<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Arial">Dear all<br>
<br>
I can confirm what Nick is saying here based on our experience
during the drafting. It was not business in general that insisted
on strong IP text, it was very specifically Hollywood interests.<br>
<br>
Civil society actors tend to forget that there are strongly
divergent intersts among business stakeholders in the IG
community. <br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/04/2014 12:54, Nick Ashton-Hart
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:145ad1efb60.27c9.9387b8a9f30986f905fcc4cfa238b71f@consensus.pro"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<p>For what it is worth, on the industry side that was a
compromise. Many
of us argued that IP didn't belong in the document at all, but
as usual the
Hollywood interests insisted. That phrase was a considerable
reduction from
what was originally proposed.</p>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<p style="margin: 10pt 0; color: black;">On 29 April 2014
11:36:05 Anriette
Esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org"><anriette@apc.org></a> wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0
0 0.75ex; border-left: 1px solid #808080; padding-left:
0.75ex;"> <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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a 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>
</body>
</html>