- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Fwd: Corte UE: DIRITTO D'AUTORE: il provider blocchi l'accesso dei suoi clienti a siti che lo violano (sentenza C-314/12)

by Marco Ciurcina

FYI --------- Messaggio inoltrato --------- Ad un fornitore di accesso a Internet può essere ordinato di bloccare l'accesso dei suoi abbonati ad un sito web che viola il diritto d'autore Una tale ingiunzione e la sua esecuzione devono, tuttavia, garantire un giusto equilibrio tra i diritti fondamentali interessati (Sentenza nella causa C-314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH / Constantin Film Verleih GmbH e Wega Filmsproduktionsgesellschaft mbH) Immagini della pronuncia della sentenza sono disponibili su «Europe by Satellite<http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/home/index_en.cfm?>» * (+32) 2 2964106 In allegato il comunicato stampa in italiano.

March 27, 2014

Cloud computing e governi: uno studio del Berkman Center (Harvard) con il contributo del Centro Nexa

by Giuseppe Futia

Il Berkman Center for Internet & Society <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/> della Harvard University, in stretta collaborazione con il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società <http://nexa.polito.it/> del Politecnico di Torino, la Keio University <http://www.keio.ac.jp/> (Giappone), la University of St. Gallen <http://www.unisg.ch/> (Svizzera), e altre istituzioni, ha recentemente pubblicato uno studio dal titolo "Governments and Cloud Computing: Roles, Approaches, and Policy Considerations <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/9069>". Gli autori della ricerca, che ha avuto inizio nel 2010, sono *Urs Gasser* (Harvard University - Berkman Center for Internet & Society; University of St. Gallen) e *David O'Brien* (Harvard University - Berkman Center for Internet & Society). A partire da una revisione di un numero rappresentativo di strategie di cloud computing sviluppate dai governi di tutto il mondo (Stati Uniti, Regno Unito, Unione Europea e Giappone), lo studio individua i diversi ruoli che, per lo più implicitamente, vengono assunti dai governi nel contesto di queste strategie. Il contributo del Centro Nexa, coordinato dal co-direttore *Juan Carlos De Martin*, è avvenuto in concomitanza con la permanenza di *Alessandro Mantelero*, direttore della privacy del Centro Nexa, presso il Berkman Center in veste di Visiting Researcher. Mantelero si è occupato di uno studio sulla normativa UE in merito al cloud computing e, nello specifico, all'analisi del profilo sui flussi di dati transfrontalieri. Lo studio è disponibile sul sito dello "European Journal of Law and Technology <http://ejlt.org//article/view/96>".

March 27, 2014

Italian Scratch Festival 2014

by Alessandro Mantelero

Segnalo l'iniziativa che segue, nel caso potesse interessare qualcuno in in lista. AM --- segue il messaggio inoltrato (the forwarded message follows) ---

March 27, 2014

Fw: La UE ci boccia la banda larga

by Mariella Berra

> > http://www.corrierecomunicazioni.it/pa-digitale/26664_fondi-banda-larga-la-… > >

March 26, 2014

Re: [nexa] Fwd: MARCO CIVIL approved in the Br House!!!

