I get emails like this every day. Are they appropriate for this list?
Best regards,
James Salsman
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Stephen Miles" <info(a)winwithoutwar.org>
Date: Nov 25, 2013 2:45 AM
Subject: We have a deal...now the hard work begins!
To: "James Salsman" <jsalsman(a)gmail.com>
Cc:
<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2fe/268…>
[image:
Win Without War]<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2fe/268…>
Dear James,
Breaking news! After three rounds of marathon negotiations - and 34 years
of confrontation - Iran, the United States, and our international partners
just signed a deal to halt Iran's nuclear program. This is an extraordinary
moment, a historic milestone and an amazing opportunity for peace.
But, before the ink on the agreement was dry, the right-wing hawks who are
itching for war with Iran were already condemning the deal and plotting to
kill it in Congress. Senator Rubio put out a statement immediately after
the agreement was signed claiming that it made war more, not less likely.
He and his colleagues in the Senate have vowed to kill the deal with the
passage of new sanctions<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2f9/268…>
.
We cannot allow them to get away with it. We are gearing up for a major
campaign to stop the hawks, save the deal and give diplomacy – and hope – a
fighting chance.
*But we need you to succeed. Help us make a stand for diplomacy and peace!
<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2f8/268…>*
Coming only months after a diplomatic breakthrough that led to the
destruction of Syria's chemical weapons threat, this deal proves once again
that diplomacy works and that there are solutions besides bombs to
America's security challenges. And that's why the American public supports
a diplomatic deal with Iran by a two-to-one margin.
But this is by no means a done deal. The same 'experts' who said that the
Iraq War would be a cakewalk now want us to believe that the President is
'naive' and that diplomacy cannot work. Republicans in Congress were out in
force on the Sunday talk shows to denounce the President while pledging to
undermine this landmark deal.
*That's why we need your help!
<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2f8/268…>*
We are already fighting back hard to support diplomacy and give peace a
chance. Over the past year, Win Without War and our partners have
positioned ourselves to marshal grassroots support and mobilize our allies
in Washington to win this fight. Now, that fight is joined! We are
ready to launch our biggest effort yet to ensure that the US and the world
will win without war but we cannot do it alone!
*Please contribute what you can to help support diplomacy today! Your
tax-deductible donation of $100, $50, $25, or any amount that's right for
you will go directly to fighting for peace.
<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2f8/268…>*
Thank you for working for peace!
Stephen, Angela, Tom and the Win Without War Team
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Follow us on Twitter: @WinWithoutWar - Like us on
Facebook<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2fb/268…>
Win Without War depends on the support of our members to bring your voice
to Congress.
Please consider making a tax deductible donation today.
<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2f8/268…>
UNSUBSCRIBE<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2fa/268…>
Many of the issues I have recommended advocacy are discussed in the
draft presentation at http://talknicer.com/susjam/susjam.pdf
I would greatly appreciate review and comment.
Free culture concerns weigh particularly heavily in slide 10.
Best regards,
James Salsman
Very interesting, as usual - thanks for sharing, Dimi. #3 in particular
seems worth following; I'm glad to see you and Nikolas are involved.
Luis
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <
dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for cross-posting (from Advocacy Advisors-l), but I want to
> popularise the mailing list.
>
>
> Hello, everybody!
>
> This month there has been some gossip about legislative or non-legislative
> copyright reform which might be proposed either before or after the
> elections and might include an opt-in provision or not... Well, at least
> there’s talk about it.
>
> Dimi
>
>
> Past editions on Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor/MR
>
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor/MR>
>
> tl;dr
>
> Open Access is to be compulsory in the EU’s Horizon 2020 funding programme.
> The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed that an Estonian website
> is liable for third-party comments on their website. The European
> Parliament LIBE committee has passed its version of the Data Protection
> Regulation, making the "right to be forgotten" into the "right to be
> erased".
>
>
> ToC
>
> 1. European Court of Justice Backs Freedom of Information
>
> 2. European Court Rules Website Liable for Third-Party Comments
>
> 3. Studies on Intellectual Property Released & IP Infringements Observatory
> Meeting
>
> 4. Open Access in EU’s Horizon 2020 Funding Programme
>
> 5. Data Protection Regulation - Committee Vote
>
> 6. Commission Requesting Citizens’ Feedback on Internet Policies
>
> 7. Creative Commons Takes Global Position on Copyright Reform
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #ECJ #FoI
>
> 1. European Court of Justice Backs Freedom of Information
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
> Freedom of Information is our community’s top ranked topic in our Policy
> Issues Survey. [14] Apart from being a cornerstone of transparency, the
> access to more government documents would provide reliable sources for
> Wikipedia articles, thereby improving the overall quality.
