November 2012 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] Ricorso nomine vertici AGCOM

by Guido Scorza

Alessandro, niente affatto... Solo manca un atto formale di nomina (sembrerebbe non esistere affatto) e si è scelto di segnalare la cosa alla Commissione UE perché verifichi la conformità della disciplina italiana relativa alla nomina. Sfortunatamente, trattandosi di un'azione pro-bono e senza finanziamento della società civile abbiamo dovuto fare delle scelte "operative" come questa per cercare di bilanciare il rapporto costo/benefici (nel quale, peraltro, siamo comunque in perdita secca!!). Un saluto, G __ Avv. Prof. Guido Scorza SR&Partners Via dei Barbieri, 6 - 00186 Roma Tel. +39-06.87750524 Fax +39-0692931778 www.guidoscorza.it www.sr-partners.it Il giorno 09/nov/2012, alle ore 13:22, MANTELERO ALESSANDRO ha scritto: > i dubbi sulla conformità ai requisiti di legge per la nomina del Garante per la protezione dei dati personali sono invece finite nel nulla? > > On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 12:38:44 +0100 > a.dicorinto(a)uniroma1.it wrote: >> For Your Information... >> cheese >> ********************** >> “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” >> – John Gilmore >> -----Inoltrato da A Dicorinto/Dip-Psi/Dipartimenti/Didattica/Ateneo/Uniroma1/it il 09/11/2012 12.37PM -----Per: a.dicorinto(a)uniroma1.it >> Da: segreteria(a)anso.it >> Data: 09/11/2012 11.42AM >> Oggetto: [anso.it] newsletter nr. 32 - CS AGCOM >> Con preghiera di massima diffusione. E’ necessario che i Giudici amministrativi accertino se la Camera dei Deputati ed il Senato della Repubblica hanno legittimamente proceduto alla recente nomina dei membri dell’Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni e se il procedimento amministrativo da queste ultime seguito sia stato idoneo a garantire alla stessa Autorità adeguata indipendenza dalle influenze dei partiti e di alcuni leader dei mercati sui quali l’Autorità medesima è chiamata a vigilare. >> E’ nelle segreterie dei partiti o nelle aule parlamentari che devono designarsi i membri di un’Autorità indipendente? E’ questo il senso del ricorso notificato nelle scorse alla Camera dei Deputati, al Senato, alla Presidenza della Repubblica ed ai membri dell’AGCOM nominati nei mesi scorsi a conclusione della campagna “Vogliamo Trasparenza” con la quale Open Media Coalition e numerose associazioni rappresentanti della società civile italiana hanno, a lungo, chiesto alle Istituzioni cui la legge affida il compito di nominare i membri di una delle Autorità indipendenti più importanti del nostro Paese di procedere a tale delicato compito sulla base di un meccanismo trasparente e meritocratico, al riparo da influenze partitiche. Sfortunatamente, come è noto, non è andata così giacché il Parlamento ha permesso che i membri oggi nominati fossero designati sulla base del tradizionale meccanismo di spartizione partitica nelle segreterie dei partiti e si è limitato a ratificare l’operato di queste ultime. A formare oggetto di contestazione non è la competenza o esperienza dei singoli membri nominati ma l’idoneità del procedimento adottato dalla Camera dei Deputati e dal Senato della Repubblica per garantire al Paese la migliore Autorità Garante possibile e, soprattutto, la più indipendente. L’Autorità per le Garanzie nelle comunicazioni svolge in un Paese come l’Italia, cronicamente ammalato di assenza di pluralismo, scarsa libertà di informazione e gravissimo ritardo nella diffusione di Internet un ruolo fondamentale ed insostituibile per lo sviluppo democratico, sociale, culturale ed economico. Il solo sospetto che essa sia meno indipendente di quanto previsto dalla legge è democraticamente insostenibile e potrebbe produrre conseguenze gravissime sul piano giuridico giacché qualora il procedimento di nomina dei membri risultasse viziato ed illegittimo, tutti gli atti adottati dall’Autorità rischierebbero di essere travolti. E’, probabilmente, la prima volta, in Italia, che la società civile chiede ai giudici di verificare se le Istituzioni cui la legge affida la nomina dei membri di un’Autorità indipendente abbiano fatto davvero l’interesse del Paese e, quindi, il loro dovere o si siano, invece, lasciate guidare da interessi diversi capaci di minare alla radice l’indipendenza dell’Autorità. Il ricorso è stato firmato da Open Media Coalition, Agorà Digitale, Anso – Associazione Nazionale Stampa Online, Associazione Articolo 21, FEMI – Federazione dei media digitali indipendenti, Società Pannunzio per la libertà di informazione e dal Sen. Belisario quale parlamentare della Repubblica, leso nell’esercizio dei propri diritti di elettore. >> www.anso.it >> e-mail: segreteria(a)anso.it Vuoi essere rimosso dalla nostra newsletter? >> Segui il link: http://www.anso.it/newsletter/newsletter_login.cfm?nlcodice=1491 >> > > -- > Avv. Alessandro Mantelero, PhD > Professor of Private Law > Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet and Society > > http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero > > Twitter: @mantelero > > Department of Production Systems and Business Economics > Politecnico di Torino > Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 > 10129 Torino - Italy > > in libertate fortitudo > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Nov. 9, 2012

