content provider with respect to internet based services.

(v) Providers of internet based services should be transparent with respect to their pricing models and operations.

(vi) Providers of internet based services should be held accountable for the 'Quality of Service' promised by them to their customers.

Fourth, there are opportunities for policymakers, academics and business strategists to innovate, formulate and implement policies on governance of internet based issues in India. Meaningful inter-disciplinary collaborations between the Government, industry and academia can play an important role in utilizing these opportunities creatively.

Finally, the organizers of the seminar as well as the participants believe that the debate on net neutrality in India has still not settled. However, the meaningful insights generated during the seminar will help the Government of India in realizing the emancipatory vision of its 'Digital India' initiative i.e., to breach India's digital divide and enable the transformation of India into a prosperous, knowledge based society.

31

30

The seminar and panel discussion on 'Net Neutrality and the Future of Digital India' was successfully conducted by O. P. Jindal Global University at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi on 8th May 2015.The objective of this timely seminar was to better understand the nature of issues concerning net neutrality in India as well as generate meaningful insights on issues/policies related to the governance of India's digital future. The seminar witnessed participation from a diverse set of professionals (including parliamentarians, government officials, regulators, internet activists, engineers, economists, academics, scholars, mathematicians, policymakers, media professionals and lawyers) who deliberated the various issues related to India's net neutrality debate. Their valuable thought leadership and expert advice is summarized below.

First, there is a need for an appropriate articulation of the term 'net neutrality' for the Indian context. It was discussed by several panelists that the existing consensus on net neutrality is misleading, as the term means different things for different stakeholders of the Indian society. Further, several panelists agreed that deliberations over the articulation of the term 'net neutrality' should place emphasis on the principles of accessibility, competition and innovation.

Second, it was emphasized by several panelists that the net neutrality debate is still evolving and that the Government/regulators should not 'jump the gun' and come up with a definitive, extensive and rigid 'clear-cut' policy on net neutrality for India. They must acknowledge the fact that internet based technologies are quite dynamic by nature and there is a very limited public understanding of how these technologies will roll out in Indian context. They must wait for all possible factors to play out, understand how practices are evolving at the ground level and then develop certain broad regulatory principles/framework which would serve as a guide in developing consistent public-policy based solutions to India's internet governance issues.

Third, the Government's policy stance on net neutrality must adhere to the following six core principles:

(i) User is the king and user choice cannot be compromised. However, the interests of future generation of internet users cannot be compromised for short term interests of the current generation of internet users.

(ii) Same type of services should be subject to same threshold of regulations.

(iii) There should be no blocking, no throttling or inexplicable slowing down of lawful sites/services/applications by network intermediaries.

(iv) There should be no conflict of interest between content carrier and content provider with respect to internet based services.

(v) Providers of internet based services should be transparent with respect to their pricing models and operations.

(vi) Providers of internet based services should be held accountable for the 'Quality of Service' promised by them to their customers.

Fourth, there are opportunities for policymakers, academics and business strategists to innovate, formulate and implement policies on governance of internet based issues in India. Meaningful inter-disciplinary collaborations between the Government, industry and academia can play an important role in utilizing these opportunities creatively.

Finally, the organizers of the seminar as well as the participants believe that the debate on net neutrality in India has still not settled. However, the meaningful insights generated during the seminar will help the Government of India in realizing the emancipatory vision of its 'Digital India' initiative i.e., to breach India's digital divide and enable the transformation of India into a prosperous, knowledge based society.

31

ANNEXURES

www.jsia.edu.in

www.jgbs.edu.in

www.jgls.edu.in www.jsgp.edu.in

India's First Transnational Humanities School

Jindal School of Liberal Arts & Humanities

www.jslh.edu.in

O.P. Jindal Global UniversityA Private University Promoting Public Service

You are cordially invited to the

Friday, 8 May 2015

9:00 am – 7:00 pm

India Habitat Centre

Lodhi Road, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi- 110003

Date:

Time:

Venue: Gulmohar,

Faculty Coordinator: Professor Vikas Kathuria, Assistant Professor, JGLS, vkathuria@jgu.edu.in

Professor Avirup Bose, Assistant Professor, JGLS, abose@jgu.edu.inSeminar Coordinator: Prateek Pathak, Research Associate, JGU, pdpathak@jgu.edu.in

Seminar and Panel Discussion on

NET NEUTRALITY AND THE FUTURE OF

DIGITAL INDIA

Guests of Honour

Dr. Shashi TharoorMember of Parliament (Lok Sabha) and

Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairswill deliver the Presidential Address

Chief Executive Officer, National Internet Exchange of India Dr. Govind

will deliver the Keynote Address

Dr. Rahul KhullarChairman, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

will deliver the Valedictory Address

Dr. Madabhushanam Sridhar Acharyulu Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission

will deliver the Special Address

ANNEXURES

www.jsia.edu.in

www.jgbs.edu.in

www.jgls.edu.in www.jsgp.edu.in

India's First Transnational Humanities School

Jindal School of Liberal Arts & Humanities

www.jslh.edu.in

O.P. Jindal Global UniversityA Private University Promoting Public Service

You are cordially invited to the

Friday, 8 May 2015

9:00 am – 7:00 pm

India Habitat Centre

Lodhi Road, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi- 110003

Date:

Time:

Venue: Gulmohar,

Faculty Coordinator: Professor Vikas Kathuria, Assistant Professor, JGLS, vkathuria@jgu.edu.in

Professor Avirup Bose, Assistant Professor, JGLS, abose@jgu.edu.inSeminar Coordinator: Prateek Pathak, Research Associate, JGU, pdpathak@jgu.edu.in

Seminar and Panel Discussion on

NET NEUTRALITY AND THE FUTURE OF

DIGITAL INDIA

Guests of Honour

Dr. Shashi TharoorMember of Parliament (Lok Sabha) and

Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairswill deliver the Presidential Address

Chief Executive Officer, National Internet Exchange of India Dr. Govind

will deliver the Keynote Address

Dr. Rahul KhullarChairman, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

will deliver the Valedictory Address

Dr. Madabhushanam Sridhar Acharyulu Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission

will deliver the Special Address

Programme Friday, May 8, 2015

9:00 am – 9:30 am Registration

INAUGURAL SESSION: 9:30 am – 10:45 am

SESSION I: 11:00 am – 1:00 pmIndia's Internet: Voices for its Protection and Promotion

SESSION II: 2:00 pm – 4:00 pmTechnology and Economics of Net Neutrality: Accessibility, Competition and Innovation

SESSION III: 4:15 pm – 6:15 pmLaws and Regulations on Net Neutrality: Creating a Conducive Internet Eco-System

VALEDICTORY SESSION: 6:15 pm – 7:00 pm

Welcome Address

Introducing the Seminar

Presidential Address

Keynote Address

Special Address

9:30 am – 9:35 am Professor (Dr.) C. Raj Kumar, Founding Vice Chancellor, O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU) and Dean, Jindal Global Law School (JGLS)

9:45 am – 10:05 am Dr. Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) and Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs

10:25 am – 10:45 am

9:35 am – 9:45 am Professors Avirup Bose and Vikas Kathuria, JGLS

10:05 am – 10:25 am Dr. Govind, Chief Executive Officer, National Internet Exchange of India

Professor Shiv Visvanathan, Vice Dean, Jindal School of Government and Public Policy (JSGP)

Tea Break: 10:45 am – 11:00 am

Chair:

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Professor Stephen P. Marks, Professor, Harvard University, USA and Distinguished Visiting Professor, JGLS

