[Manila Principles] Seeking your inputs on proposal to restructure the document
rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com
Sat Feb 14 08:45:45 PST 2015
Hi there Eduardo,
Thanks for bringing up the UNESCO report on Internet intermediaries and
freedom of expression, and its recommendations.
First, as I think the introductory disclaimers from UNESCO at the beginning
of the report make clear, the report's recommendations are not official
UNESCO policy but rather reflect the views of the people involved with
writing, researching, and advising the report.
Second, the recommendations in the UNESCO report are much much broader than
intermediary liability. The recommendations address how a) intermediaries
themselves, through their own actions, can foster freedom of expression and
b) how governments can enable intermediaries to foster freedom of
expression. Limiting liability is part of that. But beyond saying that
limited liability enables companies to foster freedom of freedom of
expression, and that policymaking and legislation should be compatible with
human rights principles, and that all stakeholders should be involved with
said policymaking and legislative drafting, it doesn't get into the details
of what an ideal intermediary liability legal framework should look like.
The Manila principles therefore have the potential to do something that the
UNESCO recommendations do not. While I've been too swamped lately to go
through all the documents being discussed on this list, in cursory skimming
I haven't discerned conflicts between what we recommended in the UNESCO
report and what is being recommended by the Manila principles. Also, the
Manila principles represent a much broader participatory process than the
UNESCO report, which was more of a classic editorial process.
However if you think there are areas that need to be reconciled or are in
conflict in some way, I will be in Manila for the second day (Monday) and
happy to discuss. In fact, I believe there are plans to hold a session
about the UNESCO report. If the organizers see fit to schedule it for
Monday, I'm happy to be part of that discussion.
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Eduardo Bertoni <ebertoni65 at gmail.com>
> Dear all,
> Please find attached some preliminary comments we did at CELE
> <http://www.palermo.edu/cele>. We (in fact Daniela Schnidrig, CELE
> researcher cc in this email) will be in Manila and we will be very happy to
> discuss ours an others comments.
> As a general concern/comment: How are we planing to establish a "dialogue"
> between the "Manila Principles" and the recommendations issued by UNESCO
> <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002311/231162e.pdf> very recently?
> It would be interesting to have a discussion on the strategy that CSOs have
> in adopting the Manila Principles IF we already have principles issued by
> UNESCO. We strongly encourage all of us to have that discussion on strategy.
> Finally, we agree with Raegan comment and also for us the document still
> requests an important amount of work, and mainly, as I said above, a
> discussion about the strategy we have. Basically, why this principles will
> be important?
> I look forward to working with you.
> Eduardo Bertoni
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Jyoti Panday <jyoti at cis-india.org> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> Thank you to all of you who have taken out the time to comment
>> and provide your feedback on the principles.
>> On behalf of the steering committee of the Manila Principles project, I
>> am writing to you update you on our discussions on the way forward
>> following the end of the comment period on 15th February
>> As we have highlighted earlier, the Manila Principles will be a best
>> practices framework and set of baseline safeguards for regulators and
>> intermediaries to consider when developing, adopting, and reviewing
>> legislation, policies and practices that extend liability to
>> intermediaries for online third party content.
>> One of the issues that has come up in the preliminary feedback, is
>> that the Manila Principles are aiming to be both a best practices
>> document and create a set of cross cutting principles. As some of you
>> have pointed out this does not provide guidance on what kind of
>> intermediary liability regime should be adopted under certain
>> In response to the preliminary feedback and towards resolving this, we
>> are currently deliberating a proposal of splitting the document between
>> principles and best practices.
>> We have attached a PDF of the working draft in this email illustrating
>> the proposed split. Please note that the attached document is not a
>> final version and there are many comments from the consultation that are
>> yet to be integrated. The purpose of circulating this version is to seek
>> input on structuring the recommendations and the proposed split between
>> the principles and the best practices.
>> We would be very grateful if you could provide your feedback and
>> comments on this proposed structure.
>> Many thanks, and we look forward to working with you as we jointly
>> develop and launch the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability.
>> Jyoti Panday
>> ManilaPrinciples mailing list
>> ManilaPrinciples at eff.org
Director, Ranking Digital Rights <http://rankingdigitalrights.org/> @ New
Author, Consent of the Networked <http://consentofthenetworked.com/>
Co-founder, Global Voices <http://globalvoicesonline.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ManilaPrinciples