[governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!!

Diego Rafael Canabarro diegocanabarro at gmail.com
Mon Dec 10 14:13:44 EST 2012 

What do u mean Vanda?
On Dec 10, 2012 2:08 PM, "Vanda UOL" <vanda at uol.com.br> wrote:

> Looks like the awful proposal was not accepted. Who are there could
> comment!
> Best
>
> Vanda Scartezini
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 01/12/2012, at 11:06, Everton Lucero <everton.mre at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Excellent analysis, C.A.!
> > 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.
> > 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.
> > Regards,
> > Everton
> >
> >
> > Enviado via iPad
> >
> > Em 01/12/2012, às 10:36, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> escreveu:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121210/728d69c3/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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

More information about the Governance mailing list