[Manila Principles] Seeking your inputs on proposal torestructure the document

박경신 kyungsinpark at korea.ac.kr
Fri Feb 13 19:44:02 PST 2015

I think that splitting into the two is confusing because both are at similar levels of abstraction.  There is nothing wrong with including general cross-cutting principles and best practices in one document as long as each sentence is carefully dressed with phrases such "State Party shoudl consider" or "Under no circumstances, however, . . .".  International human rights bodies to that all the time.  I think that splitting the two erodes the focus of the principles. As to other problems with the best practice recommendations,  please find attached my track-changed Word doc.  Maybe, need another call? 

I also attached my latest edits of the Background Document, which I think will gain more importance as people ask more questions.  I tried to address "the positioning" of the background document.  Just to show my thinking for now.  I think we need to focus on the structure of the principles themselves now.  

KS Park -----------------------원본 메세지-----------------------
보낸사람: "Jeremy Malcolm "<jmalcolm at eff.org>
받는사람: manilaprinciples at eff.org
보낸시간: 2015-02-14 04:47:14 GMT +0900 (Asia/Seoul)
제목: Re: [Manila Principles] Seeking your inputs on proposal torestructure the document

On 13/02/2015 10:31 am, Raegan MacDonald wrote:Thank you Jyoti, Jeremy and everyone who has put in so much work to kick start this ambitious initiative to come up with global principles on the complicated issue of intermediary liability. The split in the document on best practices and high level principles may provide needed precision.
Thanks—does anyone else have any comments on this structural point?  Although most people were in favour, I have had at least two people express reservations about dividing the document.  However because these comments were made off-list, there has not been a useful on-list discussion about the pros and cons.

However there is a further need to address the various instances where intermediary liability/voluntary actions may come into play. E.g. the blocking of:criminal content by judicial order;voluntary blocking of allegedly criminal content;alleged civil infringements;as well as takedowns in relation to the above, and blocking/takedowns that is not alleged to be either criminal or civil infringements.

I regret to say that the document requires a significant amount of work, and we are not in a position to submit comments in the short time frame that has been suggested. We would like to request that the deadline be extended.
You are quite right, however it does seem that all of the areas of contention have been fully identified during this current comment period, which ends on Sunday, and with an intensive period of work by the steering committee I think that we can endeavour to providing a fresh draft for comment within the following week.  It is increasingly difficult for people to usefully comment on the current draft, due to the large number of comments and amendments.  A fresh draft that consolidates all the comments, and includes suggested resolutions to disputed issues, will make this much easier.

If we are able to provide a new revision for comment within a week, that will still allow one month for work on the paper before the Manila Principles meeting.

Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/manilaprinciples/attachments/20150214/1429a1ef/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Best Practices Proposal(KS).docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 22078 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/manilaprinciples/attachments/20150214/1429a1ef/attachment-0002.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Integratedbackgrounddocument(KS).docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 121038 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/manilaprinciples/attachments/20150214/1429a1ef/attachment-0003.obj>

More information about the ManilaPrinciples mailing list