by Antonella Giulia Pizzaleo

Cari tutti, grazie Juan Carlos e Stefania per le mail. Vi allego la Dichiarazione Congiunta Italia-Brasile sull'Internet Bill of Rights che - come scrive Stefania e come ricorderanno anche Fiorello Cortiana, il Prof. Rodotà e Carlos Affonso (sì con due f non è un errore) con i quali stilammo il testo - fu firmata nel 2007 dal Governo italiano e quello brasiliano, rispettivamente rappresentati dal Sottosegretario alle Comunicazioni Vimercati e dal Ministro della Cultura Gilberto Gil. La proposta di un Internet Bill of Rights risale più precisamente al 2006, quando fu avanzata dal Governo Italiano (rappresentato allora dal Sottosegretario alla PA e Innovazione Tecnologica Beatrice Magnolfi) e dal gruppo di esperti nominati dal governo coordinati da Rodotà di cui facevano parte tra gli altri Cortiana, Stefano Trumpy, Laura Abba (anche Isoc Italia), Joy Marino, Vittorio Bertola, Matilde Ferraro, io come Consigliere del Ministro. La proposta dell'Internet Bill of Rights perfezionata e promossa dal Prof. Rodotà raccoglie un lavoro precedente svolto dalla rappresentanza italiana al World Summit on Information Society di Tunisi. Nel 2006 durante il primo IGF di Atene la proposta italiana portò alla nascita della Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles. L'anno successivo si concretizzò nell'iniziativa governativa della Dichiarazione Congiunta Italia-Brasile. Iniziativa che ebbe peraltro un riscontro e rilievo più che positivi: le Nazioni Unite in una sessione plenaria dell'IGF ci citarono come esempio da seguire e molti altri Paesi (tra cui Argentina, Messico, Ecuador ma anche India e Regno Unito) si dichiararono molto interessati all'accordo. Con i Paesi del America Latina gli accordi per la firma della Dichiarazione erano già in fase avanzata quando la fine del Governo Prodi fece naufragare tutto. Con il Governo Berlusconi si riuscì a non disperdere il lavoro avviato a livello nazionale che portò alla luce l'IGF Italia (il primo fu promosso dalla Presidenza del Consiglio e dal Governo), ma andò perduta la parte internazionale. Successivamente il dibattito sull'Internet Bill of Rights, per vari motivi, non ha avuto il sostegno necessario per rimanere un tema centrale nel dibattito italiano, nonostante molti anche presenti in questa lista (Vincenzo Vita, Juan Carlos con Nexa, Arturo, Isoc Italia, e tanti altri) abbiano condotto battaglie sui diritti della rete. A livello governativo è stata proprio Stefania Milan, Consigliere presso il Miur del Ministro Profumo, a riprendere il tema con il lancio della Consultazione Pubblica sui Diritti Fondamentali della Rete. Credo anche io che possa essere opportuno in questo momento riprendere il tema, anche considerando quanto si muove in ambito internazionale. Scusate la lunghezza della mail, spero sia di interesse. Vi saluto, Antonella 2014-03-26 10:25 GMT+01:00 Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan(a)eui.eu>: > Cari tutti > > grazie Juan Carlos per aver condiviso la buona notizia! > > Pero' forse nella gioia generale, vale la pena ricordare che il processo > che ha portato al Marco Civil in Brasile, e' stato inaugurato nel lontano > 2007 da un accordo Italia/Brasile su un internet bill of rights. Varrebbe > la pena anche cercare di capire perche' mentre di la' qualcosa (buono > anche se imperfetto) e' stato portato a casa, di qua dell'oceano il > processo e' stato affossato rapidamente (fare riferimento ai frequenti > cambi di governo nostrani non vale!) > > > In rete gira ancora il pdf dell'accordo tra Gilberto Gil, allora > ministro della cultura, e il nostro sottosegretario Vimercati. Poiche' non > riesco a trovarlo (ma qualcuno di voi era presente, e sapra' come > riesumarlo), due link sull'evento, raccattati velocemente da Google: > > - > http://www.theinformationdaily.com/2007/11/23/italy-brazil-agreement-for-an… > - http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2007/11/the-italo-brazi/ > > Sarebbe bello rivitalizzare il dibattito anche per il nostro paese, e' > l'occasione giusta, quest'anno se ne vedranno delle belle in ambito > internet governance! (date un'occhiata a quello che sta succedendo ad > ICANN, questi giorni a Singapore, per capire come, per dire, verra' gestita > la questione della transizione delle funzioni IANA. Tra parentesi, ho > incontrato parecchi italiani ad ICANN, e fa sempre piacere! C'e' anche il > MISE). > > Saluti, Stefania > Executive Committee, Non-Commercial User Constituency, ICANN > Steering Committeee, /1net > > ---------------------- > Stefania Milan, PhD > Data J Lab || Tilburg University, the Netherlands || http://datajlab.nl > || > The Citizen Lab || Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto > || http://citizenlab.org || > European University Institute || www.protestsurvey.eu/ || > Center for Media and Communication Studies, Central European University || > www.cmcs.ceu.hu || > International Association for Media and Communication Research - > International Council member and Co-Chair, Communication Policy Task Force > || www.iamcr.org || > Executive Committee, Non-Commercial User Constituency, ICANN > mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 > - 2309945 (I) > http://stefaniamilan.net/ > ------------------------------ > *Da:* nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it < > nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it> per conto di J.C. DE MARTIN < > demartin(a)polito.it> > *Inviato:* mercoledì 26 marzo 2014 09.30 > *A:* Nexa Center > *Oggetto:* [nexa] Fwd: MARCO CIVIL approved in the Br House!!! > > Dopo anni di sforzi da parte della società civile brasiliana > (con in prima fila i nostri amici di Rio, membri della Rete globale > di Centri Internet & Società, di cui fa parte anche il Centro Nexa) > e il sostegno costante dell'illuminato On. Alessandro Molon, > la Camera dei Deputati brasiliana ha approvato il Marco Civil, > ovvero, una sorta di "bill of rights" per Internet. > Qui sotto i dettagli. > > La legge deve essere ancora approvata dal Senato > (il Brasile, poverini, è antiquato, hanno ancora - pensate - > il bicameralismo...), ma intanto è una importante vittoria > per i diritti digitali in quell'importante paese. > > juan carlos > > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: MARCO CIVIL approved in the > Br House!!! Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:41:36 -0400 From: Carolina > Rossini <carolina.rossini(a)GMAIL.COM> <carolina.rossini(a)GMAIL.COM> Reply-To: > Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini(a)GMAIL.COM> <carolina.rossini(a)GMAIL.COM> > > Dear all, > > (OMG!) > > As we have received so much support from the international community, > I'm happy to let you know that Marco Civil has just been approved at the > Brazilian Chamber of Deputies. Now we need to approve it in the Senate. > > This is the final version of the text: > > http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?codteor=1238705… > > Of course, the text is not perfect and we still have to fight for > changes on data retention. Nevertheless, its a happy day for many of the > Brazilian civil society organizations mobilized for approving a bill of > rights for the Internet. A lot of very good people have been engaged and > doing an amazing job in Brasilia and on the social networks, without giving > up, despite of the never ending vote-not vote soap opera. #FeelingProud :) > OMG! > > I would like to thank you for all the support received to far, as > international pressure have helped as well. > > This is also a good step for NetMundial. > > all the best > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini(a)gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, > forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this > information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is > prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received > this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the > material from any computer. > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > -- Antonella Giulia Pizzaleo mobile: +39 3496064133 email: pizzaleo(a)gmail.com skype: antonellagiulia