>
> What happened?
>
> Documents requested from the European Council under Freedom of Information
> law were released only after masking member states’ positions (i.e. which
> countries were in favour or against certain points). The Spanish based NGO
> promoting free access to information - Access Info Europe - appealed to the
> European Court of Justice against this practice. In the court case the
> European Parliament, the United Kingdom and Greece sided with Access Info
> Europe, while France, Spain and the Czech Republic supported the Council.
>
> The ECJ ruled that the effectiveness of the decision making process does
> not trump the need for transparency, thereby prohibiting the erasure of
> Member States’ positions from released documents on a general basis. [15]
>
>
> What comes next?
>
> The European Council will have to release documents informing the public
> which countries were for or against a certain text. Further attempts by
> civil society organisations to “open up” the Council are expected, as it is
> still considered the least transparent of the EU’s institutions.
>
> In the future, public institutions will need to conclusively prove stated
> reasons when refusing access to information.
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #ECHR
>
> 2. European Court Rules Website Liable for Third-Party Comments
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
> A landmark decision that makes internet platform operators liable for user
> generated content on their websites. This decision is not only about the
> specific case, but has to be regarded against the backdrop of freedom of
> speech online.
>
> What happened?
>
> The European Court of Human Rights (Council of Europe, Strasbourg) has
> upheld an Estonian court’s decision making a news portal operated by Delfi
> AS liable for clearly illegal (defamatory) comments, even though website
> moderators had deleted them after being informed. [7]
>
> What comes next?
>
> Civil society organisations have claimed that this decision will lead to
> even more legal uncertainty and preventive, privately-enforced censorship.
> An appeal to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR is to be expected. [8]
>
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #IPstudy #LSE #OHIM
>
> 3. Studies on Intellectual Property Released & IP Infringements Observatory
> Meeting
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
> Albeit to different extents, such studies occupy public and political
> debates and help shape the narratives of the debates. With copyright being
> seeded as one of the first major reform initiatives of the next Commission
> in 2014, the current back and forth will set the starting points of the
> expected consultation and stakeholder dialogue.
>
> What happened?
>
> The European Commission has founded an European Observatory on
> Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights to “understand the
> challenges” and “enhance cooperation” in the field of counterfeiting and
> piracy. [1] As part of the initiative it has commissioned a study on the
> Contribution of Intellectual Property to the Economy, that it plans to
> update every two years. This study claims that 50% of the EU economy is
> “IPR intensive”. [2] In a strange coincidence, the same week this study was
> released, the London School of Economics released their own research,
> stating that there is no proof online file-sharing is hurting the industry.
> [3]
>
> What comes next?
>
> As the Commission has been criticised for having only industry associations
> in the IPR Infringements Observatory they took the step to invite several
> civil society organisations to their yearly plenary in Alicante - namely
> European Digital Rights (EDRi), the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC)
> and us. At the two-day meeting me and Nikolas Becker (WMDE board member)
> requested that a complementary study on the contribution of open licensing
> and the public domain to the European economy be commissioned and that the
> observatory needs to start taking into account infringements on free
> licenses and the copyfraud cases. EDRi stated that it isn’t enough to just
> produce studies on how many people are downloading illegal content, but
> that future studies will need to explain what the motivation behind such
> actions is.
>
> Commission representatives (esp. DG MARKT and the Observatory staff)
> demonstrated openness to said proposals and committed to organise a further
> meeting with civil society in Brussels where they will try to include these
> points into the 2014 work programme.
>
> On a general note, Jean Bergevin form DG MARKT mentioned that the
> Commission is working on a legislative or non-legislative copyright reform
> proposal, which at least in part will be announced by the end of the year.
> Beginning of next year a decision will be made whether to proceed with the
> dossier or wait for the next Commission to be appointed.
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #OA #Horizon2020
>
> 4. Open Access in EU’s Horizon 2020 Funding Programme
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
> Horizon 2020 will be the EU’s framework programme for funding research and
> innovation for the period 2014-2020. Currently the last details of the
> funding criteria are being ironed out. [4] Things like compulsory Open
> Access licensing for works produced with money from this budget were on
> stake.
