- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Fwd: [A2k] OECD Principles on Internet Policy Making approved by businesses but not by "civil society"
by J.C. DE MARTIN June 29, 2011

June 29, 2011

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [A2k] OECD Principles on Internet Policy Making approved by businesses but not by "civil society" Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:46:10 -0400 From: Manon Ress <manon.ress(a)keionline.org> To: a2k discuss list <a2k(a)lists.keionline.org> The OECD, the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD (BIAC),and The Internet Technical Advisory Committee to the OECD, (ITAC) as well as Egypt endorsed the Communique "Principles on Internet Policy Making" which can be found here: Final& (and finally) public version (6 pages) can be found here: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/21/48289796.pdf The words "Intellectual Property" appear 7 times, "Enforcement" 4 times, "liability" twice. But "Fair Use, Public Domain, limitations and exceptions, free software" never. Here is a sample of the tone: QUOTE The policy-making principles in this communiqué are designed to help preserve the fundamental openness of the Internet while concomitantly meeting certain public policy objectives, such as the protection of privacy, security, children online, and intellectual property, as well as the reinforcement of trust in the Internet. Effective protection of intellectual property rights plays a vital role in spurring innovation and furthers the development of the Internet economy. END OF QUOTE The Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council (CSISAC) comprising more than 80 NGOs declined to support the "Principles on Internet Policy-Making" http://csisac.org/ KEI Statement here: http://keionline.org/node/1177 On June 29, while the OECD civil society group CSISAC (80+ NGOs) debated the text of a high level statement on the Principles of Internet Policy Making, I sent this missive to the group discussing the text, expressing KEI's opposition to the draft statement. Thank you for your hard work on this. While there are some noted improvements, I still find this document as a whole quite disturbing. The Internet has actually demonstrated how much creativity is fostered without intellectual property, in fact despite IPR. Intellectual property is not a "driving" tool of the Internet. The Internet was NOT created by patents or copyright or trademark. Why would intellectual property be such a central theme for such a document? We concede that the Internet must not be a lawless "place" but this document where words such as "fair use, limitation and exception for users (it is "fixed" for the ISPs?), open source, free software, public domain, etc never appear, is wrong in tone and in its focus. Finally, the last paragraph is about protecting fundamental rights but they do not seem to include our rights. Only the rights of copyright owners are actually expressed all over the text. The need for balance between right owners and creative communities& consumers is not. Our organization feels very uncomfortable with the document and is not endorsing it. I am not sure about our exact status as member of CSISAC but I am sure KEI cannot agree with these "principles for Internet policy-making. " Manon PS we also believe that discussions about "free flow of information" should be done in a much more transparent way. The text should have been made public in order to get input from the Internet community as a whole. It is also of course quite difficult to "discuss" a text without being able to post it. -- Manon Anne Ress Knowledge Ecology International 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20009 USA http://www.keionline.org manon.ress(a)keionline.org _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k(a)lists.keionline.org http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org

1 0

Discorso di Neelie Kroes all'OECD - "Internet essentials" - i vostri commenti?
by Andrea Glorioso June 29, 2011

