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

[Raegan MacDonald]

On 13 February 2015 at 20:47, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

>  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.
>

Thank you, Jeremy. We will then wait for the revised document that
incorporates all the comments received so far before sending our detailed
input.

Best,
-Raegan


>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm@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:https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ManilaPrinciples mailing list
> ManilaPrinciples at eff.org
> https://lists.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/manilaprinciples
>



-- 
*Raegan MacDonald*
European Policy Manager
Access | accessnow.org <https://www.AccessNow.org/>

mobile: +32 486 301 096
office: +32 2 274 25 74
@ShmaeganM
PGP: 0xD1DF9598
Fingerprint: 4118 92BC B293 C067 48E4 AECE B010 63AB D1DF 9598
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/manilaprinciples/attachments/20150216/b6093bb3/attachment.html>