>
> What happened?
>
> A meeting at the European Parliament aptly titled “Open Science Works” was
> organised to discuss the situation regarding Horizon 2020. [5] Among others
> Alma Swan (SPARC Europe) and Gwen Franck from Creative Commons participated
> in the event. Good news is that the Commission has agreed to make open
> access a mandatory condition for funding research. The issues now are that
> there is no enforcement possibility (i.e. there is no way make scientists
> publish their works under OA if they don’t do it voluntarily) and that the
> Commission refuses to specify the type of license required.
>
> What comes next?
>
> The Commission representative (Celina Ramjoué, DG CONNECT) admitted that
> they were afraid of including an OA enforcement procedure and specifying
> the type of licensing, as they were afraid of “strong backlash if they they
> pushed too far”.
>
> At productive and friendly talks after the session I managed to talk to
> both, Alma Swan and Celina Ramjoué about the importance of licensing and
> the definition of Free Cultural Works. [6] While the former agreed that
> SPARC Europe would support such licensing, the latter was weary of making
> promising statements and instead emphasised that the only way to make the
> Commission start talking about such things internally is to have it
> requested from several organisations. Together with SPARC Europe and
> Creative Commons we agreed to keep each other informed posted and to try
> and harmonise civil society actions in the future.
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #EUdataP
>
> 5. EU General Data Protection Regulation - Committee Vote
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
> This concerns the general ecosystem of the internet, an environment we and
> our projects are born into and dependant upon. Furthermore, the Wikimedia
> Foundation is currently reviewing its privacy policy [9] and it would be
> productive to also take non-US legislations as well as different cultural
> debates and sensitivities into account.
>
> What happened?
>
> The LIBE Committee of the European Parliament has voted on its version of
> the General Data Protection Regulation proposal. [10][11] One of the
> changes is that the “right to be forgotten” was replaced by the “right of
> erasure”, which means that a freedom of speech element was included (e.g. A
> blogger will remain free to comment on a photo was subsequently taken
> down).
>
> The Parliament also supported the Commission proposal on strict rules on
> how data is transferred to non-EU countries, meaning that an additional EU
> authority might have to be asked for permission. At the same time the
> updated version widened the circumstances in which a company can process
> user data without prior consent.
>
> At the same time this new version was criticised by civil rights groups for
> meaning well, but tearing huge loopholes into the system. [12]
>
>
> What comes next?
>
> The LIBE Committee has given Rapporteur Jan-Philipp Albrecht (Greens/EFA) a
> mandate to negotiate a final text with the Council. It is the Council where
> adoption continues to stall with Member States finding it hard to agree on
> several parts, one of them being how national data protection authorities
> should cooperate with each other. This is also a crucial point which will
> determine how and where citizens will be able to file complaints.
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #DigitalAgenda
>
> 6. Commission Requesting Citizens’ Feedback on Internet Governance
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
> Internet policies are important to our ecosystem and it should be welcomed
> that the Commission is trying to open up the debate to new players and make
> access easier, cheaper and less time consuming.
>
> What happened?
>
> As part of its initiative to include more citizens in the legislative
> process and its efforts to promote its so-called Digital Agenda, the
> European Commission is asking for opinions on internet policy issues,
> currently focused on the future of Internet Governance. The request for
> comments is open until the 8. November. [13]
>
> What comes next?
>
> To be blunt, I don’t think anybody really knows. The comments could be used
> to start an actual stakeholder dialogue on Internet Governance or remain
> unheard. This, to a large extent, depends on how many answers the
> Commission will receive.
>
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #cc #copyright #fixcopyright
>
> 7. Creative Commons Takes Global Position on Copyright Reform
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
> The vast majority of our content is licensed under Creative Commons
> licenses. Creative Commons is not only a global partner of Wikimedia, but
> also a like-minded organisation with considerable community overlaps.
>
> What happened?
>
> In an initiative undertaken by their chapters, Creative Commons has
> released a policy position stating that CC licenses are “not a fix for the
> problems of the copyright system” and that a meaningful reform is still
> needed. [16]
>
> The corresponding blog post explains that CCHQ, affiliates and community
> have worked together to produce the policy statement. The process was also
> used to clarify the extent to which both CCHQ and the CC chapters are
> allowed to engage in advocacy. [17]
>
>
> What comes next?