Re: [nexa] Ricorso nomine vertici AGCOM

by MANTELERO ALESSANDRO

i dubbi sulla conformità ai requisiti di legge per la nomina del Garante per la protezione dei dati personali sono invece finite nel nulla? On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 12:38:44 +0100 a.dicorinto(a)uniroma1.it wrote: > For Your Information... > cheese > > ********************** > “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes >around it.” > – John Gilmore > > -----Inoltrato da A >Dicorinto/Dip-Psi/Dipartimenti/Didattica/Ateneo/Uniroma1/it >il 09/11/2012 12.37PM -----Per: a.dicorinto(a)uniroma1.it > Da: segreteria(a)anso.it > Data: 09/11/2012 11.42AM > Oggetto: [anso.it] newsletter nr. 32 - CS AGCOM > > Con preghiera di massima diffusione. E’ >necessario che i Giudici amministrativi accertino se la >Camera dei Deputati ed il Senato della Repubblica hanno >legittimamente proceduto alla recente nomina dei membri >dell’Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni e se il >procedimento amministrativo da queste ultime seguito sia >stato idoneo a garantire alla stessa Autorità adeguata >indipendenza dalle influenze dei partiti e di alcuni >leader dei mercati sui quali l’Autorità medesima è >chiamata a vigilare. > > E’ nelle segreterie dei partiti o nelle aule >parlamentari che devono designarsi i membri di >un’Autorità indipendente? > E’ questo il senso del ricorso notificato nelle scorse >alla Camera dei Deputati, al Senato, alla Presidenza >della Repubblica ed ai membri dell’AGCOM nominati nei >mesi scorsi a conclusione della campagna “Vogliamo >Trasparenza” con la quale Open Media Coalition e numerose >associazioni rappresentanti della società civile italiana >hanno, a lungo, chiesto alle Istituzioni cui la legge >affida il compito di nominare i membri di una delle >Autorità indipendenti più importanti del nostro Paese di >procedere a tale delicato compito sulla base di un >meccanismo trasparente e meritocratico, al riparo da >influenze partitiche. > Sfortunatamente, come è noto, non è andata così giacché >il Parlamento ha permesso che i membri oggi nominati >fossero designati sulla base del tradizionale meccanismo >di spartizione partitica nelle segreterie dei partiti e >si è limitato a ratificare l’operato di queste ultime. > A formare oggetto di contestazione non è la competenza o >esperienza dei singoli membri nominati ma l’idoneità del >procedimento adottato dalla Camera dei Deputati e dal >Senato della Repubblica per garantire al Paese la >migliore Autorità Garante possibile e, soprattutto, la >più indipendente. > L’Autorità per le Garanzie nelle comunicazioni svolge in >un Paese come l’Italia, cronicamente ammalato di assenza >di pluralismo, scarsa libertà di informazione e >gravissimo ritardo nella diffusione di Internet un ruolo >fondamentale ed insostituibile per lo sviluppo >democratico, sociale, culturale ed economico. > Il solo sospetto che essa sia meno indipendente di >quanto previsto dalla legge è democraticamente >insostenibile e potrebbe produrre conseguenze gravissime >sul piano giuridico giacché qualora il procedimento di >nomina dei membri risultasse viziato ed illegittimo, >tutti gli atti adottati dall’Autorità rischierebbero di >essere travolti. > E’, probabilmente, la prima volta, in Italia, che la >società civile chiede ai giudici di verificare se le >Istituzioni cui la legge affida la nomina dei membri di >un’Autorità indipendente abbiano fatto davvero >l’interesse del Paese e, quindi, il loro dovere o si >siano, invece, lasciate guidare da interessi diversi >capaci di minare alla radice l’indipendenza >dell’Autorità. > Il ricorso è stato firmato da Open Media Coalition, >Agorà Digitale, Anso – Associazione Nazionale Stampa >Online, Associazione Articolo 21, FEMI – Federazione >dei media digitali indipendenti, Società Pannunzio per la >libertà di informazione e dal Sen. Belisario quale >parlamentare della Repubblica, leso nell’esercizio dei >propri diritti di elettore. > www.anso.it > e-mail: segreteria(a)anso.it Vuoi essere >rimosso dalla nostra newsletter? > Segui il link: >http://www.anso.it/newsletter/newsletter_login.cfm?nlcodice=1491 > > -- Avv. Alessandro Mantelero, PhD Professor of Private Law Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet and Society http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero Twitter: @mantelero Department of Production Systems and Business Economics Politecnico di Torino Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 10129 Torino - Italy in libertate fortitudo

