Promoting Effective and Inclusive ICT Policy in Africa

Category Archives: Internet Governance

  HomeCollaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  /  Blog  /  Internet Governance
07Jul

Zimbabwe Becomes the Latest Country to Shut Down Social Media

Author admin Posted on

 
By Juliet Nanfuka |
Less than a week after the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council declared that online rights must be protected and condemned disruptions to internet access, citizens in Zimbabwe became the latest victims of online communications shut down. Authorities in Zimbabwe shut down communications in the wake of protests against rampant corruption and misuse of state funds by Robert Mugabe’s regime, which has been in power since 1980.
Online campaigns initiated by frustrated Zimbabweans using hashtags like #MugabeMustFall and #ThisFlag have gained widespread popularity over the past weeks with the most recent #ZimbabweShutdown and #ZimShutdown2016 gaining momentum while calling for citizens to stay away from work. On Wednesday July 6, many streets in the capital Harare stood empty as the stay-in protest took effect, while online, despite the blockage of the popular instant messaging platform Whatsapp, citizens continued voicing concerns and sharing messages of solidarity. Service providers such as TelOnem, Liquid Telecom Zimbabwe, ZOL Zimbabwe, Telecel and Econet were amongst those who were reportedly pressured into shutting down access, which caused users to turn to circumvention tools in order to bypass the blockage.


A notice issued by the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe (POTRAZ) stated that those who engaged in “irresponsible use of social media and telecommunications services” would be “arrested and dealt with accordingly in the national interest.”
Zimbabwe, which is ranked “partly free” by Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net report, has also over the years recorded dismal media freedom and digital rights records, including crackdown on critics and news outlets both online and offline. In April 2016, a senior government official said the country could take measures similar to China by entirely blocking access to certain content online.
In July 2014, an anonymous whistle-blower Facebook page, “Baba Jukwa”, was deleted under unclear circumstances following the arrest of a journalist for allegedly running the page. A bounty of US$300,000 had earlier reportedly been offered for revealing the name of the person behind the account, while  in January 2014, a Facebook user was arrested and charged for sharing a post alleging that the president had died. These actions have cultivated a culture of self-censorship among the Zimbabwean online community.
The UN resolution, which was passed on Wednesday July 1 by 70 states, stresses that human rights enjoyed offline, particularly with regards to freedom of expression, must be protected online pursuant to articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Countries that voted against the resolution included Bolivia, Bangladesh, Burundi, Cuba, China, Russia, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, the Republic of Congo, Kenya, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela and Vietnam. Some countries including Algeria, Cote D’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Kyrgyzstan and Togo chose to abstain from voting on the resolution.
The Zimbabwe government’s stance on the use of social media comes as no surprise as an increasing number of shutdowns have been documented in African countries in recent months.
*Whatsapp was restored after four hours of disruption
 
 

21Apr

Is Tanzania Becoming an Internet Freedom Predator?