>
> A discussion on whether Wikimedia should undertake a similar step was
> sparked off on the advocacy advisors mailing list [18]. As a result, a talk
> page has been created on meta-wiki and everybody is more than welcome to
> comment on the proposal.[19]
>
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> [1]
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/observatory/#maincontent…
>
> [2]http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/pages/OBS/IPContributionReport.en.do
>
> [3]
>
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2013/09/CreativeIndustries.…
>
> [4]http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020-timeline
>
> [5]http://openaccess.be/2013/10/15/open-science-works/
>
> [6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Cultural_Works
>
> [7]http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4529626-5466299
>
> [8]
>
> http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37287/en/european-court-str…
>
> [9]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Privacy_policy
>
> [10]http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-923_en.htm
>
> [11]
>
> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/bg/news-room/content/20131021IPR22706/ht…
>
> [12]http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.20/data-protection-vote-meps
>
> [13]
>
> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/content/europe-and-internet-global-c…
>
> [14]
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Policy_Issues_Survey_20…
>
> [15]
>
> http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageInd…
>
> [16]http://creativecommons.org/about/reform
>
> [17]https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/39639
>
> [18]
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2013-October/000239.…
>
> [19]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Advocacy
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
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-
I thought I'd pass along this CC statement on copyright reform - strong and
interesting statement, discussing both the key issues, the possibility for
positive change, but also discussing some of the institutional constraints
CC faces:
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/39639
This statement was driven by the CC chapters, who wanted more activism on
this issue and met together at the CC conference in Buenos Aires.
CC feels a particular responsibility on this issue because some people have
said "CC licenses prove copyright is not broken". CC explicitly says in the
policy that "CC licenses are a patch" to a broken system. I don't know if
we have a similar unique obligation or role in copyright reform, but it may
be something to think about.
FYI-
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.*
Salut la liste!
At this year's Wikimania in Hong Kong we launched a survey targeted mainly
at Wikimedians asking them which policy issues are most important to them.
We had 137 people filling out the questionnarie, which is a decent number
for a first go. A summary of the results, as well as the full data itself
can be accessed via a dedicated meta page [1].
As with everything else, fell free to share, copy re-mix and re-use as you
see fit.
Greeting from Brussels!
Dimi
[1]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Survey
Salut la liste!
We’re back in full swing and reporting live from Brussels. In this episode
the Commission has finally published its proposal for a net neutrality
regulation. Simultaneously the data protection discussion has successfully
melted into the surveillance debate, which in its turn has produced more
hashtags than one can possibly follow.
Dimi
Past editions on Meta: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor/MR
tl;dr
Tere is a chance that the General Data Protection Directive will be
negotiated behind closed doors. The Commission has tabled its proposal for
a network neutrality regulation, including a “specialised services”
permission. We at the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group are writing up a
mission statement.
ToC
1. Surveillance and Data Protection
2. Net Neutrality
3. Revision of the PSI Directive
4. TTIP
5. EU Launches OER Initiative
6. Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU - Drafting the Mission Statement
7. Open Policy Network by Creative Commons
-----------------
-----------------
#EUdataP <http://piratepad.net/ep/search?query=EUdataP>
#EPinquiry<http://piratepad.net/ep/search?query=EPinquiry>
#SMART <http://piratepad.net/ep/search?query=SMART>
#Tempora<http://piratepad.net/ep/search?query=Tempora>
#Prism <http://piratepad.net/ep/search?query=Prism>
#SWIFT<http://piratepad.net/ep/search?query=SWIFT>
#GCHQ <http://piratepad.net/ep/search?query=GCHQ>
#NSA<http://piratepad.net/ep/search?query=NSA>
1.Surveillance and Data Protection
Why is this relevant?
Well, its not a core issue of ours. Still, privacy is fundamental to
intellectual knowledge and parts of our community have formulated worries
that our servers and software might be susceptible to mass surveillance. At
the same time both the Wikimedia Foundation [1] and Wikimedia Deutschland
[2] have had official reactions on these issues. It is part of the future
of the internet.
What happened?