Nov. 9, 2012

Ricorso nomine vertici AGCOM

by a.dicorinto＠uniroma1.it

Nov. 9, 2012

Fwd: [Euro-IX-Members] [Euro-ix-all] Press release: Open Letter from Members of Euro-IX to CEPT

by Luca Cicchelli

Segnalo la lettera inviata da Euro-IX a CEPT e in copia alla commissaria Kroes. -- Luca Inizio messaggio inoltrato: > Da: Bijal Sanghani <bijal.sanghani(a)euro-ix.net> > Oggetto: [Euro-IX-Members] [Euro-ix-all] Press release: Open Letter from Members of Euro-IX to CEPT > Data: 08 novembre 2012 01:15:11 CET > A: all(a)euro-ix.net > > Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 7 November 2012 > > Open Letter from Members of the European Internet Exchange Association (Euro-IX) > > The International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) will be reviewed at the ITU's (International Telecommunication Union) World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12). > Certain proposals for amendments to the 1988 ITRs hint at an intention to consider the Internet as a logical extension to the ITU jurisdiction and, if adopted, may have a negative impact on the success of the Internet. > > This has raised concern among the members of the European Internet Exchange Association (Euro-IX). In an open letter, addressed to CEPT (European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations), with copy to the Secretariat of the European Commissioner Mrs. Neelie Kroes, the members ask for support to ensure the open, competitive and innovative nature of the Internet in the future. The open letter has been signed by 49 members, from 37 Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), present in 24 countries. > > Download the open letter: https://www.euro-ix.net/documents/1050-Euro-IX-WCIT-OpenLetterCEPT-pdf?down… > .............................. > > About Euro-IX (www.euro-ix.net) > Euro-IX (European Internet Exchange Association) was formed in May 2001 > with the intention to further develop, strengthen and improve the Internet > Exchange Point (IXP) community. Euro-IX promotes an open interchange of ideas and experiences, gained to mutual advantage of the membership, by offering fora, meetings, mailing lists and on-line resources. Euro-IX also gathers information on regulatory issues affecting member exchanges within the region and where appropriate from other jurisdictions that could potentially impact on the membership. Currently, Euro-IX has 61 Member Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) from 39 countries around the world. > > .............................. > > About CEPT (www.cept.org) > The European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations - CEPT - was established in 1959 by 19 countries, which expanded to 26 during its first ten years. Original members were the monopoly holding postal and telecommunications administrations. CEPT's activities included co-operation on commercial, operational, regulatory and technical standardisation issues. Today 48 countries are members of CEPT. > > _______________________________________________ > Euro-ix-all mailing list > Euro-ix-all(a)euro-ix.net > https://mailman.euro-ix.net/mailman/listinfo/euro-ix-all > > Please note Euro-IX has a Mailing List Policy at: > https://www.euro-ix.net/documents/886-mailinglistpolicy-txt?download=yes___… > Euro-ix-members mailing list > Euro-ix-members(a)euro-ix.net > http://mailman.euro-ix.net/mailman/listinfo/euro-ix-members > > Please note Euro-IX has a Mailing List Policy at: > https://www.euro-ix.net/documents/886-mailinglistpolicy-txt?download=yes

