- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

gli autori SIAE devono pagare per promuovere le proprie opere sui propri siti
by Simone Aliprandi April 17, 2014

April 17, 2014

Ha creato abbastanza scalpore la notizia (che ho diffuso questa mattina attraverso i miei canali social) sul fatto che gli autori SIAE devono fare un versamento all'ente per promuovere le proprie opere sul proprio sito. In compenso, sul sito SIAE, si precisa che... il MAV non ha alcuna spesa bancaria aggiuntiva. No, non è un pesce d'aprile. http://lasiae.blogspot.com/2014/04/autori-siae-pagano-diffondere-proprie-op… Un caro saluto. -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org | http://www.array.eu

1 0

Council of Europe: "Guide to human rights for Internet users"
by J.C. DE MARTIN April 17, 2014

April 17, 2014

URL: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2184807&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3… *Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on a Guide to human rights for Internet users* /(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 16 April 2014 at the 1197th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)/ 1. Council of Europe member States have the obligation to secure for everyone within their jurisdiction the human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5, the Convention). This obligation is also valid in the context of Internet use. Other Council of Europe conventions and instruments, which deal with the protection of the right to freedom of expression, access to information, the right to freedom of assembly, protection from cybercrime and of the right to private life and to the protection of personal data, are also applicable. 2. The obligations of States to respect, protect and promote human rights include the oversight of private companies. Human rights, which are universal and indivisible, and related standards, prevail over the general terms and conditions imposed on Internet users by any private sector actor. 3. The Internet has a public service value. People, communities, public authorities and private entities rely on the Internet for their activities and have a legitimate expectation that its services are accessible, provided without discrimination, affordable, secure, reliable and ongoing. Furthermore, no one should be subjected to unlawful, unnecessary or disproportionate interference with the exercise of their human rights and fundamental freedoms when using the Internet. 4. Users should receive support to understand and effectively exercise their human rights online when their rights and freedoms have been restricted or interfered with. This support should include guidance on access to effective remedies. In light of the opportunities that the Internet provides for transparency and accountability in the conduct of public affairs, users should be empowered to use the Internet to participate in democratic life. 5. To ensure that existing human rights and fundamental freedoms apply equally offline and online, the Committee of Ministers recommends under the terms of Article 15./b/ of the Statute of the Council of Europe that member States: 5.1. actively promote the Guide to human rights for Internet users, as set out in the Appendix, among citizens, public authorities and private sector actors and take specific action regarding its application in order to enable users to fully exercise their human rights and fundamental freedoms online; 5.2. assess, regularly review and, as appropriate, remove restrictions regarding the exercise of rights and freedoms on the Internet, especially when they are not in conformity with the Convention in the light of the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Any restriction must be prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society to pursue a legitimate aim and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued; 5.3. ensure that Internet users have access to effective remedies when their rights and freedoms have been restricted or when they believe that their rights have been violated. This requires enhancing co-ordination and co-operation among relevant institutions, entities and communities. It also necessitates the engagement of and effective co-operation with private sector actors and civil society organisations. Depending on the national context, this may include redress mechanisms such as those provided by data protection authorities, national human rights institutions (such as ombudspersons), court procedures and hotlines; 5.4. promote co-ordination with other State and non-State actors, within and beyond the Council of Europe, with regard to the standards and procedures which have an impact on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms on the Internet; 5.5. encourage the private sector to engage in genuine dialogue with relevant State authorities and civil society in the exercise of their corporate social responsibility, in particular their transparency and accountability, in line with the "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: implementing the United Nations 'Protect, Respect and Remedy' Framework". The private sector should also be encouraged to contribute to the dissemination of the guide; 5.6. encourage civil society to support the dissemination and application of the guide so that it provides an effective tool for Internet users. /Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)6/ *Introduction* 1. This guide is a tool for you, the Internet user, to learn about your human rights online, their possible limitations, and available remedies for such limitations. Human rights and fundamental freedoms apply equally offline and online. This principle includes respect for the rights and freedoms of other Internet users. The guide provides you with information about what rights and freedoms mean in practice in the context of the Internet, how they can be relied and acted upon, as well as how to access remedies. It is an evolving document, open to periodic updating. 