<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<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 <anriette@apc.org> 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 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>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>