Hello, Wikimedians!
As expected, lots of busy bees have been flying around Brussels in July
trying to finish off things before the summer break. This made it a rather
long read, but I am sure there are worse things to have on your tablet on
the beach :). Anyway, enjoy the summer (or winter if you’re way south) and
see you in Hong Kong or back here in a month!
Dimi
EU Policy on Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy
tl;dr
>From a Wikimedian’s perspective, the most significant events were the
signing of two open letters as a reaction to PRISM (by WMF and WMDE) and
the Committee vote on the Collective Rights Management Directive. This is
the Directive that will decide whether it will be legal for musicians to
donate single pieces of music to our projects.
ToC
1. Prism and Data Protection - Reactions and Wikimedia actions
2. Collective Rights Management Directive - Committee vote passes
3. Licences for Europe - Inside the work groups
4. Net Neutrality - Leaked draft
5. Notice and Takedown - And now what?
6. Meet us in Hong Kong!
-----------------
-----------------
#PRISM #EUdataP
1. Prism and Data Protection - Reactions and Wikimedia actions
Why is this relevant?
As stated elsewhere, rights of privacy are necessary for intellectual
freedom [1]. As a major global information provider we are part of the
“bigger” picture.
What happened?
As announced, the Wikimedia Foundation has signed a letter urging the US
government for more transparency as a reaction to recent surveillance
debates. [2] Other signatories include Mozilla, Reporters Without Borders
and companies like Google, Facebook and Microsoft. Wikimedia Deutschland
has signed an open letter too, to “ensure respect for the fundamental right
to privacy and informational self-determination”. [3] Other signatories are
the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Creative Commons Deutschland,
Transparency International and Greenpeace. Meanwhile, there is considerable
debate in Brussels on whether Snowden could and should be nominated for the
Sakharov (freedom of thought award by European Parliament) and Nobel
prizes.
What comes next?
The Snowden case has significantly changed the landscape for the current
and future data protection and internet privacy regulations. It would be
wise to think about whether we (the Wikimedia movement) have or should have
clear positions on these topics in the future, or, whether it would be
wiser stay out of it for the most part.
-----------------
-----------------
#CRM
2. Collective Rights Management Directive - European Parliament Committee
Vote Passes
Why is this relevant?
A new Directive aiming to harmonise the rules on collective rights
management in the EU is in the making (Full name: Collective management of
copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in
musical works for online uses in the internal market). Currently, many
artists find it legally impossible to release single pieces of music under
free licenses, as collecting societies have “all or nothing”-clauses.
Additionally, in many Member States collecting societies are state-approved
monopolies, leaving no room for free choice. The current proposal might
make it possible for musicians to release even individual pieces of music
under a free licence.
What happened?
The original Commission proposal did not include the possibility for
authors to release individual works under free licenses. In the European
Parliament, Rapporteur for the lead Committee (Legal Affairs) Marielle
Gallo (EPP, FR) proposed [4] to include such an option in her draft. This
change was lost in a compromise agreement within the committee before the
the vote. However, an amendment by Christian Engström (Greens, SE) was
somewhat surprisingly accepted that will most likely allow free licensing
for individual works. [5]
What comes next?
The Legal Affairs Committee’s version is expected to be voted in the
parliament in a single reading plenary session in October. Then it will
move on to the Council, where it might again be changed. In the meantime,
it would be helpful to canvass the Member States’ (Permanent
Representatives) positions so we get a clearer picture on whether the
Engström amendment is at risk. The first possible review date for the
Permanent Representatives is the 2nd December.
Further links:
Procedure file on the CRM Directive [6]
General review of the Directive [7]
-----------------
-----------------
#L4E
3.Licences for Europe - Inside the work groups
Why is this relevant?
This is a consultation process by the European Commission on licensing of
digital content. It is seen as part of a larger initiative to completely
overhaul copyright, although there have been voices questioning the
seriousness of such an intention. Generally speaking, this dialogue must be
seen in the context of the Commission currently bargaining the agenda for a
future Copyright reform - which aspects will we be on the table in the next
few years.
What happened?
At the mid-term plenary session the work done so far in the work groups has
been presented. The most relevant group for us - User Generated Content -
has seen the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) leave the process and
being replaced by a group that claims to represent User Generated projects,
but no one has heard of.