2. This guide is based on the European Convention on Human Rights and other Council of Europe conventions and instruments that deal with various aspects of human rights protection. All Council of Europe member States have a duty to respect, protect and fulfil the rights and freedoms contained in the instruments that they have ratified. The guide is also inspired by the continuous interpretation of these rights and freedoms by the European Court of Human Rights and by other relevant legal instruments of the Council of Europe. 3. The guide does not establish new human rights and fundamental freedoms. It builds on existing human rights standards and enforcement mechanisms.^1 <https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2184807&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3…> *Access and non-discrimination* 1. Access to the Internet is an important means for you to exercise your rights and freedoms and to participate in democracy. You should therefore not be disconnected from the Internet against your will, except when it is decided by a court. In certain cases, contractual arrangements may also lead to discontinuation of service but this should be a measure of last resort. 2. Your access should be affordable and non-discriminatory. You should have the greatest possible access to Internet content, applications and services using the devices of your choice. 3. You should expect public authorities to make reasonable efforts and to take specific measures to facilitate your access to the Internet if you live in rural and geographically remote areas, are on a low income and/or have special needs or disabilities. 4. In your interactions with public authorities, Internet service providers and providers of online content and services, or with other users or groups of users, you must not be discriminated against on any grounds such as gender, race, colour, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status, including ethnicity, age or sexual orientation. *Freedom of expression and information* You have the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of your choice, without interference and regardless of frontiers. This means: 1. you have the freedom to express yourself online and to access information and the opinions and expressions of others. This includes political speech, views on religion, opinions and expressions that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also those that may offend, shock or disturb others. You should have due regard to the reputation or rights of others, including their right to privacy; 2. restrictions may apply to expressions which incite discrimination, hatred or violence. These restrictions must be lawful, narrowly tailored and executed with court oversight; 3. you are free to create, re-use and distribute content respecting the right to protection of intellectual property, including copyright; 4. public authorities have a duty to respect and protect your freedom of expression and your freedom of information. Any restrictions to this freedom must not be arbitrary, must pursue a legitimate aim in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights such as, among others, the protection of national security or public order, public health or morals, and must comply with human rights law. Moreover, they must be made known to you, coupled with information on ways to seek guidance and redress, and not be broader or maintained for longer than is strictly necessary to achieve a legitimate aim; 5. your Internet service provider and your provider of online content and services have corporate responsibilities to respect your human rights and provide mechanisms to respond to your claims. You should be aware, however, that online service providers, such as social networks, may restrict certain types of content and behaviour due to their content policies. You should be informed of possible restrictions so that you are able to take an informed decision as to whether to use the service or not. This includes specific information on what the online service provider considers as illegal or inappropriate content and behaviour when using the service and how it is dealt with by the provider; 6. you may choose not to disclose your identity online, for instance by using a pseudonym. However, you should be aware that measures can be taken, by national authorities, which might lead to your identity being revealed. *Assembly, association and participation* You have the right to peacefully assemble and associate with others using the Internet. In practice, this means: 1. you have the freedom to choose any website, application or other service in order to form, join, mobilise and participate in social groups and assemblies whether or not they are formally recognised by public authorities. You should also be able to use the Internet to exercise your right to form and join trade unions; 2. you have the right to protest peacefully online. However, you should be aware that, if your online protest leads to blockages, the disruption of services and/or damage to the property of others, you may face legal consequences; 3. you have the freedom to use available online tools to participate in local, national and global public policy debates, legislative initiatives and public scrutiny of decision-making processes, including the right to sign petitions and to participate in policy making relating to how the Internet is governed. *Privacy and data protection* You have the right to private and family life on the Internet which includes the protection of your personal data and respect for the confidentiality of your correspondence and communications. This means: 1. you should be aware that, in using the Internet your personal data is regularly processed. This happens when you use services such as browsers, e-mail, instant messages, voice-over Internet protocols, social networks and search engines and cloud data storage services; 2. public authorities and private companies have an obligation to respect specific rules and procedures when they process your personal data; 3. your personal data should only be processed when laid down by law or when you have consented to it. You should be informed of what personal data are processed and/or transferred to third parties, when, by whom and for what purpose. Generally, you