Author admin Posted on

By Juliet Nanfuka |
Tanzania appears to be steadily sliding into a predator of critical social media users, as state authorities continue to arrest and prosecute users for expressing what many see as legitimate opinions. In recent months, the country’s newly elected government has used  a controversial new law  to prosecute at least seven social media users, in spite of  constitutional guarantees of free speech.
Tanzanian netizens are falling foul of the Cybercrimes Act enacted last year, whose stated goal is “criminalizing offences related to computer systems and Information Communication Technologies”. The law has been used to charge citizens for “publication of false information” in accordance with Section 16 of the Act. It states: “Any person who publishes information or data, presented in a picture, text, symbol or any other form in a computer system knowing that such information or data is false, deceptive, misleading or inaccurate and with intent to defame, threaten, abuse, insult or otherwise deceive or mislead the public or councelling the commission of an offence, commits an offence, and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not less than five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not less than three years or to both.“
On April 15, 2016 Isaac Habakuk Emily was appeared in court for the publication of false information using a computer system – in this instance Facebook. In a post, Emily referred to President Pombe Magufuli as an imbecile that could not be compared to the country’s founding leader, Julius Nyerere.  He appeared in court for insulting the president after his post was reported to the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA).
See report on State of Internet Freedom in Tanzania 2015
Since the Cybercrimes Act took effect last September, Tanzanian social media users have “gone a little quiet”, according to journalist Joseph Warungu. And for good reason, as Emily is not the first individual against whom the law has been used. In October 2015, Benedict Angelo Ngonyani was charged for “spreading misleading information” after he posted on Facebook that Tanzania’s Chief of Defence Forces, General Davis Mwamunyange, had been hospitalised following food poisoning. In the same month, Sospiter Jonas was charged for posting to Facebook content stating that Tanzanian Prime Minister Mizengo Pinda “will only become a gospel preacher.” The following month, four staff of an opposition party were charged for publishing “inaccurate” election results on Facebook and Twitter.
The stated objective of the Cybercrimes Act was to fight rising incidents of cybercrime such as bank fraud, mobile money theft, phishing attacks, website hacking and spoofing. However, even as it was being debated, human rights defenders warned that the government would use the law to suppress critical voices. As one activist stated, “We usually use various internet platforms to communicate our information—Twitter, Facebook, blogs, SMS, WhatsApp, etc. The use of all these forms will be rendered useless by the Act which in part criminalises transmission of any information deemed misleading, defamatory, false or inaccurate by the government.”
The Cybercrimes Act was reportedly passed in the middle of the night and has been criticised for disregarding press freedom and freedom of expression, granting excessive powers to police, and offering limited protections to ordinary citizens.
Clamping down on social media users is a trend that has been increasingly witnessed in East Africa and beyond.  In Kenya, Section 29 of the Kenya Information and Communications Act (2013) has been used to charge up to 10 social media users for “the improper use of a telecommunication system” in 2016 alone. In Uganda, Section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act bears similar language and states, “Any person who willfully and repeatedly uses electronic communication to disturb or attempts to disturb the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person with no purpose of legitimate communication whether or not a conversation ensues commits a misdemeanor.” In the lead up to the February 2016 general elections, a series of arrest were made which saw social media users charged using this law.
Further afield, South Africa’s Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill (2014) also bears similar vague clauses that muzzle opinion of the media, bloggers and other independent actors that promote freedom of expression and increased state transparency. In Nigeria, the Frivolous Petitions Bill (2015), popularly known as the Social Media Bill, threatens to muzzle public expression online.
The Cybercrimes Act is one of several laws Tanzania  enacted in the lead up to the October 2015 general elections despite public outcry that these laws granted excessive powers to the police criminalised  expression and access to information, and did not provide clear legal recourse to citizens.
As affronts to citizens’ online rights in Tanzania and other countries continue, self-censorship is likely to prevail which in turn would have a negative impact on citizen participation, transparency and accountability in governance.
NB: Section 16 of the Cybercrimes Act 2015 has been adjusted to reflect the fine of not less than five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not less than three years or to both.

