[Manila Principles] Seeking your inputs on proposal to restructure the document

Eduardo Bertoni ebertoni65 at gmail.com
Sat Feb 14 09:05:41 PST 2015

Thanks Rebecca for your clarification. For the time being, we are not
seeing any contradiction between UNESCO document and the Manila principles.
I see your point that the Manila principles could complement the UNESCO
document, and I agree on that.

To be clear on my previous comment: we do not think that the Manila
document might be useless. In fact we participated in the drafting process,
we will participate in the meeting in Manila and we also sent comments
today and long time ago. So we believe in the importance on working in
these principles.

My only suggestion is to think in linking in some way the two processes and
think in the best strategies to use the two documents for advocacy
purposes. In my experience, even when a document does not express the
organization view and only the authors views -this is the case of the
UNESCO document as you said- the stamp of the organization -UNESCO in this
case- in the document might help when you have conversations with
governments. So, the bottom line for us is to mention in some way UNESCO
document in the introduction of the Manila Principles, and try to push the
two documents together.

As I said, I will not be in Manila, but we might continue this conversation
by email or with my colleague Daniela in the Philippines.



Eduardo Bertoni

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Rebecca MacKinnon <
rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> Best,
> Rebecca
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Eduardo Bertoni <ebertoni65 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 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.
>> Best
>> e
>> Eduardo Bertoni
>> Director-CELE
>> 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
>>> 2015.
>>> 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
>>> circumstances.
>>> 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.
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Jyoti Panday
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ManilaPrinciples mailing list
>>> ManilaPrinciples at eff.org
>>> https://lists.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/manilaprinciples
> --
> Rebecca MacKinnon
> Director, Ranking Digital Rights <http://rankingdigitalrights.org/> @ New
> America
> Author, Consent of the Networked <http://consentofthenetworked.com/>
> Co-founder, Global Voices <http://globalvoicesonline.org/>
> Twitter: @rmack
> Office: +1-202-596-3343
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/manilaprinciples/attachments/20150214/51679ccd/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ManilaPrinciples mailing list