should be able to exercise control over your personal data (check its accuracy, request a correction, a deletion or that personal data is kept for no longer than necessary); 4. you must not be subjected to general surveillance or interception measures. In exceptional circumstances, which are prescribed by law, your privacy with regard to your personal data may be interfered with, such as for a criminal investigation. Accessible, clear and precise information about the relevant law or policy and your rights in this regard should be made available to you; 5. your privacy must also be respected in the workplace. This includes the confidentiality of your private online correspondence and communications. Your employer must inform you of any surveillance and/or monitoring carried out; 6. you can be assisted by data protection authorities, which exist in a vast majority of European countries, to ensure that data protection laws and principles are upheld. *Education and literacy* You have the right to education, including access to knowledge. This means: 1. you should have online access to education and to cultural, scientific, scholarly and other content in official languages. Conditions might apply to such access in order to remunerate rights' holders for their work. You should also be able to freely access publicly funded research and cultural works in the public domain on the Internet, where available; 2. as part of Internet and media literacy you should have access to digital education and knowledge in order to exercise your rights and freedoms on the Internet. This includes skills to understand, use, and work with a broad range of Internet tools. This should enable you to critically analyse the accuracy and trustworthiness of content, applications and services that you access or wish to access. *Children and young people * As a child or young person, you have all the rights and freedoms outlined in this guide. In particular, because of your age, you are entitled to special protection and guidance when using the Internet. This means: 1. you have the right to freely express your views and participate in society, to be heard and to contribute to decision making on matters affecting you. Your views must be given due weight in accordance with your age and maturity and without discrimination; 2. you can expect to receive information in a language appropriate for your age and training from your teachers, educators and parents or guardians about safe use of the Internet, including about how to preserve your privacy; 3. you should be aware that content you create on the Internet or content concerning you created by other Internet users may be accessible worldwide and could compromise your dignity, security and privacy or be otherwise detrimental to you or your rights now or at a later stage in your life. Upon your request, this should be removed or deleted within a reasonably short period of time; 4. you can expect clear information about online content and behaviour that is illegal (for example online harassment) as well as the possibility to report alleged illegal content. This information should be adapted to your age and circumstances and you should be provided with advice and support with due respect for your confidentiality and anonymity; 5. you should be afforded special protection from interference with your physical, mental and moral welfare, in particular regarding sexual exploitation and abuse on the Internet and other forms of cybercrime. In particular, you have the right to education to protect yourself from such threats. *Effective remedies* 1. You have the right to an effective remedy when your human rights and fundamental freedoms are restricted or violated. To obtain a remedy, you should not necessarily have to pursue legal action straight away. The avenues for seeking remedies should be available, known, accessible, affordable and capable of providing appropriate redress. Effective remedies can be obtained directly from Internet service providers, public authorities and/or national human rights institutions. Effective remedies can -- depending on the violation in question -- include inquiry, explanation, reply, correction, apology, reinstatement, reconnection and compensation. In practice, this means: 1.1. your Internet service provider, providers of access to online content and services, or other company and/or public authority should inform you about your rights, freedoms and possible remedies and how to obtain them. This includes easily accessible information on how to report and complain about interferences with your rights and how to seek redress; 1.2. additional information and guidance should be made available from public authorities, national human rights institutions (such as ombudspersons), data protection authorities, citizens' advice offices, human rights or digital rights associations or consumer organisations; 1.3. national authorities have an obligation to protect you from criminal activity or criminal offences committed on or using the Internet, in particular when this concerns illegal access, interference, forgery or other fraudulent manipulation of your digital identity, computer and data contained therein. The relevant law-enforcement authorities have an obligation to investigate and take appropriate action, including seeking sanctions, if you complain of damage to, or interference with, your personal identity and your property online. 2. In the determination of your rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against you with regard to the Internet: 2.1. you have the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court; 2.2. you have the right to an individual application to the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting all available domestic remedies. ^1 <https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2184807&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3…> This guide is part of a recommendation adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the 47 member States of the Council of Europe. More detailed information explaining the guide can be found in the explanatory memorandum to the recommendation.