Nov. 8, 2012

IGF 2012 WS 154 Internet & jurisdiction, 9 NOV ore 13:30

by Laura Abba

Nov. 8, 2012

IGF 2012 Baku, Il discordo di Hamadoun I. Touré (ITU)

by Laura Abba

Nov. 8, 2012

Fwd: [Euro-IX Board] Fwd: [coms] [arin-announce] NRO Contribution to the WCIT Public Consultation Process

by Luca Cicchelli

Contributo dei NRO (RIPE, etc.) alla proposta di revisione delle ITRs. -- Luca Begin forwarded message: > From: Bijal Sanghani <bijal.sanghani(a)euro-ix.net> > Date: 07 novembre 2012 20:38:01 CET > To: "board(a)euro-ix.net" <board(a)euro-ix.net> > Subject: [Euro-IX Board] Fwd: [coms] [arin-announce] NRO Contribution to the WCIT Public Consultation Process > > FYI > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Serge Radovcic <sr(a)ripe.net> >> Date: 7 November 2012 20:23:11 CET >> To: Bijal Sanghani <bijal.sanghani(a)euro-ix.net> >> Subject: Fwd: [coms] [arin-announce] NRO Contribution to the WCIT Public Consultation Process >> >> you might be interested in point a) on page 2 >> >> sergio >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [coms] [arin-announce] NRO Contribution to the WCIT Public Consultation Process >> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 11:35:58 -0600 >> From: ARIN <info(a)arin.net> >> To: arin-announce(a)arin.net >> >> The five Regional Internet Registries contributed views in response to >> the ITU’s public consultation in preparation of the World Conference on >> International Telecommunications (WCIT) to be held in Dubai in December >> 2012, where the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) will >> be reviewed. >> >> The five RIRs supported the continuance of the ITRs to guide and promote >> the growth of international Internet connectivity. In their collective >> submission sent to the ITU, the RIRs stated that while they share many >> of the concerns expressed by the ITU Member States in the fields of >> interconnection costs, security, spam, and issues relating to Internet >> resources, they don’t believe that some of the proposed new ITR >> provisions can effectively help to solve these matters. Instead, the >> letter says that “many will carry unintended consequences: the ITRs will >> remain unchanged for many years after WCIT, while most of the issues of >> concern will change as technologies will evolve.” >> >> You can read the full letter here: >> >> NRO Contribution to the WCIT Public Consultation Process >> http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/joint-submission-WCIT-RIR.pdf >> >> Regards, >> >> NRO Secretariat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Announce >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Announce Mailing List (ARIN-announce(a)arin.net) >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce >> Please contact info(a)arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Euro-ix-board mailing list > Euro-ix-board(a)euro-ix.net > http://mailman.euro-ix.net/mailman/listinfo/euro-ix-board > > Please note Euro-IX has a Mailing List Policy at: > https://www.euro-ix.net/documents/886-mailinglistpolicy-txt?download=yes

