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

[Rejo Zenger]

++ 14/01/15 17:55 -0800 - Jeremy Malcolm:
>    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
[...]

For what it is worth: Bits of Freedom has done some work on notice and 
(action|takedown) in the past on a national en European level. Whenever 
we could we included both: an outline of principles that should apply, 
as well as a flowchart that provides both visual and logical clues on 
what to decide in what cases. I found that to be very helpful.

> 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

I agree, alltough to some extend this is dependent on what you decide to 
include. For example, requests from the government can be described or 
completely excluded ("if notice from governement, exit schema").




-- 
Rejo Zenger
Bits of Freedom | https://bof.nl
+31 6 3964 2738 | @bitsoffreedom
rejo.zenger at bof.nl | 21DBEFD4 (https://bof.nl/openpgp)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 931 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/manilaprinciples/attachments/20150122/2d516220/attachment.sig>