1 0

La Stampa: Imparare a programmare da bambini (Luca Indemini)
by J.C. DE MARTIN April 17, 2014

April 17, 2014

Bel articolo di Luca Indemini sull'insegnare a programmare ai bambini, con breve intervista al prof. Angelo Raffaele Meo: http://www.lastampa.it/2014/04/16/tecnologia/tante-storie-per-programmare-i… juan carlos

1 0

Nuovo progetto EUANDI per le elezioni europee
by J.C. DE MARTIN April 17, 2014

April 17, 2014

Vi segnalo che l'innovativo progetto dell'amico del Centro Nexa, prof. Alexander Trechsel (direttore del dipartimento di Scienze Politiche e Sociali dello European University Institute), EUANDI.EU, è finalmente online: http://euandi.eu Il motto " Discover your party, create your community" cattura bene gli (ambiziosi) obiettivi del progetto. Disclaimer: faccio parte dell'International Advisory Board del progetto. juan carlos

1 0

privacy_ART29 WP nuovi documenti
by Alessandro Mantelero April 17, 2014

April 17, 2014

Segnalo a chi non li avesse visti una serie di interessanti documenti di recente adozione: - sull'anonimizzazione: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinio… - sulla nozione di "Legitimate interests": http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinio… In particolare di interesse per i rapporti US/EU i due documenti sul Safe Harbor e sul cloud by MS: - Letter on Microsoft's cloud agreements http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/other-… - Safe Harbor recommendations http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/other-… -- Avv. Alessandro Mantelero, PhD Aggregate Professor, Politecnico di Torino Director of Privacy and Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet and Society Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Research Consultant, Sino-Italian Research Center for Internet Torts at Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology Programme Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law, Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University of Shanghai http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero Politecnico di Torino Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 10129 Torino - Italy in libertate fortitudo

1 0

Re: [nexa] operazione trasparenza on line dei dati della banca dati dell'anagrafe dell'edilizia scolastica
by Giovanni Battista Gallus April 17, 2014

April 17, 2014

Caro Mauro, La sentenza è sì interessante nel suo percorso di ricostruzione dell'accesso civico, ma imho è pericolosamente erronea nelle conclusioni, laddove confonde il "catalogo delle banche dati" con il contenuto stesso delle banche dati, e si inventa (anticipando l'implementazione della direttiva open data :-) un obbligo generalizzato di pubblicazione delle banche dati della PA. Il 09/apr/2014 10:46 "Mauro Alovisio" <mauro.alovisio(a)gmail.com> ha scritto: gent.me/mi segnalo interessante sentenza del Tar Lazio del 19 marzo n. 3014 che ha accolto il ricorso dell'associazione Cittadinanzaattiva contro il provvedimento di rigetto del diritto di accesso civico ai dati (Dl.Lgs n. 33 del 2013) del Miur ; un passo positivo nel complesso percorso italico verso la trasparenza on line (obbligo di pubblicare on line nel caso in esame i dati relativi alla sicurezza dei fabbricati scolastici; alle certificazioni agibilità statica, all' adeguamento sismico, igienico-sanitario, alla prevenzione incendi; alle mappature delle barriere architettoniche etcc) http://www.casaeclima.com/ar_17807__ITALIA-Sentenze-edilizia-scolastica-miu… Link per consultare la sentenza per esteso http://www.giustizia-amministrativa.it/DocumentiGA/Roma/Sezione%203B/2013/2… cordiali saluti Mauro Alovisio _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