June 29, 2011

Cari tutti, ieri Neelie Kroes ha aperto (insieme ad altri) l'High Level Meeting on the Internet Economy dell'OECD ( http://www.oecd.org/site/0,3407,en_21571361_47081080_1_1_1_1_1,00.html) In questa occasione, ha pronunciato un discorso - dal titolo "Internet essentials" che potete trovare presso http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/11/479&forma… e che riproduco qui sotto. Mi/ci farebbe molto piacere sapere quali sono le vostre reazioni e i vostri commenti. Sarei anche molto grato se poteste girare questo discorso (unitamente alla richiesta di commenti) a tutti i vostri contatti. Credo sia importante discuterne al di la` dei soliti noti della "Brussels beltway". Ciao, grazie, Andrea ----------- http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/11/479&forma… Neelie Kroes Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda Internet essentials OECD High Level Meeting on the Internet Economy Paris, 28 June 2011 Ladies and Gentlemen, It is a pleasure to open, together with such distinguished colleagues, the High Level Meeting on the Internet Economy. First I want to recall that, as you all know very well, over the last decade the Internet has transformed society and become a pillar of the economy. The Internet is essential for our vision of smart, green and inclusive growth in the years and decades to come. And so it is also essential to make it safe, open and accessible to all citizens. Given the importance of the subject, I have no doubt that the coming two days will give us plenty of "food for thought". But it should not be fast food; it should be a leisurely and balanced meal. We should take time to think and find the right solutions. First things first. As the Roman philosopher Seneca said: "if you do not know to which port you are sailing, no wind is favourable". I find this just as true in the seas of modern cyberspace. We must understand where we came from; where we stand at the moment; and especially where we want to get to. Only then can we make the most of the opportunities the Internet offers, and best manage the risks. This reflection is a collective responsibility. Academia, the private sector and civil society have contributed enormously to the success of the Internet. Politicians like me should be mindful of that. But public authorities neither can nor should take a back seat. The fact is that the Internet is of relevance and benefit for citizens, for the economy, and for society. For that reason alone it is of interest to public policy makers. One of the challenges is to respond to that legitimate interest, without damaging the very features of the Internet which make it such a success story: its vibrancy, dynamism, innovation. It's a particular challenge because policy makers are used to operating nationally or regionally; but the Internet operates globally, across borders. To begin to respond, many are reflecting on high-level principles for the Internet; an electronic ethos showing where we want to head to. A framework for the network. For example, the Deauville G8 summit gave a clear statement on the Internet. Not a detailed set of rules, but some high-level, underpinning principles: like openness, transparency, freedom, non-discrimination, fair competition; and respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Beyond the G8, others like the Council of Europe, and the Aspen Institute – and of course the OECD itself - are looking at how to define "principles" for the Internet. The European Commission, too, has been thinking about this issue. In that context I'd like to offer you a first impression of what we think matters: Internet essentials, imperatives to ensure the Internet remains a success. These are offered not as a final word. But rather to promote a sensible discussion on, perhaps even a measure of convergence between, the different ideas out there. All this is built on one foundation, one assumption: that the Internet is a strategic domain for the European Union. EU policy on the Internet should be informed by the same EU values, priorities and interests which govern action in other areas. And then there are six separate ideas which constitute, for me, "Internet essentials". The first is: let's keep one Internet. I know there are pressures – regulatory, political, and economic – to "fragment" the Internet, often along national borders. Sometimes this results from legitimate concerns, like personal data protection; sometimes it is just plain censorship. But the Internet's most important characteristic is its universality: in principle, every node can communicate with every other. This has important implications for innovation, plurality, democratic values, cohesion and economic growth. And we must safeguard this. The second is that, on the Internet, we are not atoms. The Internet is not just a technological platform. It’s a forum where people interact. When we encounter people in real life, we expect, quite legitimately, that their behaviour will be governed by civic norms and social duties. Not just by compliance to legal minimum standards. Such rights and responsibilities are part of society, and we can't wash our hands of them, even online. I recognise the attractions of a fully libertarian view of the Internet. And of clear ground rules on issues like legal liability. But, ultimately, if there is harmful behaviour out there, then as members of a society we share a duty that goes beyond the purely legalistic. The third idea is that architecture matters. The Internet's architecture can and must evolve to meet new and unforeseen challenges. It will not wait for permission before it does so. But this evolution must be based on a clear understanding of the policy implications. The current architecture of the Internet is fundamental to its dynamics: socially, politically, legally, economically. For example, under the current system, it can be difficult to identify the sender of a message; this can be positive for freedom of expression, but also makes security harder. So we need to invest in research on a "future Internet", but also to have a broad, structured and coherent debate, with the Internet policy and research communities, on the impact of architectural change. The fourth is that barriers to trust are barriers to access. We won't unlock the Internet's potential until users can have confidence in it. That includes the protection of privacy, identity and personal data; online safety, especially for children; fighting spam and cyber-crime; and ensuring resilience and stability. The fifth is: let's make the Internet pro-democracy. By itself, the Internet cannot "produce" democracy. Indeed in the absence of clear "rules of the game" it can become a mockery of democratic values, a place where those who survive and are heard are only the most powerful, the loudest, the most technologically savvy. Yet, Internet-based tools can foster democratic life. For example, by making public information available and searchable. Providing platforms for discussion and collective action. And supporting bottom-up approaches to "problem solving", so that the citizen can co-create solutions. Using such tools and others, the Internet can be an instrument for democracy, and we need to promote it as such. The sixth is: let's make the Internet multi-stakeholder and transparent. The multi-stakeholder governance model is a good one, and the Commission has always supported it. In this field and others. But it must be transparent and guarantee accountability. We need a common understanding of the roles of each player. In particular we must recognise the duties of democratic institutions towards their citizens. Without this the multi-stakeholder model will simply crumble, under the combined weight of short-term thinking by those who control Internet resources, and political pressure by everyone else. Application of this principle would be in particular important to address deficiencies in the current functioning of ICANN. The views of governments representing their citizens on essential public policy issues are all too often ignored. This situation is absolutely unsustainable and needs to be significantly improved. These are the ideas I am reflecting on, right now. Together we could call them a "Compact for the Internet": an Internet of Civic responsibility, One Internet, that is Multi-stakeholder, Pro-democracy, Architecturally sound, Confidence inspiring, and Transparently governed. Two things this Compact is not. First, it's not digital dogma: these are guidelines, not cyber-commandments. Because by nature I am a pragmatic person. And, because "commandments" imply something "set in stone", if I may say so. But this approach would only serve to shackle, rather than to guide, the dynamic development of the Internet. Even once we flesh them out some more, and strengthen them through further discussion, these ideas will have to be interpreted with pragmatism and flexibility. I promise you if we ever do write them on "tablets" it will be the more modern sort! And, second, it is not about regulating the Internet – as I've said before, regulation should be an exceptional last resort, and in any case keyhole surgery rather than amputation. But with such a Compact, such a vision, we can ensure that as the Internet develops into new areas, we do not lose its essential characteristics. For example I am currently thinking about how the Internet of Things should be governed – in a way that addresses not just architecture but also trust, privacy, security and standards. This is a good example of where participation from many stakeholders, not just from Europe, will be essential. I intend to offer more details on my thinking on this Compact at the forthcoming Internet Governance Forum in Nairobi, Kenya. I think we have a lot of work to do between now and then – therefore let me not delay you any further. But I hope that, with your input and some fairly detailed thinking, we can develop them fully. To return to Seneca, principles on their own won't get us to our destination, but at least we'll be able to set sail. I wish you a most fruitful debate today and tomorrow and I am certainly looking forward to seeing the output of such an impressive gathering of minds.