SpeakersDr. Anja Kovacs, Director, Internet Democracy Project, IndiaDr. Geeta Gouri, Former Member, Competition Commission of IndiaMr. Jiten Jain, Chief Executive Officer, Indian Infosec ConsortiumDr. Mahesh Uppal, Director, ComFirstMr. Udai Mehta, Director, CUTS Center for Competition, Investment and Economic RegulationsProfessor Avirup Bose, Assistant Professor & Assistant Director, Centre for International Trade and Economic Laws, JGLS and Former Expert Consultant to the Competition Commission of India

Lunch: 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm

Chair:

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Professor Parkash Chander, Professor, Jindal School of Government & Public Policy (JSGP)

SpeakersDr. Anindya Chaudhuri, Global Development NetworkMs. Bishakha Bhattacharya, Director, Government Relations & Public Policy, National Association of Software and Services CompaniesMr. Nandan Kamath, Principal Lawyer, The Law Offices of Nandan KamathDr. Navneet Sharma, Associate Professor, School of Competition Law, Indian Institute of Corporate AffairsProfessor Vikas Kathuria, Assistant Professor and Assistant Director, Michigan-Jindal Centre for Global Corporate and Financial Law and Policy, JGLS

Tea: 4:00 pm – 4:15 pm

Chair:

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Professor R. Sudarshan, Dean, Jindal School of Government & Public Policy (JSGP)

Ÿ

SpeakersMr. Abhishek Malhotra, Managing Partner, TMT Law PracticeMs. Jyoti Pawar, Partner, Economic Laws Practice

Mr. R. Venkatramani, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India and, Member, Law Commission of India

Mr. Yogesh Singh, Partner, Trilegal

Professor Indranath Gupta, Associate Professor, JGLS

Opening Remarks

Valedictory Address

Special Address

Vote of Thanks

6:15 pm – 6:20 pm Professor (Dr.) C. Raj Kumar, Founding Vice Chancellor, O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU)

6:20 pm – 6:40 pm Dr. Rahul Khullar, Chairman,Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

6:40 pm – 6:55 pm Dr. Madabhushanam Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission

6:55 pm – 7:00 pm Professor (Dr.) Y.S.R. Murthy, Registrar, JGU

Net neutrality: Are we missing something?Net neutrality: The remedy lies somewhere between the ‘free internet’ slogans and the unregulated pricing of content by telecom service providers...

Much has been written on net neutrality in India especially since Bharti Airtel sought to charge the content providers based on the type of data.

The debate seems one-sided with most of the media, politicians, Twitterati and now even the glitterati siding with net neutrality. With the debate being one-sided, is there a point that the collective sentimentality of the people is just missing? In fact, the kind of net neutrality that the majority seeks may not be right to ensure long-term consumer interest.

Internet is a multi-sided platform that connects the content providers with the users. Like any platform, it has its operational costs, and constant pressures to upgrade and innovate. We have seen how moving from narrowband to broadband has brought efficiency not only in our daily conversations but has also opened new opportunities such as e-commerce and e-health. The importance of innovation in the telecom sector cannot be overlooked. One cannot imagine supervising a surgery or teaching mathematics to students in the far-flung Northeast India through an average unreliable narrowband or 2G network. This upgrade, certainly, requires investment.

With the rise of the over the top (OTT) services, internet service providers (ISPs) have lost a large chunk of their revenue base to the Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) operators such as WhatsApp and Facebook. On the other hand, OTT services, very often, generate revenue through advertisements. It is important to note that, with the latest technology, OTT apps offer voice and data much like telecom service providers.

Therefore, in the competition law parlance, regular telecom operators and OTT operators compete in the same relevant market. However, there is no level-playing field as telecom operators have to invest in infrastructure such as ducts and towers, unlike OTT players. The OTT apps are successful because of improvement and innovation in the internet services. The votaries of net neutrality should try using the WhatsApp calling feature on their regular narrowband connection! Therefore, in the long run, if the incentives of the ISPs are not ensured, the quality of internet will be stagnant or retrograde.

The peculiarities of the Indian market must be looked into before one takes a side in the raging debate between the proponents and opponents of net neutrality. Thanks to the over-competitive market with eight mobile service providers, India has one of the lowest calling rates in the world. This price war is good for the consumers; after all, this is what the market economy promises!

June 22, 2015

Programme Friday, May 8, 2015

9:00 am – 9:30 am Registration

INAUGURAL SESSION: 9:30 am – 10:45 am

SESSION I: 11:00 am – 1:00 pmIndia's Internet: Voices for its Protection and Promotion

SESSION II: 2:00 pm – 4:00 pmTechnology and Economics of Net Neutrality: Accessibility, Competition and Innovation

SESSION III: 4:15 pm – 6:15 pmLaws and Regulations on Net Neutrality: Creating a Conducive Internet Eco-System

VALEDICTORY SESSION: 6:15 pm – 7:00 pm

Welcome Address

Introducing the Seminar

Presidential Address

Keynote Address

Special Address

9:30 am – 9:35 am Professor (Dr.) C. Raj Kumar, Founding Vice Chancellor, O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU) and Dean, Jindal Global Law School (JGLS)

9:45 am – 10:05 am Dr. Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) and Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs

10:25 am – 10:45 am

9:35 am – 9:45 am Professors Avirup Bose and Vikas Kathuria, JGLS

10:05 am – 10:25 am Dr. Govind, Chief Executive Officer, National Internet Exchange of India

Professor Shiv Visvanathan, Vice Dean, Jindal School of Government and Public Policy (JSGP)

Tea Break: 10:45 am – 11:00 am

Chair:

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Professor Stephen P. Marks, Professor, Harvard University, USA and Distinguished Visiting Professor, JGLS

SpeakersDr. Anja Kovacs, Director, Internet Democracy Project, IndiaDr. Geeta Gouri, Former Member, Competition Commission of IndiaMr. Jiten Jain, Chief Executive Officer, Indian Infosec ConsortiumDr. Mahesh Uppal, Director, ComFirstMr. Udai Mehta, Director, CUTS Center for Competition, Investment and Economic RegulationsProfessor Avirup Bose, Assistant Professor & Assistant Director, Centre for International Trade and Economic Laws, JGLS and Former Expert Consultant to the Competition Commission of India

Lunch: 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm

Chair:

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Professor Parkash Chander, Professor, Jindal School of Government & Public Policy (JSGP)

SpeakersDr. Anindya Chaudhuri, Global Development NetworkMs. Bishakha Bhattacharya, Director, Government Relations & Public Policy, National Association of Software and Services CompaniesMr. Nandan Kamath, Principal Lawyer, The Law Offices of Nandan KamathDr. Navneet Sharma, Associate Professor, School of Competition Law, Indian Institute of Corporate AffairsProfessor Vikas Kathuria, Assistant Professor and Assistant Director, Michigan-Jindal Centre for Global Corporate and Financial Law and Policy, JGLS

Tea: 4:00 pm – 4:15 pm

Chair:

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Ÿ

Professor R. Sudarshan, Dean, Jindal School of Government & Public Policy (JSGP)

Ÿ

SpeakersMr. Abhishek Malhotra, Managing Partner, TMT Law PracticeMs. Jyoti Pawar, Partner, Economic Laws Practice

Mr. R. Venkatramani, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India and, Member, Law Commission of India

Mr. Yogesh Singh, Partner, Trilegal

Professor Indranath Gupta, Associate Professor, JGLS

Opening Remarks

Valedictory Address

Special Address

Vote of Thanks

6:15 pm – 6:20 pm Professor (Dr.) C. Raj Kumar, Founding Vice Chancellor, O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU)

6:20 pm – 6:40 pm Dr. Rahul Khullar, Chairman,Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

6:40 pm – 6:55 pm Dr. Madabhushanam Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission

6:55 pm – 7:00 pm Professor (Dr.) Y.S.R. Murthy, Registrar, JGU

Net neutrality: Are we missing something?Net neutrality: The remedy lies somewhere between the ‘free internet’ slogans and the unregulated pricing of content by telecom service providers...