1 0

NETmundial / Neelie Kroes: let's get to work
by Andrea Glorioso April 16, 2014

April 16, 2014

[ Apologies if you receive this message multiple times ] Dear all, Concerning the forthcoming Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) which will take place in Sao Paulo (Brazil) on 23-24 April 2014, you might be interested to read the latest blog post of Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission and member of the High-Level Multistakeholder Committee of NETmundial, available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/netmundial-lets-… reproduced below. +++ NETmundial: let's get to work Published by Neelie KROES<https://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/users/neelie-kroes>on Wednesday, 16/04/2014 I will soon be travelling to Sao Paulo to attend NETmundial, the Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance<http://netmundial.br/>. The purpose of NETmundial is to develop principles of Internet governance and a roadmap for the future development of this ecosystem. I have already shared<http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/my-thoughts-netmu…>with all of you my thoughts on the draft "outcome document" that I and other members of the High-Level Multi-stakeholder Committee of NETmundial<http://netmundial.br/hlmc/>received on 3 April 2014. In the meantime, the organisers of the conference have published a new version of the outcome document<http://document.netmundial.br/>and are inviting everyone to send their views and comments <http://document.netmundial.br/> – I warmly invite all of you to do so. I did so, too; I have sent an email to the members<http://netmundial.br/hlmc/>of the High Level Multi-stakeholder Committee, to the Chair of the Meeting <http://netmundial.br/chair-of-the-meeting/> (Prof. Virgilio Almeida) and to the two co-chairs of the Executive Meeting Committee<http://netmundial.br/emc/>, Raul Echeberria and Demi Getschko. Again, in a spirit of transparency, I would like to share the contents of this message with the broader Internet community.... so please read my letter below. *From: KROES Neelie (CAB-KROES)* *Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 7:26 PM* *To: 'hlmc(a)netmundial.br <hlmc(a)netmundial.br>'* *Subject: Proposals for the NETmundial outcome document* Dear colleagues, I am pleased to see that the draft outcome document for NETmundial has been published and that the broader public has now the possibility to intervene in the discussion, before we all meet in Sao Paulo next week. Again, I would like to thank all the members of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee, as well as the Chair and the Co-Chairs of the meeting, for their tireless work. As a follow-up to the comments<http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/my-thoughts-netmu…>which I have already shared with you, I would like to make some further observations. In the same spirit of transparency as my previous communication, I am also posting a copy of this e-mail on my blog<http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/blog> . I continue to strongly believe that the outcomes of NETmundial must be concrete and actionable, with clear milestones and with a realistic but ambitious timeline. Several reactions to my comments show that I am not alone in thinking that concreteness is paramount to the success of this important gathering; and even though positions on substance may well differ, I believe that my assessment on the necessity of a "change of pace" in these discussions is shared by a broad range of stakeholders. Read in this light, it is clear me that more work is needed on the latest draft; especially if we consider that a number of public contributions submitted to NETmundial did include concrete and actionable suggestions. Luckily, several passages of the draft outcome document do lend themselves quite well to being turned into more concrete actions – and we should make full use of this opportunity. I will focus on six specific examples: 1. Improvements to the multi-stakeholder model 2. Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum 3. Tools and mechanisms for better information sharing and capacity building 4. Globalisation of IANA 5. Globalisation of ICANN 6. Jurisdictional issues on the Internet *(1) Improvements to the multi-stakeholder model* The draft outcome document refers several times to the need to *further improve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder model*, to enable the full and balanced participation of all stakeholders from around the globe, to have clear and transparent processes and procedures (including mechanisms for checks and balances and for review). I completely agree – in fact, I have said so for a long time. The keywords here are inclusiveness and openness, which must both be real and meaningful, not just theoretical. NETmundial should be the moment to properly connect the debates on Internet governance with the discussions and concrete activities on citizens' engagement and participatory democracy. Europe has been quite active in this field, ranging from EU-funded projects in the ICT field, such as DEMO-NET <http://participedia.net/en/organizations/demo-net>, Cross Over<http://crossover-project.eu/>and D-CENT <http://dcentproject.eu/>; to legal innovations such as the European Citizens Initiative; to national initiatives such as the use of Liquid Democracy in the Germany and the People's Assembly Rahvakogu<https://www.rahvakogu.ee/pages/what-is-rahvakogu>in Estonia, to name just a few. Brazil, with the inclusive and participatory conception and discussions on the "Marco Civil", is