<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I am with Achal on this and had
strongly recommended his name during the strategy meeting of CS on
April 22 to speak on this issue (three working groups had
highlighted the importance of this question). The next day I
heard for the first time in an email about some talks on Article
27, conversations with Disney, the details of which were not clear
but I had expressed strong reservation about the language without
"a right to share". I witnessed Anriette resisting additions in
the drafting process without much assistance from any other civil
society members on actual wording. Robin Gross and I had tried to
say a few things but we weren't allowed to interfere from the
floor. I am unsure myself as to the stance of civil society on
this and think it is deeply disturbing that our views aren't clear
on an agenda item and an Article that received most interest from
the business for obvious reasons.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 04/29/2014 05:35 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:535F7267.70207@apc.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Arial">Dear Achal<br>
<br>
I was not involved in preparing the civil society inputs.<br>
<br>
I was co-chair of the drafting group for the 'principles'
section of the document, and I actually with great frustration
tried to find the text you had proposed during our pre-meeting.
It was not on the Best Bits pad.<br>
<br>
When the 'Article 27' text was proposed during the drafting I
did vigorously oppose it. I did not actually realise it was
proposed by civil society as on the second day of the drafting
my laptop had died, and I had no access to the online document.<br>
<br>
My personal concerns with the text in Article 27 was shared by
some of the CS people who were observing. Business was strongly
in favour of us inserting that text and we almost had deadlock
on it. It is always easy to use existing language, and in most
of the other rights, we did resort to UDHR language. On that
one I held out.<br>
<br>
The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or
proposed by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember
exactly what Jeremy had said, but is input implied that some
protection for authors would be acceptable.<br>
<br>
Therefore "</font><font face="Arial">consistent with the rights
of authors and creators" was added to the original text (which
was actually proposed by civil society very early on: "</font><br>
<font face="Arial">Everyone should have the right to access,
share, create and distribute information on the Internet". The
final phrase </font>"<font face="Arial">as established in law"
was demanded by business, if I remember correctly.<br>
<br>
So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to
keep 'permissionless innovation' in another part of the
document. The BAD news is that the text on internet
intermediary liability which was only finalised after the high
level committee meeting is the same OECD text which civil
society opposed in 2011. France and the US were insisted it be
included. It is text that links intermediary liability to
economic growth and that opens the doors to intermediaries being
made responsible for enforcing copyright. For me that was a
huge, huge blow.<br>
<br>
I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I
was not involved in finalising the civil society inputs. <br>
<br>
My personal view however is that disproportionate enforcement of
intellectual property rights is one of the greatest threats to
'internet freedom' we are facing, if not the greatest. Unlike
limitations on free expression which is broadly considered to be
inappropriate, there is widespread support by powerful
governments and by a large part of internet industry (not all)
for stronger enforcement of these rights, and for making
intermediaries responsible doing so.<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/04/2014 07:41, Achal Prabhala
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+9gj3J3vOKZbpoLLd25d4hf7uPCNFY8cOusZ5dichEWY_GQzQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>I have been trying to understand what
civil society's position on copyright in
Internet governance is, esp. in the
aftermath of NETmundial.<br>
<br>
</div>
On April 22, I took part in a civil society
meeting along with many of you, when the
following language was suggested to be
included in civil society feedback to the
draft outcome document: "resisting the
expansion of a sovereign application of
copyright on to the global online
landscape." <br>
<br>
</div>
The language came from the recent, vivid and
very real threats posed by the
almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA in the US.<br>
<br>
</div>
Then it seems civil society changed it's mind:
this is the language used in the final feedback
document: (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/">http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/</a>)<br>
<br>
"Right to participate in cultural life: everyone
has the right freely to participate in the
cultural life of the community, to enjoy the
arts and to share in scientific advancement and
its benefits, and this right extends to the
Internet. Everyone has the right to the
protection of the moral and material interests
resulting from any scientific, literary or
artistic production of which he is the author.
This protection must be balanced with the larger
public interest and human rights, including the
rights to education, freedom of expression and
information and the right to privacy."<br>
<br>
</div>
This is the language from the final NETmundial
outcome document: (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf">http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf</a>)<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr"
style="font-size:18.4px;font-family:sans-serif">"Everyone
should havethe right to access, share, create
and distribute information on the Internet,
consistent with the rights of authors and
creators as established in law."</div>
<br>
</div>
Inexplicably, the language on "protection" of
intellectual property is stronger in the civil
society statement than in the NETmundial document.<br>
<br>
Following from this, naturally, weak or nonexistent
language *against* a restrictive, censorious and
unilaterally decided global intellectual property
regime did not figure anywhere in the list of
official civil society complaints against the final
NETmundial outcome document. (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response/">http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response/</a>)<br>
<br>
</div>
I'd like to understand from someone who led this civil
society document as to:<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
a) Whether you considered the copyright threat
sufficiently addresses in the language around freedom of
expression and access to information, as well as ISP
liability (even though the legal scope in these three
ideas, as expressed in the statement from you, is fuzzy
and does not use the word 'copyright') and therefore
chose to explicitly leave it out of consideration?<br>
<br>
</div>
b) Or whether you deem the unjustified unilateral
enforcement of copyright protection an insufficient threat
to global online freedom and access to knowledge, despite
the almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA from not that long ago.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>c) And lastly, whether (and how), despite the copyright
issue having been raised - and seemingly accepted - in the
meetings running up to the document, "civil society"
believed there was "consensus" around leaving the
copyright issue out of its demands.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Thank you,<br>
</div>
Achal<br>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org">www.softwarefreedom.org</a>
Executive Director
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126
(fax) +91-11-24323530
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.sflc.in">www.sflc.in</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>