Much has been written on net neutrality in India especially since Bharti Airtel sought to charge the content providers based on the type of data.

The debate seems one-sided with most of the media, politicians, Twitterati and now even the glitterati siding with net neutrality. With the debate being one-sided, is there a point that the collective sentimentality of the people is just missing? In fact, the kind of net neutrality that the majority seeks may not be right to ensure long-term consumer interest.

Internet is a multi-sided platform that connects the content providers with the users. Like any platform, it has its operational costs, and constant pressures to upgrade and innovate. We have seen how moving from narrowband to broadband has brought efficiency not only in our daily conversations but has also opened new opportunities such as e-commerce and e-health. The importance of innovation in the telecom sector cannot be overlooked. One cannot imagine supervising a surgery or teaching mathematics to students in the far-flung Northeast India through an average unreliable narrowband or 2G network. This upgrade, certainly, requires investment.

With the rise of the over the top (OTT) services, internet service providers (ISPs) have lost a large chunk of their revenue base to the Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) operators such as WhatsApp and Facebook. On the other hand, OTT services, very often, generate revenue through advertisements. It is important to note that, with the latest technology, OTT apps offer voice and data much like telecom service providers.

Therefore, in the competition law parlance, regular telecom operators and OTT operators compete in the same relevant market. However, there is no level-playing field as telecom operators have to invest in infrastructure such as ducts and towers, unlike OTT players. The OTT apps are successful because of improvement and innovation in the internet services. The votaries of net neutrality should try using the WhatsApp calling feature on their regular narrowband connection! Therefore, in the long run, if the incentives of the ISPs are not ensured, the quality of internet will be stagnant or retrograde.

The peculiarities of the Indian market must be looked into before one takes a side in the raging debate between the proponents and opponents of net neutrality. Thanks to the over-competitive market with eight mobile service providers, India has one of the lowest calling rates in the world. This price war is good for the consumers; after all, this is what the market economy promises!

June 22, 2015

However, one should see reduced revenues of operators against the backdrop of stratospheric auction prices that they recently paid to buy or retain the spectrum. Furthermore, there is the Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF) as well to fund the Digital India initiative. Seen together, these policies leave little surplus for investing in improving quality of services or innovation.

One thing is clear—we all want inclusive internet. After all, it has changed the way humans think and interact. There are revolutions and evolutions that owe their genesis to internet. Easy entry at the content provider level is also necessary to promote innovation. We cannot forget that giants such as Google and Facebook were once small start-ups. At the same time, internet has to be efficient and innovative, which can be ensured only if service providers are adequately compensated. How can telecom operators invest and innovate if there are no incentives to do so? Ruefully, the sentimental arguments advanced in favour of net neutrality are not mindful of this reality. The correct approach, therefore, lies somewhere between the ‘free internet’ slogans and the unregulated pricing of content by the telecom service providers.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) has sought the comments of stakeholders in order to propose guidelines and regulations on net neutrality. Some have argued that there is no need of regulation to ensure net neutrality, since the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is empowered to take cognisance over this matter. The CCI has already started its probe into the Airtel Zero plan. However, not adhering to net neutrality can be a competition violation only if the service provider is found to be dominant in the relevant market. With four big telecom operators in the Indian market, it is really difficult to find one dominant player. Thus, competition law is insufficient to remedy the market failure in this case. This makes a valid case for appropriate regulation on net-neutrality. However, the optimal regulation that increases consumer welfare, both in the short and the long-run, will have to take a practical approach away from the sentimentality of the masses.

The author is assistant professor at the Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat

A ‘chota recharge’ model for the internet

June 22, 2015

Allowing telecom companies to calibrate internet access prices, based on consumer affordability, can increase usage by current customers and attract new customers

Open internet evangelicals have been scoring a few victories of late. First, the withdrawal of an e-commerce application from a service provider’s Zero-rated platform and the

defensive overtones of Mark Zuckerberg’s open letter seemed to suggest that the ‘openists’ have got it right. Second, the artful management of the net neutrality campaign has created a political environment where the government’s non-espousal of the activists’ stand—of absolute net neutrality—will be perceived as endorsement of crony capitalism. Policy-making amidst such shrill noise is tough, and will require a true statesman to cut the Gordian knot of this polarised debate.

So acrimonious is the debate that few are willing to notice that an absolute net neutrality policy would be blatantly anti-poor. It severely curtails India’s step towards universal digital access—hurts expansion of coverage, especially to rural areas, and perpetuates the divide between India’s digital haves and have-nots.

Those who demonised zero-rating plans as ‘internet racism’ have failed to consider their potential to become a narrative of inclusive internet growth. Just as the ‘chota recharge’ schemes of Indian telecom providers in the late 2000s—a micro-prepaid recharge scheme that offered talk-time in denominations as low as $0.25, marking a shift from the earlier urban-centric monthly mobile bills, ideally suited for the low-income daily-wage earner—provided an innovative price discrimination model based on the affordability of a telecom user, in the same way zero-rating plans can allow the Indian internet industry to include the poor.

Zero-rating plans are joint marketing tools between network carriers and content providers to better market mobile-based internet access to new markets. These plans essentially help overcoming the high costs of internet adoption in developing countries such as India—especially for those customers at the ‘base of the pyramid’, for whom even the awareness of the internet and its potential relevance to their lives is low or non-existent.

With India’s affordable smartphone markets being one of the most robust in the world, such a transition would have been easier as long as such zero-rating platforms are made available to all content producers on equal terms.

In principle, why should not a factory worker or a vegetable seller, living in a mofussil Indian town, be able to buy a micro data pack and access certain preferred e-commerce websites for free to purchase consumer goods at affordable prices; where the e-commerce firms bear the tab? Why should farmers not be allowed to purchase a zero-rated pack to access farming, agricultural, education and other e-governance apps for free; where the government subsidises the carrier for such prioritised access? Why should an alleged neutral net for the urban middle-class be allowed to unprioritise the needs of those at the bottom of the digital pyramid?

According to the latest Trai data, India has 952 million wireless subscribers and only 79 million (a paltry 8.5%) broadband subscribers, and if one includes both wireline and wireless, broadband penetration in India is, at most, 10%. Compare this with developed countries which have greater than 100% voice penetration and 80% data penetration.

This gaping disparity between India’s digital haves and have-nots should make it obvious that government policy should provide access to the internet; in fact, it should be the regulatory priority. Zero-rating plans are examples of service process innovations which, through the instrument of the market, can increase India’s digital access to urban and rural poor. Such models of social entrepreneurship should not be made stillborn in India by heavy ex ante regulatory regime.

However, one should see reduced revenues of operators against the backdrop of stratospheric auction prices that they recently paid to buy or retain the spectrum. Furthermore, there is the Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF) as well to fund the Digital India initiative. Seen together, these policies leave little surplus for investing in improving quality of services or innovation.

