<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>Please note that the Marco Civil process started in 2009, and all kinds of advocacy forms have been used by different stakeholders. The process was open, transparent and had sizable international participation as well.</div><div><br></div><div>The main challenge now is to get it through Congress, and again, all (legal, of course :)) forms of proactive advocacy in defense of it or against its mutilation are welcome.</div><div><br></div><div>Fighting for the MC is fighting against ETNO etc as well.</div><div><br></div><div>frt rgds</div><div><br></div><div>--c.a.</div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:100%">Carlos A. Afonso</div></div> <br>Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@hserus.net> escreveu:<br><div>With all due respect, sending form letters by the few dozen or few hundred to whichever representative is an old tactic, and one that has historically proven not to be too effective.</div><div><br></div><div>If, as a politician's staff member, you see this sort of form letter coming in, you just count the number of form letters and delete them, if you even pay attention to them in the first place.<br><br>As civil society that is much more deeply engaged in and aware of these issues, it is far more productive for different organizations to write up why they think opposition to marco civil is a bad idea **in their own words** and not just copied and pasted boilerplate, and send it - to the representative with a cc to local media that you know is sympathetic to your case.</div><div><br></div><div>Astroturf form letters on websites are a pure waste of time.</div><div><br>--srs (iPad)</div><div><br>On 02-Dec-2012, at 9:52, Diego Rafael Canabarro <<a href="mailto:diegocanabarro@gmail.com">diegocanabarro@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>Lee, sorry to intervene, but I believe that in this case, it is important that legislators in the country have a clear notion that civil society, both national and transnational, are working together to support Brazil's being in favor of a Bill of Rights for the Internet that favors fundamental rights and freedoms, neutrality and the other issues addressed by Carlos and Everton. </div>
<div><br></div><div>In the country, the Brazilian Institute for the Defense of Consumers created a platform which automatically sends a customized e-mail to the representatives in charge of the Bill of Right. In case some of you could attach your signatures to the end of the e-mail, and even send the text in English, I think it could have a positive influence for the process.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The URL of the tool is: <a href="http://www.idec.org.br/mobilize-se/campanhas/marcocivil">http://www.idec.org.br/mobilize-se/campanhas/marcocivil</a>. Let me know if you need any translation from Portuguese to English.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div>Diego Canabarro</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Lee W McKnight <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lmcknigh@syr.edu" target="_blank">lmcknigh@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Carlos,<br>
<br>
What kind of help - will help? International attention and pressure is often counter-productive in Brazilian domestic politics right. Or not in this case?<br>
<br>
I can put you in touch with a Globo TV reporter covering Congress in Brasilia...if that could help.<br>
<br>
But you must have better Brazilian media contacts than me! : )<br>
<br>
Please advise us.<br>
<br>
Lee<br>
________________________________________<br>
From: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> [<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] on behalf of Hartmut Glaser [<a href="mailto:glaser@cgi.br">glaser@cgi.br</a>]<br>
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 8:29 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; Everton Lucero<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; Carlos A. Afonso; Robert Guerra<br>
Subject: Re: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!!<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
Thanks Everton.<br>
<br>
Prof.<br>
Hartmut Glaser<br>
<br>
On 01/12/2012, at 11:06, Everton Lucero <<a href="mailto:everton.mre@gmail.com">everton.mre@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Excellent analysis, C.A.!<br>
> I entirely agree and would just add that the Ministry of Justice is also a strong promoter and supporter of Marco Civil Bill. And so is the Foreign Ministry, for not approving it means destroying carefully built foreign policy positions on Internet Governance.<br>
> As you know, we've been saying abroad that the Law should first address the issue of limits to civil liabilities of different actors, and only after that another Law could fill in the gaps to criminalize specific illicit acts. It is not different internationally, as we first need to develop universal principles, based on which further rules could be created, if necessary. However, two Bills on cybercrime have just been approved by the Congress, which makes the approval of Marco Civil even more pressing and urgent.<br>
> Regards,<br>
> Everton<br>
><br>
><br>
> Enviado via iPad<br>
><br>
> Em 01/12/2012, às 10:36, "Carlos A. Afonso" <<a href="mailto:ca@cafonso.ca">ca@cafonso.ca</a>> escreveu:<br>
><br>
>> A few qualifications are in order:<br>
>><br>
>> - 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.<br>
>><br>
>> - 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.<br>
>><br>
>> - 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.<br>
>><br>
>> - 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).<br>
>><br>
>> - 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.<br>
>><br>
>> - 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.<br>
>><br>
>> - In the process, the same government forces against Marco Civil are also pressing for <a href="http://CGI.br">CGI.br</a> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> - 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 <a href="http://CGI.br">CGI.br</a> is). So all is not lost.<br>
>><br>
>> So, the situation is complicated, the odds are not good at all, but we did not lose the battle yet.<br>
>><br>
>> Sorry to strongly emphasize this, but... WE NEED ALL THE HELP AND MOBILIZATION WE CAN FROM ALL OF YOU.<br>
>><br>
>> fraternal regards<br>
>><br>
>> --c.a.<br>
>><br>
>> On 11/30/2012 08:21 PM, Robert Guerra wrote:<br>
>>> Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of Rights |<br>
>>> UNCUT<br>
>>> <a href="http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/" target="_blank">http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/</a><br>
>>> ------------------------------<br>
>>><br>
>>> Digital<br>
>>><br>
>>> The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that would have<br>
>>> pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of<br>
>>> Rights<<a href="http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/09/brazil-marco-civil-internet" target="_blank">http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/09/brazil-marco-civil-internet</a>>.”<br>
>>> Feted by free-speech<br>
>>> activists<<a href="http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/3389/en/brazil:-civil-rights-framework-for-the-internet" target="_blank">http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/3389/en/brazil:-civil-rights-framework-for-the-internet</a>><br>