March 26, 2014

Fwd: [IP] Zittrain: The misguided freakout over ICANN

by J.C. DE MARTIN

(Sent from my tiny-screen wireless device; excuse brevity or typos) Begin forwarded message: > From: Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> > Date: 26 marzo 2014 12:35:02 CET > To: "ip" <ip(a)listbox.com> > Subject: [IP] Zittrain: The misguided freakout over ICANN > Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Richard Forno <rforno(a)infowarrior.org> > Date: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 > Subject: Zittrain: The misguided freakout over ICANN > To: Infowarrior List <infowarrior(a)attrition.org> > Cc: Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> > > > No, Barack Obama Isn't Handing Control of the Internet Over to China > BY JONATHAN ZITTRAIN > > http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117093/us-withdraws-icann-why-its-no-big… > > On March 14, the U.S. government announced that it would seek to relinquish a privileged role in the management of Internet names and numbers. An organization called ICANN—the non-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers—is to continue doing what it’s doing without maintaining an ongoing contract with the Department of Commerce to do it. And what does ICANN do? It helps keep IP addresses in order, ensuring that each address—used to let parties on the Internet identify one another—is not assigned more than once. And it facilitates the addition of “top level domains,” those suffixes like .com, .org, .uk, and more recently, .clothing, which, with a concatenation of names to their left, become the names for nearly all online destinations, including newrepublic.com. A receding role for the U.S. government has been anticipated for over a decade, and the move is both wise and of little impact. Some reaction has been surprisingly alarmist. > > A Wall Street Journal columnist described it as “America’s Internet surrender.” Said one member of Congress: “Giving up control of ICANN will allow countries like China and Russia, that don’t place the same value in freedom of speech, to better define how the internet looks and operates.” > > From a former Bush administration official in the Daily Caller: “This is the Obama equivalent of Carter’s decision to give away the Panama Canal—only with possibly much worse consequences.” (Namely, to “endanger the security of both the Internet and the U.S.—and open the door to a global tax on Web use.”) And Newt Gingrich: “Every American should worry about Obama giving up control of the internet to an undefined group. This is very, very dangerous.” > > The venerable information technology publication The Register summed it up this way: “US govt: You, ICANN. YOU can run the internet. We quit.” And from the National Journal: “When U.S. Steps Back, Will Russia and China Control the Internet?” As Betteridge’s Law of Headlines suggests, the answer is no. Indeed, the truth is much less salacious—and far more interesting—than any of the reactions above. > > To understand why, we need to talk about the difference between owned and unowned technologies. Owned technologies are easy to grasp, because they’re so prevalent. They’re technologies that are developed and shaped by a defined group, usually someone selling it. The original AT&T phone system was an owned technology—and so are its descendants like Verizon landline services and mobile phone networks. TV broadcasting is owned, in the sense that governments around the world have asserted power over the airwaves that permeate their territories, deciding who can use what bandwidth and why—and those with licenses then, with exceptions determined by regulators, decide what to broadcast. If you’re reading this article on a digital device, chances are good that its hardware is owned—Apple or HP or Lenovo designed and built it—and so, too, is its operating system, whether iOS, Android, or Windows. > > If any of these technologies were to break, we’d turn to their vendors for an explanation and a fix. If a government wanted to affect how they work, it would seek to pressure or outright require certain changes—the way that, for example, the U.S. Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act requires AT&T and Verizon to design their telephone networks to be responsive to lawful wiretap orders. > > But owned isn’t the whole story. Occasionally unowned configurations emerge. In 1983, we might have assumed that walled gardens such as CompuServe and America Online would keep being the way we communicate with one another—classic, owned information services for which we paid for access by the minute. But something odd happened: An experimental network, subsidized by the U.S. National Science Foundation, shaped by researchers at universities and corporate think tanks, came about. This Internet was meant to provide compatibility among any number of smaller networks, and unlike CompuServe and its siblings, it had no CEO, business plan, or budget. CompuServe and AOL become mere ways to access the Internet, rather than their original incarnations as globe-spanning one-stop information shops whose subscribers could be reached only by special arrangement with them. > > Access CompuServe and you’d be asked for an ID and password to prove you’re