Nov. 7, 2012

Barnier on copyright

by J.C. DE MARTIN

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-785_en.htm?locale=EN Making European copyright fit for purpose in the age of internet Reference: SPEECH/12/785Event Date: 07/11/2012 Launch event of the CEPS Digital Forum Taskforce on Copyright in the EU Digital Single Market / Brussels 7 November 2012 Enter Ladies and Gentlemen, First of all, allow me to thank CEPS, Karel LANNOO, Staffan JERNECK, and also Giuseppe MAZZIOTTI, for this invitation. The European Single market is celebrating its 20thanniversary. This should not be a pretext for nostalgia. On the contrary, it is an opportunity to assess and improve the way it works: * To make sure it plays its part in the economic, social and technological transformations of the 21stcentury. * To make sure it helps us to deliver on our objective: a highly competitive social market economy. Is the Single Market working to unlock the potential of the digital economy to the benefit of all ? This is an example of the questions we must ask ourselves. When it was created in 1992, one million computers were connected to the internet worldwide. In 2016, that number will be 10billion: 10 000 times more! In 1992, we never imagined that one day we would be able to read our favourite newspaper, discover new music or watch a film anytime, anywhere, on any device - a laptop, a tablet or a phone. We could not imagine the opportunities. Or indeed the challenges that would arise. In particular from a European perspective. Copyright is at the heart of these opportunities and challenges. Why? Because it is the engine behind the diversity, the creativity and the innovation which can be delivered to all of us though internet. Therefore we must ask ourselves: it is fit for the digital age? Our legal framework has of course evolved since 1992, including for copyright. The Information Society Directive of 2001 introduced copyright rules for the digital age. And it remains largely valid today. Does this mean that we have found the optimum balance between: * The widest possible access to quality content for Europeans; * Fair remuneration for creators; * Sufficient incentives for those that invest in creation, * And legal certainty for content distributors? I do not think so. I am aware of the problems and the frustration of EU citizens when trying to access content on line. * Why is it that they cannot access services available in other Member States if they are willing to pay for it? * Why is it that too often they cannot watch their home news or favourite TV programs from the moment they step outside their country? Consumers are not the only ones facing difficulties. * Think of newspaper publishers that see the content they produce being used by others to attract consumers on the net and generate advertising revenues. * Think of broadcasters that invest heavily in sports rights or other quality content and see their signal distributed in the Internet without their agreement. * And finally, think of those entrepreneurs that want to use the Single Market to launch new services and to innovate. How long will it take the nextSpotifyorDeezerto obtain the licences they need to launch an online music service? And what about tomorrow's European equivalent toNetflix? Will it know where to start to get the online rights for all those European films which are gathering dust on a shelf somewhere? Do not get me wrong: I amnotin the business of blaming copyright for everything that does not work in the Internet. I am alsonotin the business of denying that rules need to be modernised and adapted where the evidence is there. What I want is a more rational debate. A frank exchange to identify practical and sustainable solutions to precisely-identified problems. We all know that there are many reasons for these problems. Many have nothing to do with copyright: inadequate broadband capacity, the commercial choices of service providers, the cost of payment services are only a few. But I am determined to ensure that copyright is not among the obstacles. Copyright cannot be a barrier. It must be an enabler. I want to ensure that it remains a modern and effective tool: * To support creation and innovation; * To enable access to quality content across the borders; * To foster investment in our economy, freedom of information and cultural diversity. What do I mean by this ? First, I want a copyright framework that facilitates the access of all Europeans to their heritage. The Internet is a unique chance for a "second life" for works which are simply "out of distribution". Just think of the "Europeana" project, which went from 2 to 19 million items digitized between 2008 and 2011. We can make the dissemination of these works easier. We can do it by a combination of limitations to rights -- when justified -- and easier licensing. Notably via collective management. Member States should also play their role. Together with my colleagues Neelie KROES and Androulla VASSILIOU, we have worked to make sure that the key building blocks are there: * The Directive on orphan works was adopted just a month ago. It establishes a limitation to copyright with cross border effects, a novelty in the copyright acquis. It will lead to the establishment of a European registry of orphan works. Another importantnovelty. In parallel, the Memorandum of Understanding on Out of Print Books is starting to be implemented: an outstanding example of how an innovative approach to licensing can benefit to all. * We also issued a Recommendation to Member States inviting them to step up their efforts for the digitisation of cultural material. I continue to encourage Member States and stakeholders to make use of these building blocks. I also believe that arrangements similar to the Memorandum of Understanding are the way forward to facilitate access to the thousands of European films that are forgotten because they are out of distribution. Secondly, I want a copyright framework that passes the "Single Market test", making more content available to more citizens, cross-border. Let's face it:the digital revolution has not yet lived up to expectations in the European context. The online offer varies greatly. It depends on the sector -- compare the offer of music or games with the offer of films -- and it depends on the Member State. And consumers are often