While the Data Protection Regulation debate was slowly dying out, the PRISM
affair knocked it right out of its sleep. [3] The Civil Liberties
Committee of the European Parliament is holding series of inquiry
meetings on electronic mass surveillance [4][5] and published a report by
Caspar Bowden on the effects of NSA surveillance on EU citizens’ rights
[6a][6b], while at the same time Edward Snowden was officially nominated
and later shortlisted for the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought
[7a][7b] given each year by the EP.
Meanwhile a number of prominent civil society organisation signed a
resolution against massive eavesdropping in Europe [8a] and both, the Safe
Harbour (personal data exchange between EU-US) [9] and the SWIFT (exchange
of banking data) [8b] agreements were put into question by the EP and EC
officials.
While all of this has been going on, the only actual work done on the
General Data Protection Regulation is probably the Wikipedia article, which
now looks presentable. [10] One notable exception is Article 42, which was
reinserted after news broke out. This amendment prohibits access to
personal data in the EU where required by a non-EU court without the prior
authorisation of the EU Data Protection Authority. [27]
What comes next?
The mass electronic surveillance frenzy has not yet resulted in major
content changes when it comes to data protection, yet. Given the appeal and
loose connectedness between the two topics it is however to be expected
that at least some of the stakeholders will push this argument.
It is likely that the Committee will have a vote on the Parliament version
in October.[11] Until then there will be debate over whether the trilogue -
a discussion meeting between the Parliament, Council and Commission -
should be informal. An informal trilogue would mean that the three parties
would try to negotiate a compromise behind closed doors ahead of the first
reading. [12] The earliest possible plenary vote seems to be in March 2014.
-----------------
-----------------
#netneutrality <http://piratepad.net/ep/search?query=NSA>
2. Net Neutrality
Why is this relevant?
It is a fundamental internet issue. The new draft regulation by the
European Commission proposes to explicitly allow “specialised services”,
without defining them too narrowly. This would allow content providers to
pay telecoms for zero-charge or faster delivery of their services to the
end user. If the Parliament and Council agree to knock these passages out,
all preferential content delivery might be disallowed. So far this is more
likely to happen in the Parliament. Specialised services would have
implication on the relative place of our projects on the internet.
What happened?
Commissioner Kroes presented the new draft regulation [13] which came under
immediate fire from her fellow Commissioner Reding (Justice). [14] The
latter sees the provision allowing “specialised services” as a threat to
freedom of speech, as the resulting traffic management would become
“discriminatory”. While the brouhaha is settling and the Commission
received questions and critique from across the board (e.g. [15]), some
MEPs already took the lead and invited to round-table talks. [16] It is to
be expected that the European Parliament, that has long been calling for a
net neutrality regulation, will decisively change the tabled text,
especially articles 2., 19. and 23..
Another source for chitter-chatter is the decision of Commissioner Kroes to
pack network neutrality into the much wider telecoms package, which also
regulates roaming charges. It seem like the no-roaming-fees pre-election
publicity is being traded off against actual net neutrality.
What comes next?
It is most likely that this Dossier will be taken over by the next
Parliament after the elections in 2014. The next steps would be to assign
parliamentary committees and rapporteurs. [17]
-----------------
-----------------
#PSI
3. Revision of PSI Directive
Why is this relevant?
In very rough terms, the PSI directive is meant to encourage, authorise and
enable the reuse of such information by anyone for both commercial and
non-commercial purposes. It does not contain a clause to force releasing of
content for such purpose without financial compensation, it rather gives a
set of rules how an institution from the public sector can calculate costs
that can be burdened on the re-user.
What happened?
Directive 2013/37/EU (a.k.a. Directive on the Re-use of Public Sector
Information) [18] revises the 10 year old directive on public sector
information. This rather broad term relates to basically all information
created, maintained or stored by public administration and many public
(even cultural) institutions. EU member states are given until July 2015 to
revise the adoptions into national law.
What comes next?
The next two years will be crucial in implementing the revised
PSI-directive. This implementation could result in standard licenses and
overall avoidance on paywalls or in a highly fragmented manner with
multiple, complex and contradicting licenses and barriers to obtaining
data.
The European Commission is hosting a hearing on this implementation in
November following the consultation. [19] Both, WMDE and the Wikimedian in
Brussels are going to participate.
-----------------
-----------------
#TTIP
4. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement
Why is this relevant?
Frankly, we aren’t sure yet. Still, there is still a very real chance the
final agreement will contain a chapter on intellectual property.