One thing is clear—we all want inclusive internet. After all, it has changed the way humans think and interact. There are revolutions and evolutions that owe their genesis to internet. Easy entry at the content provider level is also necessary to promote innovation. We cannot forget that giants such as Google and Facebook were once small start-ups. At the same time, internet has to be efficient and innovative, which can be ensured only if service providers are adequately compensated. How can telecom operators invest and innovate if there are no incentives to do so? Ruefully, the sentimental arguments advanced in favour of net neutrality are not mindful of this reality. The correct approach, therefore, lies somewhere between the ‘free internet’ slogans and the unregulated pricing of content by the telecom service providers.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) has sought the comments of stakeholders in order to propose guidelines and regulations on net neutrality. Some have argued that there is no need of regulation to ensure net neutrality, since the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is empowered to take cognisance over this matter. The CCI has already started its probe into the Airtel Zero plan. However, not adhering to net neutrality can be a competition violation only if the service provider is found to be dominant in the relevant market. With four big telecom operators in the Indian market, it is really difficult to find one dominant player. Thus, competition law is insufficient to remedy the market failure in this case. This makes a valid case for appropriate regulation on net-neutrality. However, the optimal regulation that increases consumer welfare, both in the short and the long-run, will have to take a practical approach away from the sentimentality of the masses.

The author is assistant professor at the Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat

A ‘chota recharge’ model for the internet

June 22, 2015

Allowing telecom companies to calibrate internet access prices, based on consumer affordability, can increase usage by current customers and attract new customers

Open internet evangelicals have been scoring a few victories of late. First, the withdrawal of an e-commerce application from a service provider’s Zero-rated platform and the

defensive overtones of Mark Zuckerberg’s open letter seemed to suggest that the ‘openists’ have got it right. Second, the artful management of the net neutrality campaign has created a political environment where the government’s non-espousal of the activists’ stand—of absolute net neutrality—will be perceived as endorsement of crony capitalism. Policy-making amidst such shrill noise is tough, and will require a true statesman to cut the Gordian knot of this polarised debate.

So acrimonious is the debate that few are willing to notice that an absolute net neutrality policy would be blatantly anti-poor. It severely curtails India’s step towards universal digital access—hurts expansion of coverage, especially to rural areas, and perpetuates the divide between India’s digital haves and have-nots.

Those who demonised zero-rating plans as ‘internet racism’ have failed to consider their potential to become a narrative of inclusive internet growth. Just as the ‘chota recharge’ schemes of Indian telecom providers in the late 2000s—a micro-prepaid recharge scheme that offered talk-time in denominations as low as $0.25, marking a shift from the earlier urban-centric monthly mobile bills, ideally suited for the low-income daily-wage earner—provided an innovative price discrimination model based on the affordability of a telecom user, in the same way zero-rating plans can allow the Indian internet industry to include the poor.

Zero-rating plans are joint marketing tools between network carriers and content providers to better market mobile-based internet access to new markets. These plans essentially help overcoming the high costs of internet adoption in developing countries such as India—especially for those customers at the ‘base of the pyramid’, for whom even the awareness of the internet and its potential relevance to their lives is low or non-existent.

With India’s affordable smartphone markets being one of the most robust in the world, such a transition would have been easier as long as such zero-rating platforms are made available to all content producers on equal terms.

In principle, why should not a factory worker or a vegetable seller, living in a mofussil Indian town, be able to buy a micro data pack and access certain preferred e-commerce websites for free to purchase consumer goods at affordable prices; where the e-commerce firms bear the tab? Why should farmers not be allowed to purchase a zero-rated pack to access farming, agricultural, education and other e-governance apps for free; where the government subsidises the carrier for such prioritised access? Why should an alleged neutral net for the urban middle-class be allowed to unprioritise the needs of those at the bottom of the digital pyramid?

According to the latest Trai data, India has 952 million wireless subscribers and only 79 million (a paltry 8.5%) broadband subscribers, and if one includes both wireline and wireless, broadband penetration in India is, at most, 10%. Compare this with developed countries which have greater than 100% voice penetration and 80% data penetration.

This gaping disparity between India’s digital haves and have-nots should make it obvious that government policy should provide access to the internet; in fact, it should be the regulatory priority. Zero-rating plans are examples of service process innovations which, through the instrument of the market, can increase India’s digital access to urban and rural poor. Such models of social entrepreneurship should not be made stillborn in India by heavy ex ante regulatory regime.

However, for its welfare implications to fructify, zero plans need to be offered by telecom companies on a non-discriminatory basis to all over-the-top (OTT) content providers—whether those catering to e-commerce sales or those providing irrigation tips to farmers.

Allowing the telecom companies to calibrate internet access prices, based upon consumer affordability, would increase usage by current customers and attract new customers. The resulting higher utilisation of the broadband network may enable operators to cover opex and capex, generating profits that make it possible to further grow networks at low-price levels, especially where such growth is most required—the rural India. This type of price calibration has been used as successful ‘long-tail’ retail strategy, of selling less to more number of people—no-frills airlines and the sachet-sized consumer non-durables sold by the FMCG companies are a few examples—where a compete overhaul of conventional business models energised markets at the bottom of the pyramid.

The fear that zero plans, by charging content providers, would make it more difficult for ‘edge entrepreneurs’ to enter the market, is a credible one. However, economic prudence suggests that it is in the interest of broadband providers to maximise the value of their network, by creating diversity of content. To block out edge entrepreneurs—which could drive millions of users to another network—would reduce the profits that the network could generate and, thus, reduce the value of the network.

Therefore, it is not in the economic interest of networks to block content, more so given the robust ‘churn rate’—the percentage of users leaving one network for another. Telecom consumers, now armed with the number portability facility, face negligible switching costs and will simply shift away from networks which build a reputation for blocking or throttling content. If, however, such fears become a reality, India’s robust anti-trust laws are equipped to effectively remedy such market irregularity.

It is important to clarify here that India’s internet access problems cannot be solely solved by private sector business models. India needs timely allocation of sufficient spectrum, allowing competitive secondary spectrum markets, and heavy public spending to roll out high-speed backbone networks nationwide. However, zero rate plans in the interim should (1) allow small steps towards universal digital access and (2) empower millions of Indian digital have-nots with the internet experience, bettering the quality of their lives—be it internet-based education, employment or the giddy satisfaction of consumer ‘retail therapy’. They should be allowed their ‘day in the sun’.

Payal Malik is advisor and head of the Economics Division, Competition Commission of India (CCI). Avirup Bose is an honorary visiting faculty of Competition Law at the Jindal Global Law School and a former expert consultant to CCI. Views are personal

As SEBI tries to regulate equity crowdfunding, the Internet promises to play disrupter.Roughly a year ago, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued a consultation paper setting out its proposal to regulate equity-based crowdfunding in India. Comments were solicited from the public. Earlier this week, SEBI announced that it was working on the norms and that a decision may be taken soon.

A quick review of the SEBI paper gives us pointers to what the possible regulations could be. Under the proposed terms, three entities, namely, the crowdfunding platform, the investor, and the issuing company, would be regulated. The issuing company is restricted in terms of its size, the amount of funds to be raised and its age. The investor is restricted in terms of its accreditation, minimum net worth and, in case of eligible retail investors, the maximum investment that may be made overall or in a single crowdfunding event. Crowdfunding platforms are also restricted in terms of who may set them up and the checks and balances to be put in place.

When three is a company By Arjya B. Majumdar

7 July 2015

However, for its welfare implications to fructify, zero plans need to be offered by telecom companies on a non-discriminatory basis to all over-the-top (OTT) content providers—whether those catering to e-commerce sales or those providing irrigation tips to farmers.

Allowing the telecom companies to calibrate internet access prices, based upon consumer affordability, would increase usage by current customers and attract new customers. The resulting higher utilisation of the broadband network may enable operators to cover opex and capex, generating profits that make it possible to further grow networks at low-price levels, especially where such growth is most required—the rural India. This type of price calibration has been used as successful ‘long-tail’ retail strategy, of selling less to more number of people—no-frills airlines and the sachet-sized consumer non-durables sold by the FMCG companies are a few examples—where a compete overhaul of conventional business models energised markets at the bottom of the pyramid.