1 0

Fwd: [A2k] OECD Draft Internet Communiqué Sacrifices Freedoms to Copyright
by J.C. DE MARTIN June 28, 2011

June 28, 2011

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [A2k] OECD Draft Internet Communiqué Sacrifices Freedoms to Copyright Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:17:46 +0200 From: La Quadrature du Net <jz(a)laquadrature.net> To: a2k(a)lists.keionline.org La Quadrature du Net - For immediate release Permanent link: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/oecd-draft-internet-communique-sacrifices-fr… OECD Draft Internet Communiqué Sacrifices Freedoms to Copyright *** Paris, June 28th, 2011 – La Quadrature du Net adds its voice to the 80 global civil society groups that have declined endorsing the OECD's communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy-Making. Although the text puts forward positive recommendations, rights and freedoms online are severely undermined by the call for private policing of the network, opening the door to automated censorship in the name of copyright. *** The 80 global civil society groups represented at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) under the umbrella of CSISAC have rejected the draft communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy-Making. La Quadrature du Net adds its voice to that of CSISAC, and regrets the OECD member countries' stubborn defense of the entertainment industries' obsolete business models, which is bound to undermine the very principles that the communiqué rightly puts forward. OECD LogoThe draft communiqué unfortunately shows that the OECD member countries are pushing for the same flawed online copyright policies as the ACTA agreement1, the G8 conclusions2 and the EU strategy3 for the future of copyright. The draft communiqué contains crucial elements of wording seeking to weaken the liability exemptions enjoyed by Internet companies such as search engines, hosting or access providers4, to turn them into a private copyright police and justice. The OECD draft communiqué reads: “Internet intermediaries could take steps to [...] assist rights holders in enforcing their rights or reduce illegal content,[...], respecting fair process [...]”, with “fair process” being explicitly defined with no reference to the judicial authority. It is clearly designed to allow rightsholders to bypass citizens' right to a fair trial. Thus, the OECD communiqué legitimates policies bypassing the judicial authority for online law enforcement, particularly in the name of an obsolete copyright regime. It also mentions that “users should have the ability to access and generate lawful content”, thus limiting free speech, and paving the way to private, automated censorship where machines would determine what is lawful or not, rather than a judge. “If left unchanged, the OECD communiqué is poised to promote a decade-long war on sharing, which has already had disastrous consequences on freedom of expression and privacy worldwide. Under the pressure of the entertainment industries, the OECD is undermining the good principles laid in its framework for Internet policy-making. Fundamental freedoms and the rule of law should prevail over any private interest, and that means guaranteeing a fair trial to all Internet users rather than pushing for private policing and censorship”, concluded Jérémie Zimmermann, co-founder and spokesperson of the advocacy group, La Quadrature du Net. * Références * 1. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/ACTA 2. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/frances-g8-focuses-on-control-and-restrictio… 3. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eu-commission-sticks-to-flawed-copyright-rep… 4. Instead of strongly affirming liability exemptions and why there are important, the draft calls for their active involvement in law enforcement:.The draft reads “Internet intermediaries, like other stakeholders, can and do play an important role by addressing and deterring illegal activity, fraud and misleading and unfair practices conducted over their networks and services as well as advancing economic growth.” ** About la Quadrature du Net ** La Quadrature du Net is an advocacy group that promotes the rights and freedoms of citizens on the Internet. More specifically, it advocates for the adaptation of French and European legislations to respect the founding principles of the Internet, most notably the free circulation of knowledge. In addition to its advocacy work, the group also aims to foster a better understanding of legislative processes among citizens. Through specific and pertinent information and tools, La Quadrature du Net hopes to encourage citizens' participation in the public debate on rights and freedoms in the digital age. La Quadrature du Net is supported by French, European and international NGOs including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Open Society Institute and Privacy International. List of supporting organisations : http://www.laquadrature.net/en/they-support-squaring-net-la-quadrature-du-n… ** Press contact and press room ** Jérémie Zimmermann, jz(a)laquadrature.net, +33 (0)615 940 675 http://www.laquadrature.net/en/press-room _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k(a)lists.keionline.org http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org

