[Manila Principles] Three areas of divergence on the Manila Principles for your comment

Thu Jan 15 08:19:29 PST 2015

Left some comments on the principles. Still need more time to review the
paper.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

>  Dear all,
>
> Thanks again for agreeing to join the community that is developing the
> Manila Principles on intermediary liability.  There are 75 of us on this
> list covering all world regions, and since December you have contributed
> dozens of comments on the draft principles
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kAkqgt3cRb65d8ik6vWYgpk6DYpP8ABA43ljgDiGOf8/edit?pli=1#>
> and the background paper
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QfxH1jX_ewfB8TV5iQBSloyttjwaMP47nwblMzN4Hg4/edit#heading=h.tqnj2pprtelu>,
> with more comments continuing to flow in.  If you haven't commented yet,
> please take the time to see what others have been saying.
>
> Since posting a summary of our December webconference there has been no
> traffic on this list, while we have been quietly receiving comments via the
> Google docs and a few by email off-list.  This comment period lasts until
> 15 February, after which we will integrate the comments into another
> draft.  Until then, we won't be posting new versions of the draft texts.
>
> But meanwhile, it is useful to kick this list into life to deal with some
> of the major issues that we are hearing.  These are observations or
> suggestions that can't be dealt with by simple amendments to the text,
> because they are of a more structural or strategic nature.  For these, we
> need to discuss and respond to them in a more extended format, such as on
> this mailing list (and/or on a phone conference if requested).
>
> So far there are at least three such issues, which I'm going to try to
> outline here (but this may not do full justice to them, so anyone who
> shares these thoughts can follow up to explain them better):
>
>
>    1. Currently the main Manila Principles document consists of a short
>    few paragraphs of introduction, followed by eight principles, each of which
>    has between 5 and 8 points under it.  They are linear rather than in the
>    form of a decision tree such as "If you are dealing with this type of
>    content, then A, otherwise B".  As such, some of the principles are most
>    applicable under a "notice and takedown" regime, rather than the "notice
>    and notice" regime that we advocate should usually apply (in principle I
>    point 4, and in the background paper).  For example, principle IV "When
>    content is legitimately restricted, it should be done in the least
>    restrictive manner possible".
>
>    The suggestion is that we should include a separate section in the
>    main Manila Principles document that more explicitly explains the hierarchy
>    of intermediary liability regimes that we are recommending.  Do people
>    think that this would be valuable, or is it better to keep the document how
>    it is?
>
>     2. Another general comment that has been expressed from one source is
>    that the main Manila Principles is too ambitious, in that it is impossible
>    to deal with so many complex issues in a short document, and that too much
>    work is involved to finish it by March.  But short of abandoning the
>    exercise, it is suggested that we could hone in on some core principles
>    such as that legitimate should be kept available at all times, that
>    requests from LEA and from civil parties should be clearly distinguished,
>    that only unmistakeably unlawful content should be removed unilaterally
>    (and generally by the uploader rather than the provider, except in
>    emergencies), and that this should be by disabling access rather than
>    removing the content.
>
>    I'm not sure that we can't accommodate all of this by just honing the
>    principles that we have, but what do you think?  Should we remove some
>    topics altogether so that we can make the principles significantly
>    simpler?  Or is it OK to keep all of the topics that we have now, but just
>    endeavour to reduce duplication and present them in a less messy way?
>
>     3. A third comment deals with negotiating the delicate balance
>    between being too ambitious and being too conservative in how to deal with
>    content takedown.  In our unreleased zero draft we were much more
>    accommodating of the status quo such as notice and takedown, but feedback
>    received on the zero draft pushed us towards raising the bar for this
>    release to make the requirements of content restriction more stringent.
>    This has resulted in some "fudging" of the current text, for example where
>    we talk about requiring a "judicial or equivalent order" to authorise
>    content takedown.  Do you have any strong views about whether we have drawn
>    the line correctly and clearly enough?  Should "notice and takedown" ever
>    be appropriate, outside of emergency situations defined by law?
>
>
> Please let us know what you think about these three general comments. You
> can write back to this list (preferred, so that we have a record of the
> discussion that we can all refer back to), or else just to the project's
> steering committee (liability at cis-india.org).
>
> In the next few days, this list will be springing to life with some more
> emails about a draft website of the project, and about the agenda and
> registrations for the Manila Principles meeting on March 22-23, 2015.  If
> you have questions or comments about these or anything else, we also look
> forward to hearing from you.
>
> --
> 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 ::
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ManilaPrinciples mailing list
> ManilaPrinciples at eff.org
> https://lists.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/manilaprinciples
>

-- 

-- 
*Carolina Rossini *

*Vice President, International Policy and Strategy *
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/manilaprinciples/attachments/20150115/3e3f64d0/attachment-0001.html>