The fear that zero plans, by charging content providers, would make it more difficult for ‘edge entrepreneurs’ to enter the market, is a credible one. However, economic prudence suggests that it is in the interest of broadband providers to maximise the value of their network, by creating diversity of content. To block out edge entrepreneurs—which could drive millions of users to another network—would reduce the profits that the network could generate and, thus, reduce the value of the network.

Therefore, it is not in the economic interest of networks to block content, more so given the robust ‘churn rate’—the percentage of users leaving one network for another. Telecom consumers, now armed with the number portability facility, face negligible switching costs and will simply shift away from networks which build a reputation for blocking or throttling content. If, however, such fears become a reality, India’s robust anti-trust laws are equipped to effectively remedy such market irregularity.

It is important to clarify here that India’s internet access problems cannot be solely solved by private sector business models. India needs timely allocation of sufficient spectrum, allowing competitive secondary spectrum markets, and heavy public spending to roll out high-speed backbone networks nationwide. However, zero rate plans in the interim should (1) allow small steps towards universal digital access and (2) empower millions of Indian digital have-nots with the internet experience, bettering the quality of their lives—be it internet-based education, employment or the giddy satisfaction of consumer ‘retail therapy’. They should be allowed their ‘day in the sun’.

Payal Malik is advisor and head of the Economics Division, Competition Commission of India (CCI). Avirup Bose is an honorary visiting faculty of Competition Law at the Jindal Global Law School and a former expert consultant to CCI. Views are personal

As SEBI tries to regulate equity crowdfunding, the Internet promises to play disrupter.Roughly a year ago, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued a consultation paper setting out its proposal to regulate equity-based crowdfunding in India. Comments were solicited from the public. Earlier this week, SEBI announced that it was working on the norms and that a decision may be taken soon.

A quick review of the SEBI paper gives us pointers to what the possible regulations could be. Under the proposed terms, three entities, namely, the crowdfunding platform, the investor, and the issuing company, would be regulated. The issuing company is restricted in terms of its size, the amount of funds to be raised and its age. The investor is restricted in terms of its accreditation, minimum net worth and, in case of eligible retail investors, the maximum investment that may be made overall or in a single crowdfunding event. Crowdfunding platforms are also restricted in terms of who may set them up and the checks and balances to be put in place.

When three is a company By Arjya B. Majumdar

7 July 2015

While certain concepts such as accredited investors and maximum caps on investment in a single crowdfunded venture have been transplanted from the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act in the U.S., others are homegrown. Largely, SEBI’s proposed regulations do not give an exemption to small companies to access public funds, as in the case of the JOBS Act. Perhaps a major reason for the lack of exemption stems from the fact that Indian corporate finance markets are simply not as developed or sophisticated as the ones in the U.S. and other developed economies.

The proposed regulations require that equity crowdfunded companies follow the requirements in Section 42 of the Companies Act, 2013. This means that companies may offer their securities to a maximum of 200 persons and may have up to 50 shareholders, without being required to undertake a public issue. Thus, the act of crowdfunding, under the SEBI, cannot include an offer for shares and can be used only to garner interest in the company seeking funds.

Cross-border crowdfunding However, SEBI’s paper does not take into account one critical aspect — that of cross-border crowdfunding. A number of countries have passed regulations, falling largely into two categories. The first is the U.S. model, which creates an exemption as described previously. Other countries that fall into this category include Australia, Italy, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore. The second category includes countries that do not offer an exemption, such as India, Hong Kong and Malaysia.

Of particular interest is the crowdfunding law in New Zealand. It specifically allows intermediary service providers, such as crowdfunding portals, to be licensed. This licensing regime is intended to facilitate suitably regulated ‘peer-to-peer lending’ and ‘crowdfunding’ services to operate. With regard to the fund-seeking company, the upper limit for raising funds is capped at NZ$2 million, but there are no upper limits on investment, nor is there a distinction between sophisticated and retail investors, making New Zealand one of the most crowdfunding-friendly jurisdictions.

There are two ways we may consider the case for cross-border crowdfunding in the Indian context. First, a company seeking funds from non-resident investors. Second, a company set up outside India seeking funds from investors around the world, including India. In the first case, the provisions of Section 42 of the Companies Act, 2013 would continue to apply.

Therefore, the question arises whether it would be possible to have a foreign company raise funds in India and for foreign investors to participate in crowdfunding activities in India, subject to extant inward and outward bound investment regulations and policies. But given the nature of both crowdfunding and the global reach of the Internet, it is possible that Indian investors may be involved in crowdfunding activities in other jurisdictions.

Overseas companies The ability of Indian residents to invest in overseas companies, coupled with crowdfunding-friendly laws in other countries, come together to create an interesting scenario. Assume that a company incorporated in India is unable to

raise funds from the crowd. It simply sets up a parent in a crowdfunding-friendly jurisdiction, which then seeks crowdfunding from investors around the world. An Indian retail investor, who was hitherto unable to participate in the equity of the Indian company, is now able to do so, subject to the Overseas Direct Investment regulations. The funds raised by the parent company are then invested in the Indian subsidiary. This possible scenario brings to light the global nature of Internet-based corporate fundraising. The cross-border aspect of the platforms and, more particularly, the uncertainty surrounding contract law application in different jurisdictions has yet to be dealt with effectively. This has been acknowledged by the International Organization of Securities Commissions.

Thus, we see that in jurisdictions where crowdfunding activities are not regulated, or have minimal regulations, it would be easier to raise funds and then invest in an Indian company. The opportunities arising from the resultant regulatory arbitrage could then be used by fund-seeking companies in India. This regulatory arbitrage has been used in other modes of financing as well. It is not unusual to see companies offer a minimal IPO in India only to undertake a substantially higher fundraising exercise through a GDR issue in a listing-friendly jurisdiction, such as Luxembourg.

How does a securities regulator deal with this then? One option would be to completely ban overseas investment by individuals unless they conform to the crowdfunding regulations. A more elegant — albeit difficult — solution, in my opinion, requires securities regulators across the world to work together to remove possible avenues of regulatory arbitrage.

Having said that, however, we may expect that some jurisdictions will see in this as an opportunity to begin a ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of crowdfunding regulations. Coupled with low capital gains taxes, a jurisdiction with a relatively low level of crowdfunding regulation would certainly attract fund-seeking companies.

While the Internet has acted as an enabling development in almost all industries without fail, it has its disruptive effects from time to time as well. The traditional boundaries of corporate finance are breaking down. It is time to shed older notions of corporate finance within the frameworks of political confines and instead address the issue of the world being better connected, even within the realm of corporate finance.

(Arjya B. Majumdar is Director, Michigan-Jindal Centre for Global Corporate and Financial Law and Policy, O.P. Jindal Global University.)

While certain concepts such as accredited investors and maximum caps on investment in a single crowdfunded venture have been transplanted from the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act in the U.S., others are homegrown. Largely, SEBI’s proposed regulations do not give an exemption to small companies to access public funds, as in the case of the JOBS Act. Perhaps a major reason for the lack of exemption stems from the fact that Indian corporate finance markets are simply not as developed or sophisticated as the ones in the U.S. and other developed economies.

The proposed regulations require that equity crowdfunded companies follow the requirements in Section 42 of the Companies Act, 2013. This means that companies may offer their securities to a maximum of 200 persons and may have up to 50 shareholders, without being required to undertake a public issue. Thus, the act of crowdfunding, under the SEBI, cannot include an offer for shares and can be used only to garner interest in the company seeking funds.