24Feb

Joint Letter on Internet Shutdown in Uganda

Author admin Posted on

By Access Now |
Mr. Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, Mr. David Kaye, Mr. Joseph Cannataci, Mr. Maina Kiai, Mr. Michel Forst, Ms. Faith Pansy Tlakula, and Ms. Reine Alapini-Gansou
cc: African Union
African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) Secretariat
Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa Secretariat
Domestic & International Election Observer Missions to the Republic of Uganda
East African Community Secretariat
International Conference on the Great Lakes Region Secretariat
New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) Secretariat
Uganda Communications Commission
Uganda Electoral Commission
Uganda Ministry of Information and Communications Technology
23 February 2016
Re: Internet shutdown in Uganda and elections
Your Excellencies,
We are writing to urgently request your immediate action to condemn the internet shutdown in Uganda, and to prevent any systematic or targeted attacks on democracy and freedom of expression in other African nations during forthcoming elections in 2016. [1]
On February 18, Ugandan internet users detected an internet outage affecting Twitter, Facebook, and other communications platforms. [2] According to the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC), blocking was carried out on orders of the Electoral Commission, for security reasons. [3] The shutdown coincided with voting for the presidential election, and remained in place until the afternoon of Sunday, February 21. During this period, two presidential candidates were detained under house arrest. [4] The telco MTN Uganda confirmed the UCC directed it to block “Social Media and Mobile Money services due to a threat to Public Order & Safety.” [5] The blocking order also affected the telcos Airtel, Smile, Vodafone, and Africel. President Museveni admitted to journalists on February 18 that he had ordered the block because “steps must be taken for security to stop so many (social media users from) getting in trouble; it is temporary because some people use those pathways for telling lies.” [6]
Research shows that internet shutdowns and state violence go hand in hand. [7] Shutdowns disrupt the free flow of information and create a cover of darkness that allows state repression to occur without scrutiny. Worryingly, Uganda has joined an alarming global trend of government-mandated shutdowns during elections, a practice that many African Union member governments have recently adopted, including:  Burundi, Congo-Brazzaville, Egypt, Sudan, the Central African Republic, Niger, Democratic Republic of Congo. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]
Internet shutdowns — with governments ordering the suspension or throttling of entire networks, often during elections or public protests — must never be allowed to become the new normal. Justified for public safety purposes, shutdowns instead cut off access to vital information, e-financing, and emergency services, plunging whole societies into fear and destabilizing the internet’s power to support small business livelihoods and drive economic development.
Uganda’s shutdown occurred as more than 25 African Union member countries are preparing to conduct presidential, local, general or parliamentary elections. [15]
A growing body of jurisprudence declares shutdowns to violate international law. In 2015, various experts from the United Nations (UN) Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Organization of American States (OAS), and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), issued an historic statement declaring that internet “kill switches” can never be justified under international human rights law, even in times of conflict. [16] General Comment 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee, the official interpreter of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, emphasizes that restrictions on speech online must be strictly necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate purpose. Shutdowns disproportionately impact all users, and unnecessarily restrict access to information and emergency services communications during crucial moments.
The internet has enabled significant advances in health, education, and creativity, and it is now essential to fully realize human rights including participation in elections and access to information.
We humbly request that you use the vital positions of your good offices to:

  • call upon the Ugandan government to provide redress to victims of the internet shutdown, and pledge not to issue similar orders in the future;
  • call on African states to uphold their human rights obligations, and not to take disproportionate responses like issuing shutdown orders, especially during sensitive moments like elections;
  • investigate shutdowns, in their various forms, in order to produce public reports that examine this alarming trend and its impact on human rights, and make recommendations to governments and companies on how to prevent future disruptions;
  • encourage telecommunications and internet services providers to respect human rights and resist unlawful orders to violate user rights, including through public disclosures and transparency reports;
  • encourage the African Commission on People’s and Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the UN General Assembly to resolve that Internet Shutdowns violate freedom of expression per se and without legal justification.