a paying subscriber, and then you’d be shown a main menu of content and activities selected by CompuServe to appeal to you. By comparison, when you access the Internet, there’s nothing: no main menu, no meter from the overarching network, and no persistent identity upon it. (That’s why various Web sites fight one another to be the home page of your browser.) The Internet was less a particular set of hardware and more a set of protocols. You are simply assigned a number—which is not really meant to identify you personally—that lets you reach out to any other number on the network with bits. > > But it turns out that for the Internet to work, certain functions benefit greatly from a little centralized record keeping. To surf the Net with your unique number, it helps greatly if that number isn’t already assigned to someone else—assign it twice and bits can get confused as they wend their way towards you (or is it towards your doppelganger?). Same problem with phone numbers: they shouldn’t belong to more than one pizza shop at a time. So someone had to maintain a master list of IP addresses for the simple purpose of not handing them out twice. That someone was Jon Postel, a computer scientist who in essence drew the short straw to have to keep track. As the Internet’s protocols were written up it seemed a little informal to say with a technical document, “Well, a guy named Jon performs this function,” so Jon was labeled to be something much more official-sounding: The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, or IANA. No official paperwork was filed; nothing was incorporated. Still no CEO. Just IANA. Jon also helped get domain names going, so we could visit mnemonic-sounding addresses like www.newrepublic.com instead of 166.78.85.160. (Both work, though – try it!) > > Jon asked various colleagues to manage lists like all those names ending in .com, and others ending in .org, etc. He maintained a list, called the root, of those names. It was Jon who agreed to create .uk for those interested in United Kingdom-themed domain names. When he realized that domain names were taking on real meaning to people, he looked for other ways to create names rather than just deciding on his own. (For countries, he found a list of country names maintained by the International Standards Organization and stuck to it—creating names for lots of peoples whose governments hadn’t formally asked for them.) And when disputes came up, he looked for consensus to settle them, such as when there was objection over the person originally entrusted to maintain names under .pn, for Pitcairn Island, population 50. (The objection was lodged by the entire adult population of Pitcairn Island, with the exception of the trustee and his wife.) It took years to settle the issue. > > By 1997 it was clear that having Jon simply run numbering and names, however fairly, was tricky. Entrepreneurs stood to gain millions should they be entrusted to register names in a new domain like .web or .chef. How to decide how many more to create and who would get them? The U.S. government, in the form of the Department of Commerce, began a process to create a “new IANA,” one supported by the Internet as a whole. This was seen as consistent with the idea of privatizing the Internet. But note that this process skated over the U.S. government’s authority to choose a new shepherd to begin with. Why was a new leader something for the U.S. government to designate? It wasn’t as if there were local airwaves over which the government claimed power. The only real hook was that American funding had subsidized the creation of Internet protocols—but these were grants, not fee-for-service; subsidies, not permission. And the small fees the government awarded to companies that maintained the domain name databases—after Jon found it boring to maintain on his own—were ones that the companies would be delighted to simply waive, charging Internet users directly instead. > > In reality, the U.S. government got to choose for two reasons, neither of which had to do with any legal authority. First, the government made sure that there wasn’t really a choice for anyone to make: the ultimate ballot it was to cast had only one entry on it. When three entities stepped forward to be the new IANA, the Department of Commerce persuaded them to negotiate with one another until only one proposal was left. Choosing something from a list of one is not controversial. Second, nearly everyone concerned about the future of the Internet wanted certainty and stability. So the U.S. government’s “decision” to recognize ICANN as the new IANA in 1998 was welcomed as a rallying cry to get a move on with the allocation of numbers and names. ICANN, a California non-profit, had a Byzantine set of by-laws to make Madison proud: Board members were appointed from various constituencies (“stakeholders” in governance parlance) and from various regions of the world. But it is not run by the governments of the world. Many had seen the way the UN operated and had little interest in replicating it. And in 1998, the U.S. government’s recognition of ICANN took the form of a cooperative agreement between ICANN and the Commerce Department spelling out certain minimal responsibilities–and a nominal way for