also an inspiration for all of us. And it is purely for reasons of space that I cannot mention all the efforts by many organisations and individuals across the world. In its Communication on Internet Policy and Governance<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0072>of 12 February 2014, the European Commission suggested that the *further development of multistakeholder guidelines and the sharing of best practices* would be a good manner to move forward. Accordingly, *I suggest that the outcomes of NETmundial should include*: - a clear commitment to the *bottom-up and cooperative* development of a "concept paper" to be discussed at the 9th Internet Governance Forum (Istanbul, Turkey, *2-5 September 2014*); - this concept paper should identify initial recommendations on how the above mentioned engagement and participatory tools and initiatives could be used in Internet governance debates; it should also propose an initial outline of principles-based guidelines to safeguard accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and independence for multi-stakeholder processes; - the discussions in Istanbul and all other appropriate fora should lead, by the *beginning of 2015*, to a proposal for two "case studies", to examine how we could turn the high-level principles into concrete, operational practices of existing Internet governance organisations and processes; - further discussions and practical experimentation on these cases studies could then result in a *concrete reference paper* to be presented and discussed at the 10th Internet Governance Forum, towards the *end of 2015* – and of course, to be further refined as need be. *(2) Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum* I referred multiple times to the *Internet Governance Forum* or IGF. The draft outcome document of NETmundial clearly mentions the need for strengthening and improving this most important and unique example of global and multi-stakeholder engagement and dialogue. I agree that such improvements should include an extension of the IGF mandate beyond its usual 5-years cycle, without prejudice to any possible adaptation of such mandate as the global community will see fit; I also agree that ensuring stable and predictable funding for the IGF is absolutely essential. I reiterate my invitation for everyone, but especially those organisations which have greatly benefited from the Internet, to become a donor to the IGF – like the EU, some of its Member States and others from the public and private sector. I believe that NETmundial should also make a clear reference, and if possible provide some practical examples, on how innovative forms of crowd-funding could contribute to this joint effort. The other improvements mentioned in the draft outcome document, namely the need to implement creative ways of providing outcomes / recommendations and the analysis of policy options, and to promote inter-sessional dialogues between the yearly gatherings of the IGF, are also essential and, in my view, closely linked to the need to better connect to existing experiences, expertise and practical tools for inclusive engagement, that I highlighted above. On this basis, *I propose that the NETmundial outcome document should ask the Multistakeholder Advisory Group to present to the global community a clear and realistic assessment of how and when, in their view, these recommendations could be concretely implemented*, at the 9th Internet Governance Forum in *September 2014*. Members of the MAG serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups; I am therefore certain that such assessment would be well informed and inclusive of all opinions. But to be even more concrete: let us not forget that, as the draft outcome document mentions, we already have a very clear set of recommendations to refer to, i.e. the *Report of the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum*<http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/504/04/PDF/G1250404.pdf?Open…>(WGIGF) of 2012. Some of these recommendations have been acted upon; some are still lingering; but more in general, I sense that we are missing a sense of the "global picture". Therefore, I would strongly *recommend that one of the concrete outputs of NETmundial should be an assessment – even if an initial one – of where we stand in terms of implementation for each recommendation of the WGIGF*, or at the very least a clear commitment that such assessment will be presented at the latest at 9th Internet Governance Forum in *September 2014*; and that this "state of play" will be duly updated and be open to public input, possibly using participatory tools as I highlighted above. *(3) Tools and mechanisms for better information sharing and capacity building* As you can certainly see, I strongly believe in the *use of appropriate ICT tools* for better and more inclusive dialogues. The NETmundial draft outcome document clearly mentions the need for communication and coordination within the Internet governance ecosystem, including via tools to perform on-going monitoring, analysis, and information-sharing function. I have already highlighted in my previous comments how the European Commission is investing in the *Global Internet Policy Observatory initiative*<http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/commission-plans-guide-through-g…>(GIPO) as a way to experiment with the automated collection, analysis, organisation and visualisation of information on Internet governance discussions and decisions. The European Commission is currently finalising a feasibility assessment of the technological and organisational options for the