We are happy to assist you in any of these matters.
Sincerely,
Access Now
African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS)
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
Article 19 East Africa
Chapter Four Uganda
CIPESA
CIVICUS
Committee to Protect Journalists
DefendDefenders (The East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Global Partners Digital
Hivos East Africa
ifreedom Uganda
Index on Censorship
Integrating Livelihoods thru Communication Information Technology (ILICIT Africa)
International Commission of Jurists Kenya
ISOC Uganda
KICTANet (Kenya ICT Action Network)
Media Rights Agenda
Paradigm Initiative Nigeria
The African Media Initiative (AMI)
Unwanted Witness
Web We Want Foundation
Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET)
Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum
Endnotes
[1] Uganda election: Facebook and Whatsapp blocked’ (BBC, 18 February 2016) <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-35601220> accessed 18 February 2016.
[2] Omar Mohammed, ‘Twitter and Facebook are blocked in Uganda as the country goes to the polls’ (Quartz Africa, 18 February 2016) <http://qz.com/619188/ugandan-citizens-say-twitter-and-facebook-have-been-blocked-as-the-election-gets-underway/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[3] Uganda blocks social media for ‘security reasons’, polls delayed over late voting material delivery (The Star, 18 February 2016) <http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2016/02/18/uganda-blocks-social-media-for-security-reasons-polls-delayed-over_c1297431> accessed 18 February 2016.
[4]  Brian Duggan, “Uganda shuts down social media; candidates arrested on election day” (CNN, 18 February 2016) <http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/world/uganda-election-social-media-shutdown/> accessed 22 February 2016.
[5] MTN Uganda <https://twitter.com/mtnug/status/700286134262353920> accessed 22 February 2016.
[6] Tabu Batugira, “Yoweri Museveni explains social media, mobile money shutdown” (Daily Nation, February 18, 2016) <http://www.nation.co.ke/news/Yoweri-Museveni-explains-social-media-mobile-money-shutdown/-/1056/3083032/-/8h5ykhz/-/index.html> accessed 22 February 2016.
[7] Sarah Myers West, ‘Research Shows Internet Shutdowns and State Violence Go Hand in Hand in Syria’ (Electronic Frontier Foundation, 1 July 2015)
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/research-shows-internet-shutdowns-and-state-violence-go-hand-hand-syria> accessed 18 February 2016.
[8] ‘Access urges UN and African Union experts to take action on Burundi internet shutdown’ (Access Now 29 April 2015) <https://www.accessnow.org/access-urges-un-and-african-union-experts-to-take-action-on-burundi-interne/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[9] Deji Olukotun, ‘Government may have ordered internet shutdown in Congo-Brazzaville’ (Access Now 20 October 2015) <https://www.accessnow.org/government-may-have-ordered-internet-shutdown-in-congo-brazzaville/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[10]  Deji Olukotun and Peter Micek, ‘Five years later: the internet shutdown that rocked Egypt’ (Access Now 21 January 2016) <https://www.accessnow.org/five-years-later-the-internet-shutdown-that-rocked-egypt/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[11] Peter Micek, ‘Update: Mass internet shutdown in Sudan follows days of protest’ (Access Now, 15 October 2013) <https://www.accessnow.org/mass-internet-shutdown-in-sudan-follows-days-of-protest/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[12] Peter Micek, ‘Access submits evidence to International Criminal Court on net shutdown in Central African Republic’(Access Now 17 February 2015) <https://www.accessnow.org/evidence-international-criminal-court-net-shutdown-in-central-african-repub/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[13] ‘Niger resorts to blocking in wake of violent protests against Charlie Hebdo cartoons.’ (Access Now Facebook page 26 January 2015) <https://www.facebook.com/accessnow/posts/10153030213288480> accessed 18 February 2016.
[14] Peter Micek, (Access Now 23 January 2015) ‘Violating International Law, DRC Orders Telcos to Cease Communications Services’ <https://www.accessnow.org/violating-international-law-drc-orders-telcos-vodafone-millicon-airtel/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[15] Confirmed elections in Africa in 2016 include: Central African Republic (14th February), Uganda (18th February), Comoros and Niger (21st February), Rwanda (22nd -27th February), Cape Verde (TBC February), Benin (6th-13th March), Niger, Tanzania and Congo (20th March), Rwanda (22nd March), Chad (10th April), Sudan (11th April), Djibouti (TBC April), Niger (9th May), Burkina Faso (22nd May), Senegal (TBC May), Sao Tome and Principe (TBC July), Zambia (11th July), Cape Verde (TBC August), Tunisia (30th October), Ghana (7th November), Democratic Republic of Congo (27th November), Equatorial Guinea (TBC November), Gambia (1st December), Sudan, and Cote d’Ivoire (TBC December). Other elections without confirmed dates are scheduled to occur in Sierra Leone, Mauritania, Libya, Mali, Guinea, Rwanda, Somalia, and Gabon.
[16] Peter Micek, (Access Now 4 May 2015) ‘Internet kill switches are a violation of human rights law, declare major UN and rights experts’ <https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2015/05/04/internet-kill-switches-are-a-violation-of-human-rights-law-declare-major-un> accessed 18 February 2016.