This is currently forcing all remaining civil society organisation in the
work group to consider whether they should stay on board of a “pseudo”
discussion. Content-wise, the talk dominated by industry organisations is
going toward created more licensing for user-generated content, on top of
what we already have.
What comes next?
As Wikimedia’s core issue is user-generated content and the Commission is
looking for new civil society partners to join the consultation, it would
be useful to decide until September whether we want to participate or stay
out due to the fact that we can’t gain (almost) anything and the
credibility of the process has taken numerous hits.
Further links:
We have a file on Licences for Europe on Meta [8]
The European Commission Page [9]
The European Consumer Organisation’s letter to Commissioner Barnier [10]
-----------------
-----------------
#netneutrality
4. Network Neutrality - Leaked draft
Why is this relevant?
Our mission is to disseminate Free Knowledge globally and we do so through
our projects (internet websites). How people’s access to them is regulated
is fundamental to us.
What happened?
After years upon years of flip-flopping on the issue, Digital Commissioner
Neelie Kroes finally seemed resolute on a coherent protection of the
neutrality of the internet. [11] However, a leaked working draft of
interservice consultation process [12] goes in a completely different
direction. According to the document it would be possible for website
operators to pay internet service providers to guarantee that their sites
load faster (or others are throttled).
What comes next?
An official legislative proposal is due to be published by the Commission
by the end of the year.
Further links:
We have a Network Neutrality file on Meta that can use your help! [13]
-----------------
-----------------
#NnT
5. Notice and Takedown - And now what?
Why is this relevant?
Notice and Takedown procedures define legally who is responsible for
(allegedly) unlawful content online and how to handle such cases in
practice. It is very likely that the questions of liability will be
defined or refined if it comes to a Directive.
What happened?
It is presently unclear whether this Commission will go ahead and propose a
Takedown and Notice Directive. Regardless of that development, a
Recommendation (non-binding) is in the making and expected by the end of
the year. Meanwhile, a group of 6 MEPs has released a letter [14] urging
Commissioner Barnier to go ahead a publish a draft Directive and not hide
the obviously heated discussions by shifting focus to a Recommendation.
What comes next?
There is not enough information for the moment to know what will be
proposed and when. However, if a Recommendation is made, there is no way to
change it in Parliament and it is up to each Member State whether they want
to implement it or not.
Further links:
We have a Notice and Takedown file on Meta, which needs your help [15]
A good overview of the topic so far by IPtegrity.com [16]
-----------------
-----------------
#Wikimania
7. Meet us in Hong Kong!
Me (Dimi, a.k.a. Dimitar Dimitrov) and Niko (Nikolas Becker, WMDE Board)
will be in Hong Kong to present the EU Policy initiative and the newly
founded Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU. Meet us during the Pre-Conference
on Thursday (8th) from 12-15 for an introduction and see our presentation
titled “Hacking Brussels” on Sunday (11th) in room TU201 [17]. Also, chat
us up wherever you see us!
-----------------
-----------------
Linkography:
[1]
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=interpretations&Template=/ContentMa…
[2] https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/weneedtoknow-transparency-letter.pdf
[3]http://www.stopsurveillance.org/
[4]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/commissions/juri/projet_rapport/2013/….
amendment 36)
[5]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML….
amendments 252 and 263)
[6]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/…
[7]
http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2012/07/24/proposal-for-a-directive-on-colle…
[8]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor/L4e
[9]http://ec.europa.eu/licences-for-europe-dialogue/en/content/about-site
[10]http://blog.quintarelli.it/files/2013-00138-01-e.pdf
[11]https://twitter.com/NeelieKroesEU/statuses/340020753510563840
[12]https://netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/CONSOLIDATED-DRAFT-for-ISC-070713.pdf
[13]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor/NN
[14]
http://ameliaandersdotter.eu/sites/default/files/letter_commissioner_barnie…
[15]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor/NnT
[16]
http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php/ipred/867-will-the-eu-act-on-notice-and-…
[17]https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schedule
Please see
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/sleepwalking-into-censorship
Also I am still waiting on an answer to my question about whether it would
be prudent to ask cloud providers and hardware vendors on which the
Foundation relies to offer open source end-to-end encryption options that
would allow the Foundation to uphold its existing privacy policy
obligations internationally under the PRISM and UPSTREAM surveillance
programs.