>>> and<br>
>>> negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework to<br>
>>> guarantee basic rights for internet<br>
>>> users<<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/04402516196/brazil-drafts-anti-acta-civil-rights-based-framework-internet.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/04402516196/brazil-drafts-anti-acta-civil-rights-based-framework-internet.shtml</a>>,<br>
>>> content<br>
>>> creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are not<br>
>>> responsible for user content.<br>
>>> [image: Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA]<br>
>>><br>
>>> Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA<br>
>>><br>
>>> The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet <<a href="http://marcocivil.com.br/" target="_blank">http://marcocivil.com.br/</a>>, also<br>
>>> guaranteed net neutrality<<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html" target="_blank">http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html</a>><br>
>>> —<br>
>>> a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent<br>
>>> internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of<br>
>>> internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated rates<br>
>>> for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to charge<br>
>>> either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of<br>
>>> internet traffic, such as movies.<br>
>>><br>
>>> A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of Deputies<br>
>>> on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two months<br>
>>> that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to<br>
>>> agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco Civil<br>
>>> from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning it<br>
>>> will not be bought back to the floor.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on the<br>
>>> issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro<br>
>>> Molon<<a href="https://twitter.com/alessandromolon" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/alessandromolon</a>>, who<br>
>>> sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication<br>
>>> companies<<a href="http://seekingalpha.com/article/276687-5-top-yielding-brazil-telecom-stocks" target="_blank">http://seekingalpha.com/article/276687-5-top-yielding-brazil-telecom-stocks</a>>lobbied<br>
>>> hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the<br>
>>> free market.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders<br>
>>> were angered by the legal protections offered to internet intermediaries<br>
>>> who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties (companies<br>
>>> like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party<br>
>>> content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this<br>
>>> process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to<br>
>>> remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an<br>
>>> argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and made<br>
>>> it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. Although<br>
>>> industry lobbies were successful in watering<br>
>>> down<<a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/brazilian-internet-bill-threatens-freedom-expression" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/brazilian-internet-bill-threatens-freedom-expression</a>><br>
>>> key<br>
>>> user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even<br>
>>> greater changes on the text.<br>
>>><br>
>>> After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to society to<br>
>>> put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was also<br>
>>> critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by Marco<br>
>>> Civil.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and<br>
>>> Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to<br>
>>> Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties<br>
>>> having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s support of<br>
>>> Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from PMDB —<br>
>>> took issue with key elements.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the<br>
>>> internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a<br>
>>> “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide<br>
>>> influence on free speech issues.<br>
>>><br>
>>> “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and<br>
>>> dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies.<br>
>>> Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically<br>
>>> killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said<br>
>>> Falkvinge<<a href="http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/21/brazil-squanders-chance-at-geopolitical-influence-kills-internet-rights-bill-in-political-fiasco" target="_blank">http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/21/brazil-squanders-chance-at-geopolitical-influence-kills-internet-rights-bill-in-political-fiasco</a>>on<br>
>>> his website.<br>
>>><br>
>>> “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all<br>
>>> countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — and its<br>
>>> consequences”, said André Pase <<a href="https://twitter.com/andrepase" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/andrepase</a>>, Digital<br>
>>> Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre.<br>
>>><br>
>>> “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily obsolete in<br>
>>> a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born all the<br>
>>> time.”<br>
>>><br>
>>> *Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo*<br>
>>> ------------------------------<br>
>>><br>
>>> (via Instapaper <<a href="http://www.instapaper.com/" target="_blank">http://www.instapaper.com/</a>>)<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Sent from my iPhone<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
>><br>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
>><br>
>> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
><br>
> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
><br>
> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
><br>
> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Diego R. Canabarro<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="vertical-align:top;text-align:left"><a href="http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597" target="_blank">http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597</a></span> </font><br>
<br>--<br>diego.canabarro [at] <a href="http://ufrgs.br" target="_blank">ufrgs.br</a></div><div>diego [at] <a href="http://pubpol.umass.edu" target="_blank">pubpol.umass.edu</a><br>MSN: diegocanabarro [at] <a href="http://gmail.com" target="_blank">gmail.com</a><br>
Skype: diegocanabarro<br>Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)<br>--<br></div><br>
</div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br><span>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:</span><br><span> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span><br><span>To be removed from the list, visit:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>For all other list information and functions, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a></span><br><span>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body>