12Jan

African Civil Society Urged to Take Active Role in ICANN

Author admin Posted on

By Marilyn Vernon |
Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) are a key player in the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance. However, civil society has been absent from discussions on the technical coordination of the internet domain name system (DNS) mechanisms.
Accordingly, on January 8, 2016, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) organised a workshop in Nairobi, Kenya to encourage more African civil society participation in the organisation’s work.
At the workshop which was attended by over 50 participants from private sector, academia, civil society, and the technical community, Adam Peake, ICANN’s Civil Society Engagement Manager, noted that at the core of ICANN’s functions was the bottom-up community based consensus which promotes inclusive engagement from the global community to keep the internet open, secure and inter-operable. This gives rise to many critical issues relating to human rights online, including privacy, access to information, freedom of expression, transparency and accountability, areas in which CSOs have extensive expertise.
Peake called for more meaningful CSO participation in ICANN processes and for their increased contribution to internet governance discussions and the development of solutions to align technical processes to government accountability and public interest.
Some of the critical issues for civil society engagement in ICANN came to the forefront during ICANN’s 50th meeting held in London in June 2014. At the meeting, the Council of Europe raised concerns about ICANN’s policies and procedures regarding global public interest and the protection of human rights. The Council cited states’ awareness of their responsibility to protect the human rights of their citizens including the right to freedom of expression; states’ attention to vulnerable groups; and the need to strike a balance between economic interests and other objectives of common interest, such as pluralism, cultural and linguistic diversity. As a result, recommendations were made for developing an ICANN human rights review process and reporting.
Since then, the Cross Community Working Party (CCWP) on ICANN’s Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights has been created. The party aims to address several concerns, including the inclusion of a reference to human rights in ICANN’s Bylaws; defining public interest objectives; and developing a mechanism to safeguard human rights.
While recognising that CSO participation in ICANN processes is critical, participants at the Nairobi workshop highlighted various challenges. For Africa in particular, there is limited knowledge of the operations of the domain name industry. There is also limited awareness of the role and responsibilities of governments in the ICANN policy development process that cuts across national policy areas such as internet security, development, and freedom expression.
Dr. Bitange Ndemo, the former Permanent Secretary in the Kenya ICT Ministry, said the exclusion of African CSOs from internet governance policy making process limits regional and international cooperation, decreases dialogue at the national and regional levels, and discourages strategic stakeholder partnerships. As a result, an environment in which stakeholders suffer from a lack of understanding and mistrust is created, which undermines citizen-centred socio-economic public policy development.
African civil Society engagement in public policy frameworks to support the evolution of the internet takes place in various platforms. These include the African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC), the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and the Internet Society (ISOC). Other platforms that enable civil society contributions to Internet Governance include regional Internet Governance forums like the East African IGF which, Kenya, Burundi and Uganda have hosted in the past.
In order to transform the DNS and internet industry in Africa and provide regional support, ICANN launched the Africa Strategic Plan (2016-2020). Participation in ICANN is facilitated through advisory committees, supporting organisations and working groups such as the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), which is structured by region and serves the African region through the African Regional At-Large Organisation (AFRALO), Non-Commercials Users Constituency (NCUC), Non Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG), and the Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC).
Currently, there are 41 African civil society groups participating in the AFRALO, 80 members in the NCUC, two members in the NCSG executive committee, and additional African representation in the various supporting organisations and advisory committees of ICANN.
To learn more about ICANN engagement and its community-based policy making process, you can visit the ICANN resources page and the Beginner’s Guides to ICANN processes.

