At the end of last semester the Faculty of Harvard Law School voted to appoint John Palfrey as a Clinical Professor of Law. This appointment recognizes the enormous contributions John has made since becoming the Berkman Center’'s Executive Director in 2002. Everyone at Berkman - its faculty, fellows, staff, and friends - is extremely proud of John'’s extraordinary achievements and wish their intrepid leader, known for his equal measures of brilliance, commitment, kindness, and modesty, the best in this exciting new phase of his career.
Keep reading:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/home?wid=10&func=viewSubmission&sid=883
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Monday, November 21, 2005
ANTI-CORRUPTION CONFERENCE & FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT in AZERBAIJAN
ABA/CEELI and OSCE co-sponsored the "National Integrity Conference: Best Practices for Ministries" on October 14, 2005 in Baku, Azerbaijan. ABA/CEELI and OSCE have invited www.Bilgiedinmehakki.Org, to take part in this conference. Avniye Tansug attended and presented Turkish FOIA experiences in the Conference...
TUNIS AGENDA FOR THE INFORMATION SOCIETY
Document: WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6 (Rev. 1)-E
Date: 15 November 2005
Original: English
http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html
COMBATING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
The International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (“International Centre”), in collaboration with the International Association of Internet Hotlines (INHOPE), held its first focus group titled, "Combating Child Pornography: Greece, Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria", in Athens, Greece on 18 October 2005.The event was very successful as it was well?attended, issue?focused and resulted in clear action itemsfor each country and for the region in general. The next two focus groups will be held in the Baltics and Eastern Europe in 2006. Representing "Cyber-Rights Cyber Liberties" A. Tansug attended in the Seminar & Focus group and presented the situation as follows:
The issue of child pornography is largely unknown in Turkey for cultural reasons. There is low internet penetration. In 2005, there was 263% growth in internet use however, only 9.9% of the population of Turkey is online. Mobile phones are more favorable to computers for accessing theInternet. Therefore, there is little e?readiness in Turkey.
The first child pornography investigation by Turkish law enforcement was an international case called “Operation Landmark” which was started by Interpol and the National Crime Squad of the UK. TheTurkish suspect was a teacher who had four local victims. This has been the only case with extensive publicity in Turkey.
In Turkey, there were thirteen child pornography cases in 2004 and seven cases in the first ten months of 2005, all of which were international cases and initiated by Interpol. The new criminal code for child pornography came into effect in December 2004 and includes computer crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children. There is a new child pornography unit of the national police in Turkey but there is no reporting hotline.
There has been no research in Turkey on the issue of child pornography.
The key issues in Turkey were discussed and included:
• Lack of public knowledge about the issue;
• Unwillingness to call attention to child sexual exploitation;
• Lack of precise definition of child pornography in the penal code;
• Lack of research on the makeup and extent of the problem;
• Lack of an official police or government hotline for reporting complaints.
Some possible action items discussed to improve in this area included:
• Create an official police or government hotline for reporting complaints;
• Engage the ISP industry to get involved in co?regulation;
• Educate public on the issue and on technology.
TUNIS AGENDA FOR THE INFORMATION SOCIETY
Document: WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6 (Rev. 1)-E
Date: 15 November 2005
Original: English
http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html
COMBATING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
The International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (“International Centre”), in collaboration with the International Association of Internet Hotlines (INHOPE), held its first focus group titled, "Combating Child Pornography: Greece, Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria", in Athens, Greece on 18 October 2005.The event was very successful as it was well?attended, issue?focused and resulted in clear action itemsfor each country and for the region in general. The next two focus groups will be held in the Baltics and Eastern Europe in 2006. Representing "Cyber-Rights Cyber Liberties" A. Tansug attended in the Seminar & Focus group and presented the situation as follows:The issue of child pornography is largely unknown in Turkey for cultural reasons. There is low internet penetration. In 2005, there was 263% growth in internet use however, only 9.9% of the population of Turkey is online. Mobile phones are more favorable to computers for accessing theInternet. Therefore, there is little e?readiness in Turkey.
The first child pornography investigation by Turkish law enforcement was an international case called “Operation Landmark” which was started by Interpol and the National Crime Squad of the UK. TheTurkish suspect was a teacher who had four local victims. This has been the only case with extensive publicity in Turkey.
In Turkey, there were thirteen child pornography cases in 2004 and seven cases in the first ten months of 2005, all of which were international cases and initiated by Interpol. The new criminal code for child pornography came into effect in December 2004 and includes computer crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children. There is a new child pornography unit of the national police in Turkey but there is no reporting hotline.
There has been no research in Turkey on the issue of child pornography.
The key issues in Turkey were discussed and included:
• Lack of public knowledge about the issue;
• Unwillingness to call attention to child sexual exploitation;
• Lack of precise definition of child pornography in the penal code;
• Lack of research on the makeup and extent of the problem;
• Lack of an official police or government hotline for reporting complaints.
Some possible action items discussed to improve in this area included:
• Create an official police or government hotline for reporting complaints;
• Engage the ISP industry to get involved in co?regulation;
• Educate public on the issue and on technology.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Friday, October 07, 2005
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Subject: new open standards initiative - three more links/stories
The report on open technology standards released today at the World Bank, was the result of a meeting convened by the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School, with participants from 13 countries and a collaboration with IBM and Oracle.