denied access or redirected to their local websites when they try to access content across borders. But again, let's not be naive. There are numerous reasons behind this lack of cross border access, starting with the commercial strategies of Internet distributors and platforms. Some of these strategies may be legitimate. Others, as underlined by the Court of Justice in the "Premier League" case, are not. In any event, the territoriality of copyright, and the complexities of licensing, should not constitute a barrier -- or a comfortable excuse -- for anyone. We have taken a very important step forward with our July proposal for a Directive on the collective management of rights. This directive will address one of the most severe copyright-related difficulties for the cross-border provision of content : the licensing of music rights by collecting societies. The current fragmentation affects not only music service providers but all those using music as part of their services: broadcasters, providers of online film streaming services, etc. They all need multi-territory licences. The ball is now in the court of the co-legislators. The European Council asked for swift progress. And rightly so: a Single market cannot be based on a purely national administration of rights. But we need to push further to improve European citizens' cross-border access to content and the portability of the services they subscribe to at home. This is a complex issue. But we need to act on it. I am not here to tell content providers how to run their business. And I am very mindful of the deep complexities linked to the financing of certain premium content such as films. But it is unacceptable that Europeans are confronted online with the borders we have been dismantling in the physical world for 50 years. As Single Market Commissioner, I cannot accept this. This is why I want to work with all relevant stakeholders to find concrete solutions on the ground. I have also asked my services to start assessing whether there is a need for further legislative intervention in this area. We also need to look at the full implementation of other important Single Market instruments such as the Services Directive. Thirdly, I want a copyright framework that provides the right incentives for those that create and invest in content and that ensures the right balance with other policy objectives such as education, research or innovation We need an equilibrium. Copyright enables rights holders to function in commercial markets. Removing rights goes quite far: it removes rights holders ability to authorise the use of their content, or to gain reward for their investments. So when can a limitation on these rights be justified? And when should users better acquire a licence to use others' rights for their own commercial gain? I am open to discuss this and to evaluate the need to update our system of limitations to copyright. I have already done this with the Orphan Works directive. I continue to do it at international level in the context of the current negotiations on a Treaty for the benefit of the visually impaired. Going forward I want to see if more harmonisation is needed to update the existing limitations and to ensure their cross border effect. For instance does it still make sense that a European library cannot lend a book to someone just because he or she happens to be across a border? But let me be crystal clear: I do not share the view of those that think copyright protection should be weakened so others can develop new commercial services free of cost. This would simply amount to legislating for free-riding: shifting wealth from the content industries -- many of which are based in Europe creating jobs and paying taxes here -- to other industries. This cannot be right. We need to ensure that bargaining power and the capacity to invest and innovate remain fairly distributed along the value chain. If this is not the case, we all lose, in the end. The right balance between rights and limitations is one that preserves the necessary incentives for licensing. Again, I want to discuss with all stakeholders how to create win-win situations. To develop innovative services while respecting copyright and the market opportunities it provides : from "one click" licences for small users to model licensing clauses for text and data mining. Fourthly, and finally, A copyright framework that continues to provide incentives must include meaningful enforcement. With the crisis it is more than ever necessary to eliminate illegal business models that are based on IP infringing activity. This is how we can pave the way for legal offers, especially by innovative start-ups and SMEs. This is also how we transform "informal" economy jobs into real, sustainable job opportunities. So this is my vision, A vision in which copyright supports creation, and creation supports distribution and innovation. To make progress, there can be neither taboo subjects nor miracle solutions: modernising the regulatory framework is not a taboo subject in the same way that exceptions to the exclusive rights of authors are not miracle solutions. The resolution of many of the problems I have referred to remains in the hands of the main actors in the market. I want to work with industry, and I want industry to work together. To redouble our efforts. This is why I will propose to launch a new partnership with industry, "Licensing Europe": to deliver concrete progress. From mapping the problems to delivering pragmatic solutions. We want to guarantee European citizens' access to quality content. We want to make it possible for creators to make a living from their work and for service providers to propose innovative business models. To achieve this we must base our proposals on precise data and serious analysis. And we must engage all parties concerned in the process, in a spirit of partnership. So I very much welcome the CEPS initiative to set up a task force on copyright in the digital single market. I am convinced that it will be a very relevant input in our work and I will closely follow the course of its discussions. We will also be discussing these issues soon with my fellow Commissioners. We need to agree on the best way forward between now and the end of our mandate. So my recommendation at this point is simple: watch this space! Thank you for your attention.