Will such an answer be forthcoming?
Hi, all-
As some of you certainly know, Section 230 of the Communications Decency
Act[1] is a key legal tool that we use to protect speech on Wikipedia.
A group of state-level attorney generals have recently asked the US federal
government to weaken Sec. 230. A couple of organizations have weighed in on
the proposal:
CDT:
https://www.cdt.org/blogs/andrew-mcdiarmid/2507section-230-under-attack-sta…
EFF:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/state-ags-threaten-gut-cda-230-speech…
And a more academic take from Eric Goldman:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2287622&download=yes
This is fairly core to what we do, obviously, so Stephen and I are
monitoring it closely. Your involvement (questions, proposals for action,
proposals for inaction, etc.) is (as always!) welcome.
Luis
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
Luis Villa wrote:
>...
> we'll continue to look out for opportunities that make sense
> ourselves, and of course the community should always feel
> able and empowered to start things as well....
The Foundation uses Google Drive/Docs internally. And extensively so,
right? Why don't you publish a request that Google secure it such that
you are able to abide by your existing international privacy policy
obligations when using their systems, such as by developing a secure
end-to-end encrypting client for Drive, Docs, and Gmail, as they are
already rumored to be working on in
http://rt.com/usa/google-experimenting-nsa-encryption-report-230/
You could ask the same of Apple, Yahoo, Skype, Microsoft, etc. Is
there any reason this would not be prudent?
I hope your move went well.
Best regards,
James
Hi, all-
As some of you may have seen, we posted this this morning:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/18/wikimedia-foundation-letter-transparen…
Letting people know that we'd signed on to this letter:
https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/weneedtoknow-transparency-letter.pdf
Given last week's discussion here, I wanted to shed a little more light
here on why we signed this:
* Mission/Values: There has been some skepticism (like from MZ) about
whether PRISM is sufficiently related to our mission and values for us to
take action. Without getting into that general question, it is clear that
the Foundation's ability to be transparent with the community is absolutely
critical, so we thought this action was very clearly within the scope of
our mission/values.
* International: This letter is very deliberately focused on an issue
(transparency) that benefits all Wikimedians, not just Americans, and
generally uses language that matches that.
As I said last week, and mention again in the blog post, we'll continue to
look out for opportunities that make sense ourselves, and of course the
community should always feel able and empowered to start things as well.
I will be offline a good chunk of today (moving apartments - bad timing!)
but will try to monitor this thread and respond as quickly as I can to any
questions.
Thanks-
Luis
--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
The following appeared as a guest blog post for the Harvard Business Review:
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/07/a_call_to_boycott_us_tech_plat.html
A Call to Boycott U.S. Tech Platforms Over the NSA's PRISM Surveillance
by Gerd Leonhard | 10:00 AM July 16, 2013
I want to make one thing perfectly clear: this blog post is not an
attack on the U.S., and my message is not anti-American. I have lived
in the U.S. on and off for almost 12 years. I went to college in
Boston (Berklee), my kids are both U.S. citizens as well as German
citizens, and we have deep admiration for many American customs,
traits, people and places.
But ever since 9/11, the U.S. government seems to have gone down a
(until recently) secret path towards some kind of 'digital
totalitarianism', with increasing disregard for other countries'
mindsets and cultures.
The latest developments around PRISM and the NSA dragnet operations
uncovered by Edward Snowden, in my view, severely damage the fragile
fabric of the new global ecosystem, which we so sorely rely on in
order to collectively tackle truly urgent global issues such as
energy, pollution, food, climate change, (cyber-)terrorism and
inequality.
Yes, of course, as more details about the NSA's mass surveillance
activities are coming to light, it is also becoming clear that at
least the other intelligence tribe members of UKUSA — i.e. the '5
Eyes' group (the U.S., the U.K., New Zealand, Australia, Canada) are
pretty much doing the same thing, with Germany and France not far
behind. But still: at the heart of this global collusion to hoover up
every bit of information about hundreds of millions of citizens under
the pretense of fighting crime and terrorism sits the U.S. government,
so let me start there.
The past few weeks have been game-changing for the U.S./Europe
relationship, with the EU Commission already hinting at moving cloud
computing centers to Europe, many parliamentarians proposing to review
international trade agreements and data exchange practices, and German
chancellor Merkel heading towards a pre-election show-down on these
very issues. It is not actually the fact that surveillance is real
that scares Europeans, it is that now, everyone apparently is a
legitimate target — yes we scan, because we can!