the U.S. government to pull the plug if something went terribly wrong. > > With this background in mind, we can process the news that the U.S. government is letting that agreement ultimately lapse. > > First, the U.S. government control so far has had minimal impact on how ICANN has operated. For example, there was some consternation within the U.S. Congress about the creation of a .xxx domain, which was within ICANN’s purview to create. This likely delayed .xxx, but it didn’t stop it. And that accords with the government’s role in ICANN’s creation: Had it tried to be more heavy-handed, it’s not clear that it could have pulled off the move to a new IANA. Whoever newly contracts with ICANN for these IANA functions—yes, once again the U.S. government has vaguely called for a new organization to step up—will be similarly constrained. So there’s no obvious place for Russia or China to take control. > > Second, the plausible ways in which ICANN could trample free speech are narrow. ICANN does not itself hand out domain names—it only designates who runs each list of names. ICANN does not directly “shut down” names or otherwise deal in individual decisions. So far it has established procedures in some domains for trademark-like disputes to play out. But these are only over domain names themselves—not over claims of behavior taking place more generally on a Web site. Register gap.clothing and be prepared to justify your action through an ICANN-approved process; sell fake Gap clothing on your website goodclothes.clothing and that process won’t have anything to say about it. Any attempt to impose broad-based censorship through domain name assignments would be met with stiff resistance by the operators of domain name registries, and ultimately by the Internet Service Providers who choose to consult those registries for information about what destination each name represents. Anyone trying to tighten the screws too much will simply strip them. > > Taxes? ICANN takes a cut of fees generated by registering and renewing names for many domains like .com and many new ones in the process of being unveiled—so much so that ICANN enjoys tens of millions of dollars in income each year—but it doesn’t and can’t otherwise impose a “tax on Internet use.” > > Thus last week’s news is simply about symbolism. Having the U.S. nominally, but not really, controlling the modest functions of top-level numbering and name assignments provided ammunition to those who think the Internet should be utterly stateless—some of whom, oddly enough, might favor turning over ICANN’s functions to the International Telecommunications Union, which is an arm of the United Nations and has states as its members. To eliminate this symbolic U.S. involvement, an action envisioned from the moment of ICANN’s creation, helps address that complaint, while costing nothing. As ICANN’s own Q-and-A on the topic put it: > > How does this announcement affect the individual Internet user? > > This announcement does not affect Internet users and their use of the Internet. However, all Internet users have a stake in how the Internet is run, and it is therefore important to get involved. > > Confusing: Nothing to see here, but Internet governance matters, so go on and get involved. Such are the puzzles of unowned technologies. They can become incalculably powerful even with no one at the helm—or perhaps precisely because of it. Numbering and naming is a tiny part of the Internet, and governing it is of interest mostly because it’s one of the few things we can point to where decisions can be made. But these decisions happen by consensus, and are implemented one ISP and router at a time, rather than some kind of fiat. You may be reading this article at newrepublic.com, and if you are, you’re here because your ISP, your operating system vendor, your browser maker and you are agreeing to map that name to this online place. Any could change it, notwithstanding actions of governments and institutions like ICANN. Internet protocols at large aren’t implemented through anyone’s fiat; they are generated through open processes channeled through unincorporated organizations like the Internet Engineering Task Force (motto: “We reject kings, presidents, and voting: we believe in rough consensus and running code”), and then implemented through the actions of hardware and software makers. > > The Internet is a collective hallucination, one of the best humanity has ever generated. To be sure, it is delicate in many ways, with its unowned character threatened from many quarters. But rest easy that ICANN isn’t one of them. > > Jonathan Zittrain is a professor of law and professor of computer science at Harvard University, and author of The Future of the Internet – And How to Stop It. He is a former trustee of the Internet Society, which facilitates the work of the Internet Engineering Task Force. He served on a membership advisory committee to ICANN in 1998, testified to Congress about it in 2000, and was among the authors of the Berkman Center’s 2010 report done at the request of ICANN, “Accountability and Transparency at ICANN: An Independent Review.” > > --- > Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. > > > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now