What happened?
A first Civil Society Dialogue organised by the European Commission took
place back in July. [20] The information round, intended to ensure more
transparency, didn’t provide any specific information about the discussed
content. Here are a few statements by the EC that give us a hint about what
lies ahead of us:
-With TTIP, EU & US are aiming to *set new global standards*
-Not just a run-off-the-mill trade agreement
-Negotiations will not be used to *lower* regulation
What comes next?
As with previous international negotiations, transparency won’t be a
priority for the EU or US, but managing to receive early information about
the intended, legally binding texts will be crucial.
Current timeline expectations:
-According to EU officials, the Commission will probably publish a call for
tender on TTIP sustainability assessment
-Text will be published "as soon as it is agreed - or perhaps once it is
sufficiently stabilised, but not in the coming months" (statement by
Levie, Deputy Chief Negotiator for EU)
-A public stakeholder briefing on second round TTIP negotiations will take
place in October
Further links:
EU Portal on TTIP [21]
Agenda according to MEP Marietje Schaake (ALDE, NL) [22]
-----------------
-----------------
#OER
5. EU Launches OER Initiative
Why is this relevant?
Wikipedia and Wikisource have active OER communities [23] [24] that have
been following and actively participating in the development in such
initiatives and policy change relating to Open Educational Resources.
What happened?
The European Commission has launched [25] a new educational portal [26]
allowing schools and universities to find and share Open Educational
Resources. The standard licensing is CC-by, making it compatible with our
projects, although other licenses are accepted as well.
What comes next?
Once the database is sufficiently populated, it could become a valuable
resource (both citations and source documents) for our projects. Future
cooperations are not unthinkable.
-----------------
-----------------
#wikimedia
6. Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU - Drafting our Mission Statement
In order to better define our three main policy goals and to be able to
refer people to a “founding document” when they ask what we’re doing, we’re
in the process of drafting something like a policy mission statement for
our group. It has not been adopted by anyone yet and is really just an open
document trying to define and refine ideas. Please don’t hesitate to
comment or edit, as we’re grateful for any piece of advice.
https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/MissionStatementFKAGEU
-----------------
-----------------
#CreativeCommons
7. Open Policy Network
Our friends at Creative Commons have constituted an Open Policy Network
which wants to work on adopting and implementing open policies around the
world. If that’s your cup of tea, I was assured Wikimedians are more than
welcome.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Open_Policy_Network
-----------------
-----------------
Refernces
[1]https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/weneedtoknow-transparency-letter.pdf
[2]http://www.stopsurveillance.org/
[3]http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.16/data-privacy-prism
[4]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201309/20130904ATT70…
[5]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201309/20130925ATT71…
[6a]https://info.publicintelligence.net/EU-NSA-Surveillance.pdf
[6b]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/briefing…
[7a]
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/us-eu-snowden-idUSBRE98G0FY201309…
<http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/uk-eu-snowden-prize-idUKBRE98T0ZF2…>
[7b]
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/uk-eu-snowden-prize-idUKBRE98T0ZF2…<http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/uk-eu-snowden-prize-idUKBRE98T0ZF2…>
[8a]http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37224/en/
[8b]
http://www.theparliament.com/latest-news/article/newsarticle/meps-call-for-…
[9]http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-710_en.htm
[10]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
[11]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/…
[12]
http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php/european-union/privacy/882-closed-door-t…
[13]
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2013/EN/1-2013-627-EN-F1-1.Pdf
[14]
http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php/telecoms-package/net-neutrality/903-redi…
[15]
http://www.berec.europa.eu/files/document_register_store/2013/9/BoR_%2813%2…
[16]
http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2013/09/event-roundtable-discussion-on-netneu…
[17]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2013/…
[18]
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:175:0001:00…
[19]
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/consultation-guidelines-recommen…
[20]http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=945
[21]http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/
[22]
http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2013/09/new-ttip-faq-the-negotiation-phase-ev…
[23]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Communicate_OER
[24]http://www.wikimedia.de/wiki/OERde13
[25]http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-859_en.htm
[26]http://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/
[27]
http://www.sidley.com/European-Parliamentarians-Seek-Reinsertion-of-Onerous…
Public Knowledge has an interesting article about ambiguous usage
restrictions appearing on some US government photographs and video:
"The White House is not explicitly claiming copyright on these photos (the
license makes that clear), but this type of scary quasi-legal language gets
awful close to flirting with a bit of light copyfraud."
http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/what-going-usage-restrictions-media-con…
I know a number of Wikimedians are interested / activist in this area --
Jean-Frédéric had a great session on this general subject at Wikimania
2012. Do you know any other Wikimedians working on this? Does Commons have
any documentation or guidelines on the topic?