Cross-border crowdfunding However, SEBI’s paper does not take into account one critical aspect — that of cross-border crowdfunding. A number of countries have passed regulations, falling largely into two categories. The first is the U.S. model, which creates an exemption as described previously. Other countries that fall into this category include Australia, Italy, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore. The second category includes countries that do not offer an exemption, such as India, Hong Kong and Malaysia.

Of particular interest is the crowdfunding law in New Zealand. It specifically allows intermediary service providers, such as crowdfunding portals, to be licensed. This licensing regime is intended to facilitate suitably regulated ‘peer-to-peer lending’ and ‘crowdfunding’ services to operate. With regard to the fund-seeking company, the upper limit for raising funds is capped at NZ$2 million, but there are no upper limits on investment, nor is there a distinction between sophisticated and retail investors, making New Zealand one of the most crowdfunding-friendly jurisdictions.

There are two ways we may consider the case for cross-border crowdfunding in the Indian context. First, a company seeking funds from non-resident investors. Second, a company set up outside India seeking funds from investors around the world, including India. In the first case, the provisions of Section 42 of the Companies Act, 2013 would continue to apply.

Therefore, the question arises whether it would be possible to have a foreign company raise funds in India and for foreign investors to participate in crowdfunding activities in India, subject to extant inward and outward bound investment regulations and policies. But given the nature of both crowdfunding and the global reach of the Internet, it is possible that Indian investors may be involved in crowdfunding activities in other jurisdictions.

Overseas companies The ability of Indian residents to invest in overseas companies, coupled with crowdfunding-friendly laws in other countries, come together to create an interesting scenario. Assume that a company incorporated in India is unable to

raise funds from the crowd. It simply sets up a parent in a crowdfunding-friendly jurisdiction, which then seeks crowdfunding from investors around the world. An Indian retail investor, who was hitherto unable to participate in the equity of the Indian company, is now able to do so, subject to the Overseas Direct Investment regulations. The funds raised by the parent company are then invested in the Indian subsidiary. This possible scenario brings to light the global nature of Internet-based corporate fundraising. The cross-border aspect of the platforms and, more particularly, the uncertainty surrounding contract law application in different jurisdictions has yet to be dealt with effectively. This has been acknowledged by the International Organization of Securities Commissions.

Thus, we see that in jurisdictions where crowdfunding activities are not regulated, or have minimal regulations, it would be easier to raise funds and then invest in an Indian company. The opportunities arising from the resultant regulatory arbitrage could then be used by fund-seeking companies in India. This regulatory arbitrage has been used in other modes of financing as well. It is not unusual to see companies offer a minimal IPO in India only to undertake a substantially higher fundraising exercise through a GDR issue in a listing-friendly jurisdiction, such as Luxembourg.

How does a securities regulator deal with this then? One option would be to completely ban overseas investment by individuals unless they conform to the crowdfunding regulations. A more elegant — albeit difficult — solution, in my opinion, requires securities regulators across the world to work together to remove possible avenues of regulatory arbitrage.

Having said that, however, we may expect that some jurisdictions will see in this as an opportunity to begin a ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of crowdfunding regulations. Coupled with low capital gains taxes, a jurisdiction with a relatively low level of crowdfunding regulation would certainly attract fund-seeking companies.

While the Internet has acted as an enabling development in almost all industries without fail, it has its disruptive effects from time to time as well. The traditional boundaries of corporate finance are breaking down. It is time to shed older notions of corporate finance within the frameworks of political confines and instead address the issue of the world being better connected, even within the realm of corporate finance.

(Arjya B. Majumdar is Director, Michigan-Jindal Centre for Global Corporate and Financial Law and Policy, O.P. Jindal Global University.)

Jindal Journal of International Affairs

Political Violence

August 2013 Volume 1 Issue 2

ISSN 2249–8095

JINDAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE 1VOLUME 2SEPTEMBER 2014

ISSN 2277–8743

ARTICLES

FOREWORD

Federalism and Democratic Reform in China with Lessons from IndiaMichael C. Davis

Unifying a Binary Ontology of Law and PolicyDr. Nikhil Moro

The Political Economy of Tax: Patterns of Incorporation and Political Institutions in BrazilAaron Schneider

Dealing with the Post 2015 Development ChallengesNaresh Singh.

Political Will and Sub-national Governance Reform in India Reflections on HDRs and Development Policy LoansSuraj Kumar

Armed Conflict and WomenSukriti Chauhan

O.P. Jindal Global UniversityA Private University Promoting Public Service

JINDAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY

JIN

DA

L JO

UR

NA

L OF P

UB

LIC P

OL

ICY

ISS

UE

1V

OL

UM

E 2

SE

PT

EM

BE

R 2

014

JINDAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE 1VOLUME 2SEPTEMBER 2014

ISSN 2277–8743

ARTICLES

FOREWORD

Federalism and Democratic Reform in China with Lessons from IndiaMichael C. Davis

Unifying a Binary Ontology of Law and PolicyDr. Nikhil Moro

The Political Economy of Tax: Patterns of Incorporation and Political Institutions in BrazilAaron Schneider

Dealing with the Post 2015 Development ChallengesNaresh Singh.

Political Will and Sub-national Governance Reform in India Reflections on HDRs and Development Policy LoansSuraj Kumar

Armed Conflict and WomenSukriti Chauhan

O.P. Jindal Global UniversityA Private University Promoting Public Service

JINDAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY

JIN

DA

L JO

UR

NA

L OF P

UB

LIC P

OL

ICY

ISS

UE

1V

OL

UM

E 2

SE

PT

EM

BE

R 2

014

Jindal Journal of International Affairs

Political Violence

August 2013 Volume 1 Issue 2

ISSN 2249–8095

JINDAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE 1VOLUME 2SEPTEMBER 2014

ISSN 2277–8743

ARTICLES

FOREWORD

Federalism and Democratic Reform in China with Lessons from IndiaMichael C. Davis

Unifying a Binary Ontology of Law and PolicyDr. Nikhil Moro

The Political Economy of Tax: Patterns of Incorporation and Political Institutions in BrazilAaron Schneider

Dealing with the Post 2015 Development ChallengesNaresh Singh.

Political Will and Sub-national Governance Reform in India Reflections on HDRs and Development Policy LoansSuraj Kumar

Armed Conflict and WomenSukriti Chauhan

O.P. Jindal Global UniversityA Private University Promoting Public Service

JINDAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY

JIN

DA

L JO

UR

NA

L OF P

UB

LIC P

OL

ICY

ISS

UE

1V

OL

UM

E 2

SE

PT

EM

BE

R 2

014

JINDAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE 1VOLUME 2SEPTEMBER 2014

ISSN 2277–8743

ARTICLES

FOREWORD

Federalism and Democratic Reform in China with Lessons from IndiaMichael C. Davis

Unifying a Binary Ontology of Law and PolicyDr. Nikhil Moro

The Political Economy of Tax: Patterns of Incorporation and Political Institutions in BrazilAaron Schneider

Dealing with the Post 2015 Development ChallengesNaresh Singh.