GIPO, and we will share our conclusions by *mid-2014*, with a view to launch the technological development of GIPO by the *end of 2014*. In the meantime many other organisations, public and private, are either already working or are planning to invest in Internet policy observatories and similar initiatives. We should strive to avoid duplication of efforts. Let me be crystal clear: I do not see any need for a winner-takes-all beauty contest between observatories. Quite the contrary. But we should strive to learn from each other's understanding of the problems and proposed solutions. Ideally, we should also move towards a federation of Internet policy observatories. I therefore suggest that the draft outcome document of NETmundial should *include a clear commitment to have a broad, inclusive and operational roundtable among all "observatory initiatives"* during the 9th Internet Governance Forum in *September 2014*; ideally, this roundtable should lead to the development of an initial "*collaboration roadmap*" by *mid-2015* and identify mechanisms, including via existing meetings and dialogues, to foster cooperation and communication among these various initiatives. *(4) Globalisation of IANA* You already know how important I believe it is to keep the momentum towards a real and effective globalisation of core Internet functions and decisions, including IANA. ICANN has recently shared a draft "scoping paper" and a roadmap that will certainly be helpful in the discussions on the globalisation of IANA. *I believe that the NETmundial outcome document should explicitly recognise this draft proposal by ICANN as an important contribution and explicitly call all stakeholders to express their views on it*. *I also believe that in order for this discussion to be truly meaningful, the NETmundial outcome document should clearly flag that*: - the engagement of the broader public should make full use of *all** existing meetings and fora*, including the global Internet Governance Forum and the regional ones, as appropriate; ICANN should also reach out to organisations across the world which are willing and capable to foster dialogue among citizens, besides and beyond those who are able to attend the meetings of ICANN or other Internet technical organisations; - with due consideration to the criteria which the US Government has presented in its announcement of 14 March 2014<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…>, *there should be no artificial limitation in the scope of the discussion*. For example, a consideration of *various organisational options*, as well as of the *opportunity* and the *most appropriate ways to separate policy, operational and oversight activities* should not be "off-limits", if we want the debate on the future of IANA to be seen as truly legitimate at the global level. *(5) Globalisation of ICANN* The CEO of ICANN has recently declared<https://blog.icann.org/2014/04/training-wheels-off/>that a public dialogue on how to strengthen ICANN’s accountability will soon be launched. In my view, this dialogue cannot be separated from the broader issue of how to make ICANN a truly global organization serving the public interest, as the draft outcome document mentions. I understand that this dialogue will look at strengthening existing accountability mechanisms like the Affirmation of Commitments, and ICANN’s redress mechanisms, as well as exploring new accountability mechanisms where necessary. I am looking forward to further information and details and I expect that ICANN will also provide a clear timeline on the concrete implementation of its globalisation efforts. Accordingly, I *recommend that the NETmundial outcome document clearly invites ICANN to share its concrete proposals* at the 50th ICANN meeting (London, UK, *22-26 June 2014*). *(6) Jurisdictional issues on the Internet* It is natural, when talking about globalisation, to reflect not only on the amazing opportunities brought about by the Internet, but also on the challenges which this inherently cross-border medium raises with respect to the application of laws. The European Commission committed<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0072&f…>to launching an in-depth review of the risks, at international level, of conflicts of laws and jurisdictions arising on the Internet and to assess all mechanisms, processes and tools available and necessary to solve such conflicts. The NETmundial draft outcome document clearly identifies jurisdictional issues and how they relate to Internet governance as "material for further discussion". While I understand and agree that a full debate on this broad topic during NETmundial would be neither desirable nor productive, *we should have a stronger commitment to a phase-by-phase examination of this issue*, with a view to produce "good practice" guidelines as appropriate. Accordingly, *I suggest that the outcomes of NETmundial should include *an invitation to interested parties to: - develop a "scoping paper" by *July 2014*; - facilitate on-line and off-line engagement opportunities, as appropriate, in the run-up to the 9th Internet Governance Forum (Istanbul, Turkey, *2-5 September 2014*); - following these discussions, aim to produce a first draft of "problem statements" and possible recommendations by the *first half of 2015*. Dear colleagues, I thank you for your patience in reading my observations and proposals, which I trust will be useful in further refining the outcome document of NETmundial. Kind regards, Neelie Kroes +++ Best, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso(a)ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin

1 0

Regolamento Agcom: altro che pirateria! Basta una foto per chiudere un sito?
by Fulvio Sarzana April 15, 2014

April 15, 2014

Come volevasi dimostrare il regolamento Agcom sul diritto dautore si abbatterà sul web italiano senza che la pirateria centri niente con lazione dellautoproclamata Super- Autorità di Internet. E stato adottato oggi il primo provvedimento dellAutorità Garante per le Comunicazioni in materia di diritto dautore online a seguito dellentrata in vigore del discusso regolamento di cui alla delibera 680/13/CONS (su cui, peraltro, pendono due ricorsi al Tar e un ricorso straordinario alPresidente della Repubblica). Nei mesi che avevano preceduto ladozione del contestatissimo regolamento lAutorità aveva assicurato che lo stesso avrebbe trovato applicazione soltanto nei casi di pirateria massiva e che i siti tradizionali nulla avrebbero avuto a che temere. Ed invece <http://computerlaw.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/dda-8-determina-archiviazion e.pdf> il primo provvedimento, diffuso peraltro da un blogger, Marco Scialdone, ha avuto ad oggetto una fotografia (una), <http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2014/04/04/agcom-il-regolamento-rimuovi-web -comincia-da-libri-e-peer-to-peer/938943/> come peraltro dal sottoscritto anticipato qui. Si tratta di un portale turistico sulle bellezze della Puglia. Un portale cioè che aiuta anche i turisti stranieri ad orientarsi nelle bellezze del nostro Paese. Nel caso di specie, il sito ha sostituito la foto incriminata prima che lAutorità potesse pronunciarsi e dunque è stata disposta larchiviazione del procedimento. Continua su www.fulviosarzana.it ************************************* Avv. Fulvio Sarzana di Sant'Ippolito Studio Legale Sarzana e Associati Via Velletri, 10 - 00198 Roma Tel. +39 06 3211553 Tel. +39 06 97614489 Fax. +39 06 97256424 skype fulvio.sarzana <http://www.lidis.it/> http://www.lidis.it ************************************* This message and any file transmitted are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please You should not copy or disclose the contents to any other person. For further information please visit our website at <http://www.lidis.it/> http://www.lidis.it . _____ <http://www.avast.com/> http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png Questa e-mail è priva di virus e malware perché è attiva la protezione avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com/> . --- Questa e-mail è priva di virus e malware perché è attiva la protezione avast! Antivirus. http://www.avast.com

1 0

Re: [nexa] Sentenza tedesca in merito alle Creative Commons No Commercial per uso esclusivamente personale
by Simone Aliprandi April 14, 2014

April 14, 2014

MI hanno giustamente segnalato che ho postato un link sbagliato. Perdonatemi. Questo è quello corretto: http://www.apogeonline.com/webzine/2014/04/14/tot-licentiae-tot-sententiae "Tot licentiæ, tot sententiæ. L'autore ha sempre ragione (o quasi)" Confido nei vostri commenti dato il caso è davvero interessante. Un cordiale saluto. S.A.

1 0

consultazione in materia di competenze e cultura digitale
by Mauro Alovisio April 14, 2014

April 14, 2014

gent.me/mi segnalo interessante consultazione pubblica on line promossa dall'Agenzia per l'Italia Digitale in materia di competenze e cultura digitale scadenza: 20 maggio http://commenta.formez.it/ch/PianoCulturaDigitale/ a presto Mauro Alovisio

2 1