1 0

Assessing State aid for films and other audiovisual works
by Philippe Aigrain June 28, 2011

June 28, 2011

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/757&format=HTM http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2011_state_aid_films/issues_p… Press release + Issues paper and associated consultation (ending 30.09.2011) Some significant elements: - The issues paper is available also in ODF - Volume of support and production: (11) The EU Member States provide an estimated €2.3 billion per year in film support: €1.3 billion in grants and soft loans, €1 billion in tax incentives1. Around 80% of this is for film production. (12) The EU has become one of the largest producers of films in the world: 1,168 feature films were produced in the EU in 2009 (compared to 677 produced in the US and 456 produced in China)2. The main Member States providing film support are France, UK, Germany, Italy and Spain. - Competition to attract large production from US companies (29) As mentioned in paragraph (5), in 2009, the Commission had identified "competition among some Member States to use State aid to attract inward investment from large-scale, mainly US, film production companies" (ie, a subsidy race) as a trend which would require some refinement of the State aid assessment criteria. This trend appears to have continued since then. (30) International film production companies, mainly based in the US, operate on a global basis and are able to choose between a very wide range of alternative locations. Blockbusters and other major international productions are extremely mobile. Nature of support : Should the current maximum overall aid intensity remain as 50% of the production budget, with higher aid intensities for difficult and low budget films? If activities other than production are to be covered by the Communication as well, would it be appropriate to set the maximum overall aid intensity as 50% of the total project budget (covering script-writing, development, pre-production, principal photography, post-production, distribution, promotion and marketing costs)? Digital revolution : (54) The existing structures and business models present a problem of over-production of European films compared to the demand for such films which can be satisfied using conventional distribution practices. So perhaps it is opportune for Europe to explore innovative alternatives applying the internet and digital production and distribution techniques. It is worth noting that most of the independent filmmakers successfully using these alternative approaches are based in the US. and last not but least: Should conditions on production support be imposed to encourage a smooth digital transition, such as ensuring that a digital master is produced and requiring that publicly-funded works are released under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike1 licences? Should distribution support cover distribution on all platforms (ie, not only, for example, for releasing in cinemas)?

1 0

Appello per InternetCulturale.it: rispettate il pubblico dominio
by J.C. DE MARTIN June 28, 2011

June 28, 2011

E' online il portale della cultura italiana http://InternetCulturale.it. La dott.ssa Rosa Caffo ne aveva parlato il 9 giugno durante l'incontro con Robert Darnton e adesso vedo che e' online. A un primo giro mi sembra molto bello. Se vado alla pagina "Termini d'uso" (deformazione professionale), scopro che e' ancora vuota: http://www.internetculturale.it/opencms/opencms/it/main/chisiamo/uso/ Dal momento che evidentemente ci stanno ancora pensando, mi permetto di fare *un appello alla dott.ssa Rosa Caffo e in generale al Ministero dei Beni Culturali: per favore rispettate i principi del Manifesto del Pubblico Dominio, http://publicdomainmanifesto.org/italian.* In particolare, cio' che e' nel pubblico dominio resti nel pubblico dominio. Cosa ne pensate? Un caro saluto, juan carlos