--
Stephen LaPorte
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
*For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia
Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer
for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
capacity.*
Hello everybody!
I just wanted to drop a line about the current network neutrality brouhaha.
[1] It reveals that the topic is controversial within the Commission and
even within the different Directorate-Generals. This is not necessarily bad
news, as it means that new arguments can very well make their way into the
discourse.
Yesterday and today the new draft regulation [2] was presented [3] and the
news for us is that we need to change the questions we were asking
ourselves. So far, we have been regarding this issue under the potential
risks for Wikipedia Zero [4], which will of course remain a major point.
The new draft allows content providers to sign contracts with internet
service providers to guarantee better access to services (e.g. higher
speeds, no traffic charges). Apart from this being everything BUT the
definition of network neutrality [5], this is important to us from the
following perspective:
Let's say Yahoo pays an ISP to have its services - including Yahoo Answers
- treated as „special services“, meaning they open faster or traffic to
them is not deducted from your 3GB/month plan. Would such a scenario have
negative consequences for our projects? Would these consequences be big
enough to argue in favour of actual network neutrality? Would this still be
the case even if it meant giving up Wikipedia Zero?
Just to remind you, we do not currently have any official position or
statements on this topic nor am I aware of plans to have such. These are
very hypothetical questions, but it is still important to know what is
going on, how it will affect us and what we would need to do if case be.
Cheers,
Dimi
[1]
http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php/telecoms-package/net-neutrality/903-redi…
[2]
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2013/EN/1-2013-627-EN-F1-1.Pdf
[3] europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm
[4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-August/127715.html
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality>
Greetings,
Wikimedia Deutschland has just released the answers we received to our
election questionnaire.
Complete answers are at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland/Wahlpr%C3%BCfsteine/B…
(German)
Our analysis can be found at
http://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/09/11/bundestagswahl-wahlpruefsteine-wikimedi…
(German)
Previous questionnaires ("Wahlprüfsteine") are published at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland/Wahlpr%C3%BCfsteine
We are aware that this kind of questionnaire is not equally common in
every country, so here are a few introductory infos. Wahlprüfsteine
are a set of questions (usually very specific questions) that are sent
to parties which participate in elections. The answers are usually
released in a compiled form before the election date. Among the
Wahlprüfsteine's advantages are the compatibility with
non-partisanship. The organisation asking the question can refrain
from commenting them or refrain from making any kind of endorsement
for a particular candidate or party while at the same time offering
the public a service to inform them about differences in specific
policy topics.
The German national parliament elections will be held on September 22,
2013. Our questionnaire had 11 questions (3 on copyright, 2 on access,
3 on net neutrality and 3 on education). 10 replies were received,
representing 11 parties, including all parties that are currently in
the parliament and most likely will remain there.
Topic selection was based on the responses we received from a survey
that was sent to the German language Wikimedia community:
http://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/08/01/wahlpruefsteine-bundestagswahl-beta/
(German)
We carefully picked questions that actually belong to the national
level (some are overlapping with EU legislation, a few border to
topics left to the German states (Länder).
If you haven't done so, please consider answering a few questions in
this survey here that can help contribute to a questionnaire for the
upcoming EU parliament election in 2014:
https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.de/forms/d/1vSrFiYCAN-RPXdikdkkHmT_ZzWP…
This survey will last until September 30.
Mathias
--
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.
hey folks,
Onpassing FYI for anyone interested - below is a link to a new
mockumentary about net neutrality from New York filmmaker Gena
Konstantinakos. It features Tim Wu, Larry Lessig, Eli Pariser, Susan
Crawford, Gigi Sohn, Craig Aaron and others. The full thing is online.
Probably people on this list will not learn anything new from it, but
it's worth sharing with anyone who doesn't yet understand the basics
of the issue. It's accessible and has some surprisingly compelling
moments :-)
Thanks,
Sue
http://www.theinternetmustgo.com/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/09/can-this-mocku…