[governance] ISP liability - a critical IG issue
bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Tue Jul 8 14:03:41 EDT 2008
Roland Perry schrieb:
> Frankly, there's such a big disconnect between the various claims here
> that we should take a step back and wait for the dust to settle.
The consolidated text os not available yet, but according to some
German-speaking news reports, my current impression is this:
1) the "three strikes you're out" amendment was not passed.
2) The formulation "lawful content" is still there, thus potentially
enabling regulatory authorities to mandate filtering by ISPs.
3) Malcolm Harbour, the UK rapporteur who introduced these amendments,
seems to peddle back after a storm of press enquiries and citizens' calls.
He was reported to have deleted the contested word "protection" (of lawful
content) from his amendments.
An overview in German is here:
Brief report from heise news UK:
Below is a copy of a more comprehensive mail from La Quadrature du Net.
> How can the same measure be intended to enhance emergency service access
> to caller location data *and* also implement a "three strikes" rule?
You assume that political compromise decisions that also are merged from
different committees are coherent. This assumption is not (always) valid. ;-)
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
everything was voted in IMCO tonight.
the whole report was voted by everyone but 2 MEPs
mostly everybody (including PSE and greens, etc.) voted on every amendments.
they couldn't know what they were voting for as the compromise
amendments weren't public at the moment of the vote, so could not be
matched with any analysis or voting list. the voting list might have
been "vote everything, oppose every oral amendment."
every oral amendement was rejected but one, removing "protection" in
"promotion and protection of lawful content" in the mission of national
regulation authority... quite nice but not very important compared to
what was passed.
the conservative vivendist group (harbour, mac carthy, and others)
complained about being "spammed" by la quadrature (not citizens from
every country, just Christophe and I apparently...), said it was
defamatory, that they could sue us, that we were defending private
interests (by opposition to BSA I suppose?)
In the good points :
- some MEP said it was good to be informed by citizens because we were
right on kamal's trojan amendment for Trusted Computing, so LIBE
committee will be asked a report (non binding and non blocking for the
rest of the procedure) before end of september on those issues.
- all but two shadow rapporteurs asked for postponing the plenary, and
Harbour said he might see what he could do, without saying "yes", for a
plenary in "september II" (which is I think 3rd week of september in
- the most positive things of all : all MEPs were panicking about those
issues and votes. they didn't know what to vote and were asking to
advice we couldn't give to them, because the whole process was
voluntarily opacified, which is what we were complaining about...
our mails and call really had a strong impact, that will last (if not
increase!) up to the plenary.
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
More information about the Governance