2 1

Digital Agenda Scoreboard
by de petra giulio June 28, 2011

June 28, 2011

Forse conoscete già questi dati recenti, ma il posizionamento dell'Italia nelle classifiche europee dell'Agenda Digitale è davvero un indicatore interessante... Mi sembra di ricordare che Brunetta, tra un incontro con i precari e l'altro. abbia dichiarato che l'Italia è prima in Europa nelle classifiche dell'e-government (sic!). Bene, guardate la tabella a pag. 14. Giulio De Petra

1 0

CSISAC Statement on OECD Communique on Internet Policy Making Principles
by J.C. DE MARTIN June 28, 2011

June 28, 2011

/June 28th, 2011 / EFF Declines to Endorse OECD Communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy-Making <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-declines-endorse-oecd-communiqu-p…> /News Update <https://www.eff.org/blog-categories/news-update> by Katitza Rodriguez <https://www.eff.org/about/staff/katitza-rodriguez>/ EFF has joined with a coalition of more than 80 global civil society groups which have declined to endorse a set of Internet Policy Principles presented today in Paris by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development <http://www.oecd.org/site/0,3407,en_21571361_47081080_1_1_1_1_1,00.html> (OECD). EFF and the other members of the OECD's Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council <http://csisac.org> (CSISAC) were unwilling to accept the high profile OECD Communiqué on Internet Policy-making because it could encourage states to use Internet intermediaries to police online content, undermining freedom of expression, privacy and innovation across the world. EFF and CSISAC urge OECD member countries to adopt policies that protect the open Internet and affirm existing limits on the liability of Internet intermediaries. We oppose legal and policy frameworks that encourage Internet intermediaries to filter and block online content or disconnect Internet users under a "graduated response" system after alleged copyright violations. Civil society calls on OECD member states to defend free expression and support due process and procedural safeguards in the protection of intellectual property rights. Following is the press release issued by CSISAC today, and a more detailed explanation of CSISAC members' concerns with the text of the Communique is available here <https://www.eff.org/issues/international/attachments/csisac-statement-oecd-…>. *Civil Society Coalition Declines to Endorse OECD Communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy-Making; Urges OECD to Reject "Voluntary" Steps For Filtering and Blocking of Online Content * Paris -- The Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (CSISAC) today declined to endorse an OECD Communiqué on Internet Policy-making principles. CSISAC believes that the Communiqué, which was presented today at the OECD's High Level Meeting on the Internet Economy in Paris, could undermine online freedom of expression, freedom of information, the right to privacy, and innovation across the world. The OECD Communiqué covers a broad range of current Internet policy issues, CSISAC supports many of the proposed principles, in particular, policies that support the open, interoperable Internet, and multi-stakeholder policy development processes. CSISAC strongly supports OECD multistakeholder policy development processes and sees much value in working at the OECD. While CSISAC appreciates the efforts made by the OECD Secretariat and various OECD member states to accommodate CSISAC's concerns with the draft Communiqué, CSISAC was not able to accept the final draft's over-emphasis on intellectual property enforcement at the expense of fundamental freedoms, and its movement away from the longstanding principle in many OECD countries' laws of granting "mere conduit" online service providers limitations on liability for the actions of their users. The final Communiqué advises OECD countries to adopt policy and legal frameworks that make Internet intermediaries responsible for taking lawful steps to deter copyright infringement. This approach could create incentives for Internet intermediaries to delete or block contested content, and lead to network filtering, which would harm online expression. In addition, as has already happened in at least one country, Internet intermediaries could voluntarily adopt "graduated response" policies under which Internet users' access could be terminated based solely on repeated allegations of infringement. CSISAC believes that these measures contradict international and European human rights law. CSISAC is also concerned about limits on access guarantees to "lawful" content and references to lawful behaviour throughout the Communiqué. This language ostensibly would require Internet intermediaries or other private parties and interests to make determinations about the legality of content and of user behavior on their platforms and networks. Internet intermediaries are neither competent nor appropriate parties to make such rulings., CSISAC believes Internet intermediaries should not be responsible for identifying infringement and enforcing intellectual property rights, and requiring them to do so compromises transparency, accountability and due process. All restrictions must be based on court orders obtained after due process and judicial review. CSISAC notes that the direction of some of the text in the Communiqué is inconsistent with the approach taken by other intergovernmental organizations including the United Nations and the Council of Europe, and could result in divergent regulatory approaches across countries, undermining the stated goal of the Communiqué to provide assistance to policymakers in OECD member states. In his 2011 Report to the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression has specifically criticized national laws that impose liability on Internet intermediaries if they do not agree to adopt filtering and blocking measures. Furthermore, the Rapporteur has stated that cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including alleged violations of intellectual property rights, is disproportionate and thus a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Council of Europe has previously published in 2008 Recommendations to member states and Guidelines to Internet intermediaries on measures to promote the respect for freedom of expression and information with regard to Internet filters and in 2007 Recommendations on measures to promote the public service value of the Internet. It is in the process of publishing a Declaration on Internet Governance Principles. CSISAC supports the strong emphasis on the need for multi-stakeholder process regarding the development of Internet policy. CSISAC recognizes that several international bodies and organizations are currently discussing whether and how to regulate the Internet at the global level. Unlike such intergovernmental meetings such as the recent eG8 and G8 events, in which civil society was not invited to participate, the OECD has demonstrated commitment to developing Internet policies in a genuine multi-stakeholder process. CSISAC calls on OECD member states to take a stand to combat digital censorship and uphold international human rights standards, including the fundamental rights to freedom of expression, to freedom of information, to privacy and to the protection of personal data, which are the cornerstones of democracy. Any Internet policy guidelines developed by the OECD should be grounded in legal principles that are widely accepted, and be compliant with international human rights standards. It is inappropriate for such guidelines to be derived from ad hoc regulations and policy experiments that have been adopted in a small number of countries, especially since the impact of these regulations is still far from clear. We invite member states of the OECD to protect the open Internet and make a public commitment to opposing Internet filtering and blocking by intermediaries, to affirm existing limitations on intermediaries' liability, and to support due process and judicial review of allegedly illegal content and behavior. A more detailed explanation of CSISAC members' concerns with the text of the Communique is available here <https://www.eff.org/issues/international/attachments/csisac-statement-oecd-…>. *About OECD:* The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development is an intergovernmental body that produces economic and policy analysis and promotes policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world. The OECD provides a forum in which its 34 member governments can work together to share experiences and seek solutions to common problems. Its reports and recommendations are highly influential and have formed the basis for national laws and policies in its member states. More information is available here <http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_36734052_36734103_1_1_1_1_1,00.html> *About CSISAC:* CSISAC is a coalition of more than 80 civil society groups and several concerned individuals from across the globe that, since 2009, has provided input into the development of OECD policies relating to the Internet, and formally represents the civil society perspective at certain OECD meetings. More information is available at: CSISAC's website <http://csisac.org> Contact: liaison(a)csisac.org <mailto:liaison@csisac.org>

