[governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!!

Sat Dec 1 07:50:27 EST 2012

Thanks for the update, Carlos.

We hope with you...

Norbert Klein

=

On 12/1/2012 7:36 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> A few qualifications are in order:
>
> - Marco Civil says the news of his killing are greatly exaggerated :) 
> Seriously, it is not "killed". If there is anything we DO NOT need now 
> is propagating this negative view of the situation. The fight continues.
>
> - The lobby of the telco multinationals (mostly European, affiliated 
> with ETNO) who dominate the Brazilian telco market is understandably 
> very strong. They are mobilizing the (usually right-wing) evangelical 
> churches against the Marco Civil -- something like Marco Civil is an 
> expression of the Devil himself and so on.
>
> - The head of the Brazilian delegation to WCIT in Dubai is Paulo 
> Bernardo, the minister of Communications (MiniCom). MiniCom regulates 
> broadcasting, while Anatel (our FCC) regulates (or is regulated by) 
> telcos, but this separation is fuzzy in practice. Mr Bernardo leads 
> the government side of the lobbying process *against* Marco Civil, in 
> sync with the telco lobby. There are strong divergences within the 
> federal gov on this.
>
> - So, in Dubai, it is fundamental that civil society organizations and 
> all the ones against the ETNO proposal as well as Russia's/China's 
> proposal to turn addressing into a UN function heavily question Mr 
> Bernardo in every opportunity at the event (unfortunately I will not 
> be there).
>
> - Caveat: Anatel might have a somewhat distinct position, I am still 
> checking on this, as they are as well :) -- this is very relevant, as 
> they are the official BR gov reps at the ITU.
>
> - The coincidence of the final steps of Marco Civil in Congress and 
> the approaching WCIT/Dubai conf made things much harsher for MC, 
> particularly in our efforts to defend the staying of net neutrality in 
> it.
>
> - In the process, the same government forces against Marco Civil are 
> also pressing for CGI.br possibly to be modified and lose its 
> multistakeholder nature. The government has the power to do so by 
> decree, and this risk has increased dramatically in the last few 
> months. When we managed to approve CG as a multistakeholder governance 
> structure in 2003, several gov sectors wished it to turn into a state 
> entity, and these forces are re-emerging. In a worst case scenario, we 
> could lose Marco Civil and the pluralist nature of CG. But I think 
> things will not go that far. Or possibly will over my dead body.
>
> - The governmernt is not unanimous in this vision. The Ministry of 
> Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) is a staunch defender of 
> Marco Civil as it was introduced to Congress a few months ago (like 
> CGI.br is). So all is not lost.
>
> So, the situation is complicated, the odds are not good at all, but we 
> did not lose the battle yet.
>
> Sorry to strongly emphasize this, but... WE NEED ALL THE HELP AND 
> MOBILIZATION WE CAN FROM ALL OF YOU.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 11/30/2012 08:21 PM, Robert Guerra wrote:
>> Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of 
>> Rights |
>> UNCUT
>> http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Digital
>>
>> The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that 
>> would have
>> pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of
>> Rights<http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/09/brazil-marco-civil-internet>.” 
>>
>> Feted by free-speech
>> activists<http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/3389/en/brazil:-civil-rights-framework-for-the-internet> 
>>
>> and
>> negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework to
>> guarantee basic rights for internet
>> users<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/04402516196/brazil-drafts-anti-acta-civil-rights-based-framework-internet.shtml>, 
>>
>> content
>> creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are not
>> responsible for user content.
>> [image: Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA]
>>
>> Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA
>>
>> The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet 
>> <http://marcocivil.com.br/>, also
>> guaranteed net 
>> neutrality<http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html>
>> —
>> a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent
>> internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of
>> internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated rates
>> for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to charge
>> either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of
>> internet traffic, such as movies.
>>
>> A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of 
>> Deputies
>> on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two 
>> months
>> that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to
>> agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco Civil
>> from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning it
>> will not be bought back to the floor.
>>
>> The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on the
>> issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro
>> Molon<https://twitter.com/alessandromolon>, who
>> sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication
>> companies<http://seekingalpha.com/article/276687-5-top-yielding-brazil-telecom-stocks>lobbied 
>>
>> hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the
>> free market.
>>
>> Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders
>> were angered by the legal protections offered to internet intermediaries
>> who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties 
>> (companies
>> like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party
>> content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this
>> process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to
>> remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an
>> argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech.
>>
>> The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and 
>> made
>> it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. 
>> Although
>> industry lobbies were successful in watering
>> down<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/brazilian-internet-bill-threatens-freedom-expression> 
>>
>> key
>> user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even
>> greater changes on the text.
>>
>> After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to 
>> society to
>> put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was 
>> also
>> critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by Marco
>> Civil.
>>
>> Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and
>> Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to
>> Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties
>> having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s 
>> support of
>> Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from 
>> PMDB —
>> took issue with key elements.
>>
>> The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the
>> internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a
>> “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide
>> influence on free speech issues.
>>
>> “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and
>> dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies.
>> Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically
>> killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said
>> Falkvinge<http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/21/brazil-squanders-chance-at-geopolitical-influence-kills-internet-rights-bill-in-political-fiasco>on 
>>
>> his website.
>>
>> “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all
>> countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — 
>> and its
>> consequences”, said André Pase <https://twitter.com/andrepase>, Digital
>> Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre.
>>
>> “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily 
>> obsolete in
>> a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born 
>> all the
>> time.”
>>
>> *Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo*
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> (via Instapaper <http://www.instapaper.com/>)
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t