Political Will and Sub-national Governance Reform in India Reflections on HDRs and Development Policy LoansSuraj Kumar

Armed Conflict and WomenSukriti Chauhan

O.P. Jindal Global UniversityA Private University Promoting Public Service

JINDAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY

JIN

DA

L JO

UR

NA

L OF P

UB

LIC P

OL

ICY

ISS

UE

1V

OL

UM

E 2

SE

PT

EM

BE

R 2

014

www.jsia.edu.in www.jsgp.edu.in

www.jgbs.edu.in

India's First Transnational Humanities School

Jindal School of Liberal Arts & Humanities

www.jslh.edu.in

O.P. Jindal Global UniversityA Private University Promoting Public Service

Vakil SelfIndia’s First ‘Do It Yourself’ Company Law Research Project

You are cordially invited to a

THE GRAND LAUNCH OF

Michigan – Jindal Centre for Global Corporate and Financial Law and Policy

Friday, 8 May 2015

3:30 pm – 4:00 pm

India Habitat Centre

Lodhi Road, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi- 110003

Date:

Time:

Venue: Gulmohar,

www.jsia.edu.in www.jsgp.edu.in

www.jgbs.edu.in

India's First Transnational Humanities School

Jindal School of Liberal Arts & Humanities

www.jslh.edu.in

O.P. Jindal Global UniversityA Private University Promoting Public Service

Vakil SelfIndia’s First ‘Do It Yourself’ Company Law Research Project

You are cordially invited to a

THE GRAND LAUNCH OF

Michigan – Jindal Centre for Global Corporate and Financial Law and Policy

Friday, 8 May 2015

3:30 pm – 4:00 pm

India Habitat Centre

Lodhi Road, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi- 110003

Date:

Time:

Venue: Gulmohar,

We cordially invite you to the Conference

on

Organized by

Centre for Postgraduate Legal Studies

Inaugural Address

Dr. R.K. RaghavanAdvisor, Cyber Security, Tata Consultancy Services; Former Director, CBI

India's First Transnational Humanities School

Jindal School of Liberal Arts & Humanities

Knowledge Partner

In collaboration with

The Information Society: Challenges for India

Centre for South Asian Legal Studies

Centre for Global Governance & Policy

Centre for the Study of Urban Transformation

Centre for Ethics, Law & Political Economy

Centre for Intellectual Property Rights & Technology Law

JGU Postgraduate Students Initiative

Date:

O.P. Jindal Global University Sonipat, Haryana, NCR of Delhi

Venue: Time:

Saturday7 June 2014

Sunday8 June 2014

DAY 1 & 2

9:30 am – 5:00 pm

9:30 am – 4:00 pm

Keynote Address

His Excellency Ambassador Mr. Viljar Lubi Ambassador of the Republic of Estonia to India

Special Address

Ms. Kiran Mehra-KerpelmanDirector, United Nations Information Centre for India & Bhutan, New Delhi, India

UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY PUBLIC DIPLOMACY DIVISION

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRSGOVERNMENT OF INDIA

UNPACAMPAIGN

9-10 September 2011

Venue:

O.P. Jindal Global University

Sonipat Narela Road, Near Jagdishpur Village

Sonipat, Haryana - 131001, NCR of Delhi

Cordially invite you to participate in the

International Conference

‘‘The Internet and a Changing World’’

on

We cordially invite you to the Conference

on

Organized by

Centre for Postgraduate Legal Studies

Inaugural Address

Dr. R.K. RaghavanAdvisor, Cyber Security, Tata Consultancy Services; Former Director, CBI

India's First Transnational Humanities School

Jindal School of Liberal Arts & Humanities

Knowledge Partner

In collaboration with

The Information Society: Challenges for India

Centre for South Asian Legal Studies

Centre for Global Governance & Policy

Centre for the Study of Urban Transformation

Centre for Ethics, Law & Political Economy

Centre for Intellectual Property Rights & Technology Law

JGU Postgraduate Students Initiative

Date:

O.P. Jindal Global University Sonipat, Haryana, NCR of Delhi

Venue: Time:

Saturday7 June 2014

Sunday8 June 2014

DAY 1 & 2

9:30 am – 5:00 pm

9:30 am – 4:00 pm

Keynote Address

His Excellency Ambassador Mr. Viljar Lubi Ambassador of the Republic of Estonia to India

Special Address

Ms. Kiran Mehra-KerpelmanDirector, United Nations Information Centre for India & Bhutan, New Delhi, India

UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY PUBLIC DIPLOMACY DIVISION

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRSGOVERNMENT OF INDIA

UNPACAMPAIGN

9-10 September 2011

Venue:

O.P. Jindal Global University

Sonipat Narela Road, Near Jagdishpur Village

Sonipat, Haryana - 131001, NCR of Delhi

Cordially invite you to participate in the

International Conference

‘‘The Internet and a Changing World’’

on

O.P. Jindal Global UniversityA Private University Promoting Public Service

O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU) is a non-profit, philanthropic, multidisciplinary, research oriented university. Some of the important milestones that JGU has reached in the last five years since its founding in 2009 are:

Ÿ Established Five inter-disciplinary schools: Jindal Global Law School; Jindal Global Business School; Jindal School of International Affairs; Jindal School of Government and Public Policy and Jindal School of Liberal Arts & Humanities through a philanthropic initiative of over US$100 Million (approx. Rs. 500 crore) by the Founding Chancellor, Mr. Naveen Jindal in memory of his father, Mr. O.P. Jindal.

Ÿ Established the Jindal Institute of Behavioural Sciences (JIBS) as an institute that is engaged in fundamental research, knowledge creation, publications, training programmes, seminars and workshops and consultancies for understanding human behaviour from a multidisciplinary perspective, while promoting studies in behavioural, psycho-physiological, neuroscience, genetic, and psychometric assessment.

Ÿ Admitted as of August 2014, over 1650 full time students studying in various disciplines, while maintaining a 1:15 faculty-student ratio.

Ÿ Promoting access to education through the award of scholarships and fellowships to the tune of over US$ 2.5 Million/ 15 Crores every year with over 75% of the students at JGU studying with some form of merit or means based scholarship/studentship.

Ÿ Graduated as of August 2014, three batches of over 500 students from the LLB, LLM, MBA, M.A. (Diplomacy, Law & Business), MA (Public Policy) programmes from the Jindal Global Law School, Jindal Global Business School, Jindal School of International Affairs and the Jindal School of Government and Public Policy.

Ÿ Recruited over 140 full time faculty members to the five schools of JGU, including more than 25 graduates from some of the leading universities of the world that include, Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, Brown, Cornell, Johns Hopkins and Berkeley along with 3 Rhodes Scholars.

Ÿ Appointed over 20% of international faculty members and almost all Indian faculty members with strong international qualifications and experience.

Ÿ Published Over 500 peer reviewed articles, articles in journals and law reviews, research reports, policy papers, book chapters, and books by the faculty members of JGU.

Ÿ Hosted over 500 lectures, seminars, workshops, conferences including a conference on "The Future of Indian Universities" inaugurated by the President of India and a conference on "Federalisms and Localisms" inaugurated by the Vice President of India with participation by scholars and practitioner from India and around the world.

Ÿ Developed international collaborations with over 100 universities and institutions in 32 countries in the world implementing 10 different form of partnerships: faculty exchanges, student exchanges, joint teaching, joint research, joint conferences, joint publications, dual degree programmes, joint executive education programmes, summer and winter schools and study abroad programmes. Nearly 100 international students enrolled in various programmes.

Ÿ Implemented international collaborations with Universities around the world, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Michigan, Indiana, Cornell, University of California-Berkeley, University of California-Davis, Oxford, Cambridge, Sydney, Melbourne and other reputed universities in Africa, Middle East, Latin America, Europe, USA, Canada, South and South East Asia and Australia.

Ÿ Established the Jindal Institute of Leadership Development and Executive Education (JILDEE) that brings together all continuing and executive education, leadership development, training and capacity building initiatives across corporate and public sectors.