1 0

Carta indispensabile? era: "The End of Paper Books"
by M. Fioretti June 28, 2011

June 28, 2011

(chiedo scusa se lo ricevete due volte, ho avuto un crash del server e non so se quando è ripartito ha ripulito la coda o no) On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 07:49:24 AM +0200, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > La predizione che vedere un libro di carta sara' come vedere un > leone e' secondo me sbagliata (e di parecchio), ma il resto e' > interessante, anche perche' non sapevo che Kahle avesse gia' > iniziato a fare qualcosa che solo di recente ho capito essere > indispensabile, puntare sulla carta per long-term storage. > > The End of Paper Books > http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/06/20/0158255/The-End-of-Paper-Books J.C., (ma la domanda vale per tutti, ovviamente, grazie) posso chiederti, visto che l'argomento mi interessa molto in generale, per quali motivi, esattamente, *tu*: 1) pensi sia indispensabile "puntare sulla carta per long-term storage" 2) lo hai capito *solo di recente*? Come mai? Cosa è successo? Curiosamente, Marco F. -- Digital Citizenship basics: http://mfioretti.com/node/129

1 0

LA REPUBBLICA: Stallman, hacker e indignati "Società digitale, quanti rischi"
by a.dicorinto＠uniroma1.it June 27, 2011

June 27, 2011

1 0

Stallman all'hackmeeting 2011
by Emanuele Lerro June 27, 2011

June 27, 2011

Un sunto dell'intervento di Stallman per chi se lo fosse perso: http://www.itespresso.it/lurlo-di-richard-stallman-allhackmeeting-2011-5279… Saluti, e.

2 1