Little is being done by the U.S. government to address Europe's
concerns, and most Americans seem to consider this whole affair a
non-issue. (Granted, this sentiment may be softening a bit.) See the
charts below:
[Graph: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/assets_c/2013/07/snowdensupport-4461.html ]
But, it is a big deal. And more people need to understand just how big.
For context, let's go back to 1788 and take a look at the words of
James Madison, fourth president of the United States:
"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations."
The utter disrespect with which U.S. law enforcement agencies have
violated the most basic international agreements on data security,
basic citizens' rights and even diplomatic immunity is very worrisome,
and will soon force people around the globe to rethink our
relationship with 'all things USA' — whether it's President Obama and
the U.S. government, or U.S.-based telecoms, technology companies and
internet platforms such as Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon,
Yahoo and even Dropbox.
Meanwhile, President Obama seems happy to preside over this Orwellian
affair with a newfound disregard for the basic privacy rights of
citizens, which he previously expressed with great vigor back in 2005
and 2007, when he was still just a senator (watch these NYT videos).
This is incredible — life is indeed stranger than fiction!
Let's be clear about this: for Europeans, in particular, the American
shift towards state-sanctioned 'data totalitarianism' will have
significant impact on whether we will do business with U.S.-based
companies that are in technology, media, cloud computing, social
networking, telecommunications, e-commerce or 'big data', for they
seemingly cannot do anything else than comply with the laws — and
their extreme interpretations — as they are now (i.e. the Patriot Act,
FISA courts, etc).
Therefore, some 50-75% of the worlds' largest digital communications
and technology enterprises are now facing a seriously wicked dilemma:
do they comply with FISA orders or do they protect their users (half
of which are not even U.S. citizens)?
The bottom line is that currently all non-U.S. citizens seem to have
no real protection, no recourse, no oversight... no power, and no
rights. This is totally and utterly unacceptable and cannot be swept
under the rug as 'business as usual'.
Sure, variations of the same plots are happening in China and in
Russia, but who would have thought that the formerly alleged bastion
of liberty and freedom, the United States of America, would resort to
these sorts of global dragnet activities? This is wrong and that's all
there is to it.
I believe that if this situation is not resolved very soon, non-U.S.
internet users will be left with pretty much one option: some kind of
a boycott or 'strike' — i.e. the explicit non-participation in those
platforms and services that are subject to the totalitarian
application of laws such as the U.S. Patriot Act.
The future of U.S.-based technology companies is at stake here, as is
the future of U.S./EU relationships.
To remedy the situation, the leading U.S. internet and technology
companies, led by Apple, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and Facebook need
to:
1. Unequivocally side with their real stakeholders — i.e. their users
— and specifically assure us Europeans that they will act on our
behalf, and seek to protect us against the abuse that has surfaced in
the past few weeks.
2. Mount a strong campaign to urge President Obama and the U.S.
Congress to stop these global mass surveillance activities,
immediately, and put appropriate approval, remedy and redress
mechanisms in place that are more in line with EU provisions, i.e.
requiring actual cause for data surveillance activities, needing
individual warrants, and informing the public on what the procedure
is.
3. Urge the government to agree to a public trial of Edward Snowden
that could take place in a neutral location such as at the
International Court of Justice in the Hague.
The U.S. government needs to:
1. Acknowledge the mistakes and rights violations that have occurred
as far as the mass surveillance of global citizens are concerned, and
uncover all additional instances. Dismissing the Director of National
Intelligence (James Clapper) seems like another plausible step towards
resolution, as well, given the fact that he pretty much lied to
Congress.
2. Immediately discontinue the practice of spying on global citizens
without individual warrants, and only in strict congruence with
international laws and regulations.
3. Agree to a fair, public and open trial of Edward Snowden (see above).
If no action along these lines is taken, I think that the
international community and hereto faithful users of American
technologies and internet platforms will have no choice but to
consider taking serious and possibly quite dramatic action to
safeguard against this 'totalitarian surveillance creep'.
Some such actions for the international community may include:
1. Temporarily halting the EU-US data exchange programs for travelers
(PNR and TFTP), which could potentially lead to a significant
disruption of commercial air traffic between the U.S. and Europe (the
review was already scheduled before the Snowden affair and is already
in progress at the Commission).