March 26, 2014

NETmundial / European Commission to facilitate a conference call for information sharing

by Andrea Glorioso

[ *Apologies if you receive this message multiple times. Please share with your contacts.* ] In view of the forthcoming Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETMundial, http://www.netmundial.br/) which will take place in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on 23-24 April 2014, the European Commission is organising an open conference call, with the purpose of sharing information among stakeholders. The online meeting will be facilitated by the European Commission, but we do expect stakeholders to actively contribute to the conversation. We kindly ask those who plan to attend the conference call and would like to share their views with other participants, possibly on the basis of their / their organisation's contribution to NETmundial, to *let us know in advance*so that we can allocate a fair number of slots for interventions. Details of the conference call (phone numbers, PIN, and Adobe Connect data) are below: - Date: 8 April 201 - Time: 11:00 - 13:00 (CET) - Telephone number: 02 808 1363 (if calling from Belgium - for a list of international number, please see the attached PDF document) - Conference room number: 1327846 - Adobe Connect URL: http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/ag4682/ (please note that you do *NOT* need to use Adobe Connect to participate in the teleconference - it's offered as an option) As background information, you might want to go through the contributions which have been submitted to NETmundial. They are available at http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs. The European Commission has submitted two contributions, which are available at http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles/17… http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-e volution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/177. Thanks for your kind attention. We hope you will join us for this discussion. Best regards, -- 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

March 26, 2014

Comunicazione di servizio. Prossima Chiusura delle iscrizioni al Convegno del 31 MARZO 2014 alla sala del Mappamondo. " Internet e libertà d'espressione".

by Fulvio Sarzana

Egregi Colleghi, dato laltissimo numero di soggetti che hanno richiesto di essere accreditati al Convegno del 31 Marzo di cui alloggetto, Vi chiederei di affrettare la registrazione inviando una mail a <mailto:info@lidis.it> info(a)lidis.it, chiamando il numero 06 3211553 o registrandosi on line al sito http://news.lidis.it/. Diversamente, non saremo in grado di garantire la presenza degli accreditati. Cordialità Fulvio Sarzana ************************************* 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 . --- Questa e-mail è priva di virus e malware perché è attiva la protezione avast! Antivirus. http://www.avast.com

March 26, 2014

Copyright & Co.: internet e libertà d'espressione. Il 31 marzo Convegno a Roma

by A Dicorinto

#ddaonline, internet e libertà d'espressione. Il 31 marzo Convegno a Roma Leggi, ruolo della politica e di Agcom al centro del convegno che si terrà a Roma il prossimo 31 marzo in occasione dell'entrata in vigore del Regolamento sul diritto d'autore online. http://www.key4biz.it/News/2014/03/25/Policy/ddaonline_internet_liberta_d%2… -- Arturo Di Corinto 393 9383040 ---------------------------------> AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003 Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio, per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003