Nov. 7, 2012

I piani di Hamadoun I. Touré (ITU)

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Editoriale per Wired del Segretario Generale dell'ITU. juan carlos U.N. Must Lead Internet Regulation Effort * By Hamadoun I. Touré * 11.07.12 * 1:45 PM // With over 90 percent of the world's people now within reach of mobile phones, the challenge today is bringing internet access to the /two-thirds/ of the world's population that is still offline. This challenge is compounded by the need to ensure connectivity is affordable /and/ safe for all. If we can achieve this, all the world's citizens will have the potential to access unlimited knowledge, to express themselves freely, and to contribute to and enjoy the benefits of the knowledge society. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which is the United Nations specialized agency charged with coordinating global information and communication technology (ICT) resources such as satellite slots and international wireless spectrum, will host the World Conference on International Telecommunications <http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx> (WCIT-12) in Dubai next month. The goal? To review the International Telecommunication Regulations <http://www.internetsociety.org/itr> (ITRs) global treaty last considered in 1988 -- and which forms the basis for our increasingly connected world of communications today. Our world has changed dramatically in the past 25 years, and nowhere more dramatically than in the domain of information and communication technologies. [...] Continua qui: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/head-of-itu-un-should-internet-regulat…

Nov. 7, 2012

Fwd: Re: [governance] Great speech, Carlos!

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Il bel discorso che Carlos Afonso ha tenuto - in rappresentanza delle organizzazioni della società civile, dei movimenti civili e degli individui attivi nei processi di Internet governance - durante la cerimonia di apertura dell'IGF di Baku. E' possibile seguire l'IGF da remoto: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation/connect-now juan carlos -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 04:53:16 -0200 From: Hartmut Richard Glaser <glaser(a)cgi.br> Reply-To: governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org, Hartmut Richard Glaser <glaser(a)cgi.br> Organization: CGI.br To: governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org, Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org> CC: Carlos A. Afonso <ca(a)cafonso.ca> Your Excellencies, Mr Wu Hongbo, Under Secretary General, Undesa, Chairman minister Ali Abatov, Secretary Chengetai Masango, in the name of whom I wish to salute all present authorities; ladies and gentlemen: I have been assigned the honorable task of speaking in the opening ceremony of this IGF in the name of civil society organizations, social movements and individuals active in Internet governance processes, many of them involved in these processes since the inception of WSIS nearly 10 years ago. Several of them collaborated with me in drafting the following statement. We believe that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global communication enabled by the Internet is crucial to realize the promise of Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To impose restrictions (legal or otherwise) to the free flow of information is and has always been contrary to the individual human right to freedom of expression. We therefore oppose efforts to create "national Internets," or to block and filter Internet access in ways that deny individuals access to applications, content and services of their choice. All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information illegal and restrict or block them must follow established, transparent, due processes of law and should not involve prior restraint. We oppose efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that would foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among governments or private actors. We consider the covert use of exploits and malware for surveillance or attacks to be criminal regardless of whether they are deployed by governments, private corporations or organized criminals. We are skeptical of efforts to subordinate the design and use of information and communication technology to "national security" agendas. We believe that Internet security will be achieved primarily at the operational level and that national security and military agendas often work against rather than for users' security needs. In the processes of policy formulation, we emphasize the need to prioritize dialogue with policy makers over their subordinated law enforcement agencies. Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, so we welcome the additional participation in global policy making that multi-stakeholder processes provide. But we caution that multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself. Opening up global governance institutions to additional voices from civil society and business does not by itself ensure that individual rights are adequately protected or that the best substantive policies are developed and enforced. In the informal spaces created by pluralist institutions, it is possible that powerful governmental and corporate actors can make deals contrary to the interests of Internet users. Multistakeholder processes, while involving all interest groups, must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due process, separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and political rights, and governmental decision-making ought to take into account the inputs of all participants of such pluralist processes. Let us remind ourselves that participation goes beyond representation, and participation in decision-making goes beyond just debates and dialogues. Regarding the ITR review process to be concluded in Dubai (and here I use the standard terminology the technical community defines to refer to the different components of the network): We agree that the internet layer and the layers above it (transport layer and applications layer) should not be included in any way in the regulations, while the free flow of Internet packets should be guaranteed in the link layer, in line with network neutrality in which Internet packets are never touched by the operators providing the physical connectivity infrastructure. Let the Internet flourish freely to the benefit of those who live at its edges, which are all of us. Thank you. === On 07/11/12 04:44, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Carlos, > > I hear many people really liked your speech yesterday, at the opening > session. In fact, one of the government reps told me this morning it > was THE BEST among all speeches of all guest speakers. > > I also was asked to get File version of your speech, Carlos, to be shared. > > To confess, I was not able to listen you since I was have some > preparatory meeting for Emerging Issues main session, so I also need > your speech in print/file. I am sure there are many others like me. > > Many thanks, > > izumi > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org >

Nov. 7, 2012