06Jan

CIPESA Convenes Journalists to Discuss Uganda’s Data Protection Bill

Author admin Posted on

By Esther Nakkazi |
Ugandan citizens’ personal data may be at risk of misuse if the Uganda Data protection and Privacy Bill (2014) to be tabled before parliament is passed in current form. Currently, large entities like telecommunications service providers, insurers, hospitals and even schools retain the information of millions of citizens who remain unaware of how secure their information is, especially as more of it becomes digitised.
While Uganda called for comments to the Bill in late 2014, little progress was made on it over the course of 2015. According to Gloria Katuuku from the Ministry of ICT, the comments received have been incorporated into a revision of the bill. “We brought this Bill before the public so that we get conclusive remarks. The bill has been gazetted and will be tabled in parliament, meaning at this time we shall just compile the concerns,” said Katuuku. She was speaking at a workshop convened by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) where Ugandan parliamentary journalists discussed data protection and privacy with reference to the bill.

CIPESA Policy Officer being interviewed by journalists
CIPESA Policy Officer being interviewed by journalists

The workshop was organised in conjunction
with the Uganda Parliamentary Press Association (UPPA) and aimed to create awareness among parliament journalists about clauses in the proposed law that contravene citizens’ rights, including to privacy. Few journalists were aware that government had drafted the law and called for robust media engagement with Members of Parliament so as to generate debate on data protection and privacy issues.
The former Chairman of parliament’s ICT Committee, Edward Baliddawa, said the data protection law should have been the basis for other cyber laws in Uganda. He added that as the country edges towards e-commerce, such as business process outsourcing, there is a need to regulate data controllers.
“This Bill is good for our safety and privacy as individuals and to become an e-commerce country,” he said. However,he also called for continuous engagement with all stakeholders across the lifespan of the bill – drafting, tabling to parliament and any eventual amendments.
Although existing laws such the Electronic Signatures Act, 2011, the Computer Misuse Act, 2011, the Regulation of Interception of Communications Act 2010 and the Communications Commission Act 2013 cover aspects of data protection and privacy, they contain contradictions and potentially expose users’ information to unwarranted access and misuse by authorities. Lillian Nalwoga, CIPESA’s Policy Officer, said of the laws: “These laws have broad terminologies that should be amended to repeal contradictory provisions and this can be done within the Data protection and Privacy Bill, 2014 in the contexts of data users and collectors, and to prevent abuse.”

See this Overview of How ICT Policies Infringe on Online Privacy and Data Protection in Uganda

But the proposed data protection and privacy law that is meant to address privacy of citizens’ communications and data still has ambiguous terminologies, unclear definitions and arbitration issues that will negate its purpose.
According to CIPESA officials, the drafting phrase should further engage with and seek consultations with different stakeholders including civil society, private sector, the media and academia for an extended period prior to tabling it before parliament. This would  ensure that the law passed “is inclusive, accommodative and addresses the concerns raised by all the stockholders,” said Wakabi Wairagala, the head of CIPESA.
At the workshop, CIPESA officials referred journalists to various areas of concern in the draft bill including some of its ambiguous terminologies, such as Section 4 (2) which  states that personal data may be collected or processed where necessary for ’national security’ or for the  ‘proper performance’ of a public duty’ by a public body. However, these words can be misinterpreted and leave room for the access to and abuse of citizens’ information.
Meanwhile, Section 7 (2) says data can be collected from another person, source or public body in certain circumstances without the consent of the owner. The length of time that the collected personal data can be retained is also not indicated. Section 14 (1) states that the data cannot be held for a period longer than is necessary and says it will be retained for national security purposes.
Overall, the bill does not explicitly state what constitutes a ‘privacy infringement’, thereby leaving users’ data open to abuse by data collectors and processors. It also does not state the procedures for citizens to access their data.

See CIPESA’s review of the Bill: Reflections on the Draft Data Protection and Privacy Bill

 
 

1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 21