Ÿ Received grants and contracts for training, research and capacity development initiatives from various ministries of the Government of India, including for the training of senior IAS (Indian Administrative Service), IPS (Indian Police Service), Indian Revenue Service (IRS), Indian Trade Service (ITS) officers and officers of the Indian Army, Navy, Air Force and other police and para-military forces.

Ÿ Received grants and funding for research and capacity building initiatives from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations University (UNU), Afghanistan Civil Service Institute for training the Senior Civil Service Officers of the Government of Afghanistan and other governmental, intergovernmental and private sector organisations.

Ÿ Built over 80 acres of world-class infrastructure on campus in the National Capital Region of Delhi with full residency for all students of JGU and other academic blocks, student and faculty housing with constructed space of nearly 1 million square feet.

O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU) is a non-profit global university established by the Haryana Private Universities (Second Amendment) Act, 2009. JGU was established as a philanthropic initiative of Mr. Naveen Jindal, the Founding Chancellor in the memory of his father Mr. O.P. Jindal. The University Grants Commission has accorded its recognition to O.P. Jindal Global University. The vision of JGU is to promote global courses, global programmes, global curriculum, global research, global collaborations, and global interactions through global faculty. JGU is situated on a 80-acre state-of-the-art residential campus in the National Capital Region of Delhi. JGU is one of the few universities in Asia that maintain a 1:15 faculty-student ratio and appoint faculty members from different parts of the world with outstanding academic qualifications and experience. JGU has so far established five schools: Jindal Global Law School, Jindal Global Business School, Jindal School of International Affairs, Jindal School of Government and Public Policy and Jindal School of Liberal Arts & Humanities.www.jgu.edu.in

In 2009, JGU established India's first global law school, namely, Jindal Global Law School (JGLS). JGLS is recognised by the Bar Council of India and offers a three-year LL.B. programme, five-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) and B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) programmes and a one-year LL.M. programme. JGLS has research interests in a variety of key policy areas, including: Global Corporate and Financial Law and Policy; Women, Law, and Social Change; Penology, Criminal Justice and Police Studies; Human Rights Studies; International Trade and Economic Laws; Global Governance and Policy; Health Law, Ethics, and Technology; Intellectual Property Rights Studies; Public Law and Jurisprudence; Environment and Climate Change Studies; South Asian Legal Studies; International Legal Studies; Psychology and Victimology Studies and Clinical Legal Programmes. JGLS has established international collaborations with law schools around the world, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Michigan, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, Arizona, Oxford, Cambridge and Indiana. JGLS has also signed MoU with a number of reputed law firms in India and abroad, including White & Case, Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co., AZB & Partners, FoxMandal Little, Luthra and Luthra Law offices, Khaitan & Co. and Nishith Desai Associates.

www.jgls.edu.in

Jindal Global Business School (JGBS) offers an MBA programme and an integrated BBA-MBA programme. The vision of JGBS is to impart global business education to uniquely equip students, managers and professionals with the necessary knowledge, acumen and skills so that they can effectively tackle challenges faced by transnational business and industry. JGBS offers a multi-disciplinary global business education to foster academic excellence, industry partnerships and global collaborations. JGBS faculty is engaged in research on current issues including: Applied Finance, Business Policy, Decision Support Systems, Consumer Behavior, Globalization, Leadership and Change, Quantitative Methods, Information Systems, and Supply Chain & Logistics Management. JGBS has established international collaborations with several leading international schools including the Naveen Jindal School of Management, University of Texas at Dallas, USA, Kelley School of Business, Indiana, USA, European Business School, Germany and University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada.

www.jgbs.edu.in

www.jsia.edu.in

Jindal School of International Affairs (JSIA) India's first Global Policy school is enhancing Indian and international capacities to analyse and solve world problems. It intends to strengthen India's intellectual basein international relations and affiliated social science disciplines that have hitherto been largely neglectedby Indian academic institutions. JSIA offers a Master of Arts in Diplomacy, Law and Business [M.A.(DLB)]. The programme is the first of its kind in Asia, drawing upon the resources of global faculty in Jindal Global Law School, Jindal Global Business School, as well as the Jindal School of International Affairs to create a unique interdisciplinary pedagogy. The M.A. (DLB) is delivered on week days to residential students and on weekends for working professionals, including diplomats, based in the National Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi. JSIA has also launched a three-year B.A (Hons.) in Global Affairs. JSIA has established international collaborations with the United Nations University in Tokyo and the School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA) of Indiana University. JSIA hosts India's first Taiwan Education Centre, which has been established by National Tsing Hua University of Taiwan with the backing of the Ministry of Education, Government of Taiwan. JSIA publishes the Jindal Journal of International Affairs (JJIA), a critically acclaimed bi-annual academic journal featuring writings of Indian and international scholars and practitioners on contemporary world affairs.

Jindal School of Government and Public Policy (JSGP) offers India's first Master's Programme in Public Policy (MPP). MPP is inter-disciplinary and draws upon multiple disciplines. It is designed to equip students with capacity to grasp contemporary economic, political and social challenges, coherently and comprehensively and to find solutions to persistent problems. Our public policy graduates have mastery over a range of tools and techniques essential for evidence-based policy-making. They are well-versed in monitoring and evaluation methods. They are trained to understand diverse contexts and complexity. They can design policies which are implementable and deliver desired results. They will be an asset to development and policy-related institutions, both within government and in civil society. Think-tanks, policy research institutions, consulting companies, corporate social responsibility initiatives, international organisations and the media must value the unique combination of skills, leadership, imagination, and ethics which JSGP graduates possess. JSGP has an outstanding faculty to equip its students to pursue successful and adventurous careers in many spheres of public life. JSGP has international collaborations befitting a global programme of high quality. JSGP is a member of a select group of public policy schools (including Harvard University, Sciences Po, Oxford University, Central European University, and many others) for participating in the Open Society Foundation's Rights and Governance Internship Programme. JSGP has a dedicated Placement and Career Development Cell which helps its graduates to pursue careers best suited to their skills and aptitude.

www.jsgp.edu.in

The Jindal School of Liberal Arts & Humanities (JSLH) began its first academic session in 1 August 2014. It offers an interdisciplinary under-graduate degree programme leading to the award of B.A. (Hons.). An education in the liberal arts and humanities programme at Jindal School of Liberal Arts and Humanities (JSLH) in collaboration with Rollins College, Florida, is the ideal preparation for an intellect in action. JSLH offers a space for the expansion of young minds in a polyvalent education that mixes the classical and the contemporary in a new framework – the first of its kind in India. Our aim is to break down disciplinary boundaries and redefine what it means to study arts and humanities in an international context. At JSLH, our distinguished faculty aims to create world-class thinkers who are simultaneously innovators. We train students for intellectual mastery, democratic participation, self-expression and advanced life-long learning. Our curriculum has been carefully crafted and has a global orientation. Within this global framework, the B.A. (Hons.) includes an exciting opportunity to solidify Jindal's liberal arts and humanities programme through an extended period of study at Rollins College, Florida, USA, leading to the award of another undergraduate degree from the USA. JSLH seeks to become one of the places that will produce the next generation of leaders to confront our overarching problems. www.jslh.edu.in

India's First Transnational Humanities School

Jindal School of Liberal Arts & Humanities

O.P. Jindal Global UniversitySonipat Narela Road, Sonipat-131001

Haryana, NCR of Delhi, IndiaTel.: +91 130 4091801 / 802 / 804 / 805; Fax: +91 130 4091803 / 888

Website: www.jgu.edu.in; Email: info@jgu.edu.in