March 26, 2014

Re: [nexa] Fwd: MARCO CIVIL approved in the Br House!!!

by Milan, Stefania

Cari tutti grazie Juan Carlos per aver condiviso la buona notizia! Pero' forse nella gioia generale, vale la pena ricordare che il processo che ha portato al Marco Civil in Brasile, e' stato inaugurato nel lontano 2007 da un accordo Italia/Brasile su un internet bill of rights. Varrebbe la pena anche cercare di capire perche' mentre di la' qualcosa (buono anche se imperfetto) e' stato portato a casa, di qua dell'oceano il processo e' stato affossato rapidamente (fare riferimento ai frequenti cambi di governo nostrani non vale!) In rete gira ancora il pdf dell'accordo tra Gilberto Gil, allora ministro della cultura, e il nostro sottosegretario Vimercati. Poiche' non riesco a trovarlo (ma qualcuno di voi era presente, e sapra' come riesumarlo), due link sull'evento, raccattati velocemente da Google: * http://www.theinformationdaily.com/2007/11/23/italy-brazil-agreement-for-an… * http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2007/11/the-italo-brazi/ Sarebbe bello rivitalizzare il dibattito anche per il nostro paese, e' l'occasione giusta, quest'anno se ne vedranno delle belle in ambito internet governance! (date un'occhiata a quello che sta succedendo ad ICANN, questi giorni a Singapore, per capire come, per dire, verra' gestita la questione della transizione delle funzioni IANA. Tra parentesi, ho incontrato parecchi italiani ad ICANN, e fa sempre piacere! C'e' anche il MISE). Saluti, Stefania Executive Committee, Non-Commercial User Constituency, ICANN Steering Committeee, /1net ---------------------- Stefania Milan, PhD Data J Lab || Tilburg University, the Netherlands || http://datajlab.nl || The Citizen Lab || Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto || http://citizenlab.org || European University Institute || www.protestsurvey.eu/ || Center for Media and Communication Studies, Central European University || www.cmcs.ceu.hu || International Association for Media and Communication Research - International Council member and Co-Chair, Communication Policy Task Force || www.iamcr.org || Executive Committee, Non-Commercial User Constituency, ICANN mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I) http://stefaniamilan.net/ ________________________________ Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it <nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it> per conto di J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> Inviato: mercoledì 26 marzo 2014 09.30 A: Nexa Center Oggetto: [nexa] Fwd: MARCO CIVIL approved in the Br House!!! Dopo anni di sforzi da parte della società civile brasiliana (con in prima fila i nostri amici di Rio, membri della Rete globale di Centri Internet & Società, di cui fa parte anche il Centro Nexa) e il sostegno costante dell'illuminato On. Alessandro Molon, la Camera dei Deputati brasiliana ha approvato il Marco Civil, ovvero, una sorta di "bill of rights" per Internet. Qui sotto i dettagli. La legge deve essere ancora approvata dal Senato (il Brasile, poverini, è antiquato, hanno ancora - pensate - il bicameralismo...), ma intanto è una importante vittoria per i diritti digitali in quell'importante paese. juan carlos -------- Original Message -------- Subject: MARCO CIVIL approved in the Br House!!! Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:41:36 -0400 From: Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini(a)GMAIL.COM><mailto:carolina.rossini@GMAIL.COM> Reply-To: Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini(a)GMAIL.COM><mailto:carolina.rossini@GMAIL.COM> Dear all, (OMG!) As we have received so much support from the international community, I'm happy to let you know that Marco Civil has just been approved at the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies. Now we need to approve it in the Senate. This is the final version of the text: http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?codteor=1238705… Of course, the text is not perfect and we still have to fight for changes on data retention. Nevertheless, its a happy day for many of the Brazilian civil society organizations mobilized for approving a bill of rights for the Internet. A lot of very good people have been engaged and doing an amazing job in Brasilia and on the social networks, without giving up, despite of the never ending vote-not vote soap opera. #FeelingProud :) OMG! I would like to thank you for all the support received to far, as international pressure have helped as well. This is also a good step for NetMundial. all the best -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini(a)gmail.com<mailto:carolina.rossini@gmail.com>* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

March 26, 2014