2. Cut or significantly reduce ties with U.S.-based internet portals
and service providers and shift business to providers based in other
countries that are subject to international laws and explicit
supervision (i.e. that can guarantee that appropriate processes and
safeguards are in place). By extension, this would also concern the
rest of the "5 Eyes" group, i.e. the UK, Canada, Australia and New
Zealand.
3. Pause or even halt the current Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement
discussions until these demands, above, are met. Yes, I know, this
could be quite painful for some EU countries but ... would they rather
be 'collateral damage' now or take collective action to address
potential long-term issues?
4. Open or expand cloud computing facilities in Europe (Luxembourg and
Switzerland seem like good locations) and around the world. Until now,
the U.S.-based providers have dominated the global cloud business
because of faster innovation and much larger investments in this
sector — Europe needs to catch up urgently.
5. As global consumers, we just may need to stop using all U.S.-based
services that won't voluntarily comply with international standards of
data protection.
6. Offer a United Nations-supervised trial location and some kind of
asylum to Edward Snowden, perhaps in the EU.
This is a game-changing moment, and it's time for global citizens to
act. America: we love you, but enough is enough!
GERD LEONHARD
Gerd Leonhard is a futurist, author, and CEO of The Futures Agency.
Hi all,
some of you might be aware that we are currently untertaking a joint effort
to build up an effective monitoring system for the EU. I have just
introduced Dimitar Dimitrov (user: dimi_z) as our coordinator in Brussels
on the WMF blog:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/16/our-man-in-brussels-dimitar-dimitrov/
Please don't hesitate to get in touch with him directly if you have any
ideas how to improve our communication - apart from this list which is IMHO
a very valuable forum to discuss political affairs.
Best wishes,
Jan
--
Jan Engelmann
Leiter Politik & Gesellschaft
-------------------------------------
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Obentrautstr. 72
10963 Berlin
Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0
www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
**** Helfen Sie mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes digitales
Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird. Unterzeichnen Sie die Online-Petition!
http://wikipedia.de ****
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
FYI. (it is my opinion that WMF should support any effort promoting
such an amendment to the copyright act)
https://law.resource.org/pub/edicts.html
TEXT OF THE PETITION
To promote access to justice, equal protection, innovation in the
legal marketplace, and to codify long-standing public policy, the
Copyright Act of the United States, 17 U.S.C., should be amended as
follows:
“Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative
rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar
official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public
policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or
local as well as to those of foreign governments.”
This language comes directly from Section 206.01, Compendium of Office
Practices II, U.S. Copyright Office (1984). It reflects clear and
established Supreme Court precedent on the matter in cases such as
Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834) and Banks v.
Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888). The law belongs to the people, who
should be free to read, know, and speak the laws by which they choose
to govern themselves.
--
Mathias Schindler
Projektmanager
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
web: http://www.wikimedia.de
mail: mathias.schindler(a)wikimedia.de
Ceterum censeo opera officiales esse liberandam -
http://urheberrecht.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
[+Advocacy advisors]
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:05 AM, Tobias <church.of.emacs.ml(a)googlemail.com>wrote:
> Three weeks ago, the foundation asked for community input on the
> surveillance program PRISM (and perhaps similar programs that have
> surfaced since).
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PRISM
>
> To quote from that page: "We will consider all feedback, but, because
> events are moving quickly, we feel we need to make a decision on this by
> June 21, 2013."
>
> Has there been any response yet? Surely evaluating all the feedback
> cannot take longer than two weeks...?
>
It did take time. The feedback was quite inconclusive, and many of the
options for action had a variety of flaws, so trying to decide what to do
next was difficult.
On Friday, we gave a quick summary on the talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:PRISM#Update
I'll probably post some more details on the talk page in the next day or
two, but suffice to say that we continue to listen for options that are
aligned with our values and likely to have an impact on the discussion.
Luis
--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
Hi, all-
Just an FYI that SJ asked some interesting/relevant questions on the
Foundation Policy and Political Association Guideline pages:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundatio…
To be clear, there are no current plans (that I know of) to revise the
policy, but several people may find discussion of the
strengths/shortcomings of the current process interesting, and I would be
interested to get the sense of the group on these questions and where we
might go in the future.
Luis
--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*