<div dir="ltr">Left some comments on the principles. Still need more time to review the paper. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear all,<br>
<br>
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 <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kAkqgt3cRb65d8ik6vWYgpk6DYpP8ABA43ljgDiGOf8/edit?pli=1#" target="_blank">draft
principles</a> and the <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QfxH1jX_ewfB8TV5iQBSloyttjwaMP47nwblMzN4Hg4/edit#heading=h.tqnj2pprtelu" target="_blank">background
paper</a>, with more comments continuing to flow in. If you
haven't commented yet, please take the time to see what others have
been saying.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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):<br>
<br>
<ol>
<li>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".<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
</li>
<li>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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
</li>
<li>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?<br>
</li>
</ol>
<br>
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 (<a href="mailto:liability@cis-india.org" target="_blank">liability@cis-india.org</a>).<br>
<br>
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.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a href="https://eff.org" target="_blank">https://eff.org</a>
<a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>
Tel: <a href="tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161" value="+14154369333" target="_blank">415.436.9333 ext 161</a>
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::</pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
ManilaPrinciples mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ManilaPrinciples@eff.org">ManilaPrinciples@eff.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/manilaprinciples" target="_blank">https://lists.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/manilaprinciples</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><br></span></div><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">-- </span><br style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><div dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px"><i>Carolina Rossini </i></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px"><font color="#666666"><i>Vice President, International Policy and Strategy <br></i></font></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px"><b><font color="#666666">Public Knowledge</font></b></div><div><font color="#0000ff" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.666666984558105px"><u><a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/" target="_blank">http://www.publicknowledge.org/</a></u></span></font><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px"><a value="+16176979389" style="color:rgb(102,102,102)">+ 1 6176979389 | </a><font color="#666666">skype: carolrossini | </font><font color="#0000ff">@carolinarossini</font></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>