The report itself is here: Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystemshttp://cyber.law.harvard.edu/epolicy/roadmap.pdf and the web site for the project is here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/epolicyand a story from InfoWorld:http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/09/09/HNworldbank_1.htmlGroup urges IT open standards in World Bank report Participants claim open standards are critical to economic growth and innovation By Nancy Weil, IDG News ServiceSeptember 09, 2005
A road map aimed at guiding governments and companies in the development of open information and communication technologies is being presented Friday at a World Bank meeting in New York by a group comprised of academics, government officials and industry representatives. The Open ePolicy Group contends that the adoption of open standards is vital to global economic growth and innovation.
"Almost by necessity, a new openness, fueled by a wave of information and communication technologies (ICT), is evolving and unlocking the efficiencies, standardization and flexibility needed to propel the transformation of governments and businesses," says the report, which included input from representatives of 13 nations and is spearheaded by the Berkman Center of Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. IBM Corp. and Oracle Corp. have also been involved in the project leading to the report.
Open standards are defined by the group as those that are not proprietary, or owned by any one company, and that are published and freely available for use by developers. However, the road map does not focus on any one aspect of what the group calls an open "ICT ecosystem," but covers various components. Such an ecosystem "encompasses the policies, strategies, processes, information, technologies, applications and stakeholders that together make up a technology environment for a country, government or an enterprise. Most importantly, and ICT ecosystem includes people -- diverse individuals who create, buy, sell, regulate, manage and use technology."
An open ICT system allows for interoperability across "diverse architectures," is user-centric, collaborative, sustainable and flexible, according to the report, which emerged out of a meeting arranged last February by the Berkman Center and which has led to ongoing work by meeting participants. Open standards are not the same as open-source software, the road map says. Both open-source software and proprietary software are components of an open-standards approach, according to the report.
A standard is open when it has six elements, the report says. Such a standard "cannot be controlled by any single person or entity with any vested interests" and further evolves and is managed is a "transparent process." Such systems also are "platform independent, vendor neutral and usable for multiple implementations," as well as being "openly published," and "available royalty free or at minimal cost." The standard also is open if it is "approved through due process by rough consensus among participants."
Though the report says proprietary software can be part of an open-standards systems, the ePolicy Group's road map comes out at a time when Microsoft Corp.'s Windows is under increasing pressure from open-source advocates worldwide. In an effort to lower costs, enhance open systems, enhance security and promote local developers, national and municipal governments around the world have started drafting policies that call for adoption of open-source software.
The ePolicy Group report says that governments should be among the participants in the process that leads to open standards and "play a critical role in the adoption and endorsement of open standards," and contends that government policy should mandate choice in technology.
Bolstering the role of government, the report outlines specific open ICT ecosystems employed by various nations, including Denmark's eBusiness initiative, aimed at creating a centralized ordering and invoicing process that is expected to save the country €160 million (US$198 million).
Denmark's initiative uses work by the OASIS Universal Business Language Technical Committee and the open standard UBL specification. The Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards, or OASIS, is a nonprofit international consortium focused on e-business standards. The group includes more than 4,000 participants that represent over 600 organizations and other members, including Sun Microsystems Inc., Oracle, IBM, SAP AG, Nokia Corp., General Motors Corp. and Microsoft.
"For many governments, open ICT ecosystems are becoming a key element of their economic development strategy. They see a virtuous cycle of openness increasing access to technology and market opportunities for local industries," the report says. Open systems also foster competition, which is good for users as well as to drive economic growth, and the same is said for innovation and efficiency. "Open technologies lower barriers in the marketplace and in the community," the report says. "Open standards, in particular, allow any company or person to build on existing protocols and procedures, and to innovate on top of them."
Such systems evolve over time, says the report, which offers examples showing how open ICT systems can be developed.
Interestingly, the 33-page report opens with a recounting of last December's tsunami that sounds eerily akin to similar issues that arose after Hurricane Katrina slammed into the U.S. Gulf Coast not quite two weeks ago. "Responding agencies and nongovernmental groups are unable to share information vital to the rescue effort," the report recalls of the government in Thailand in the tsunami's immediate aftermath. "Each uses different data and document formats. Relief is slowed; coordination is complicated. The need for common, open standards for disaster management was never more stark or compelling."
The government in Thailand created a common Web site for registering missing persons and also made open file formats "an immediate national priority," the report says.
The road map is meant to be a starting point for consideration and "a catalyst for changing mental models globally about ICT ecosystems and pathways to innovation," wrote Jeff Kaplan, director of the Berkman center and founder of the Open ePolicy Group, in an introduction to the report. The group's Web site is http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/epolicy.
The report itself is here: Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystemshttp://cyber.law.harvard.edu/epolicy/roadmap.pdf and the web site for the project is here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/epolicyand a story from InfoWorld:http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/09/09/HNworldbank_1.htmlGroup urges IT open standards in World Bank report Participants claim open standards are critical to economic growth and innovation By Nancy Weil, IDG News ServiceSeptember 09, 2005
A road map aimed at guiding governments and companies in the development of open information and communication technologies is being presented Friday at a World Bank meeting in New York by a group comprised of academics, government officials and industry representatives. The Open ePolicy Group contends that the adoption of open standards is vital to global economic growth and innovation.
"Almost by necessity, a new openness, fueled by a wave of information and communication technologies (ICT), is evolving and unlocking the efficiencies, standardization and flexibility needed to propel the transformation of governments and businesses," says the report, which included input from representatives of 13 nations and is spearheaded by the Berkman Center of Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. IBM Corp. and Oracle Corp. have also been involved in the project leading to the report.
Open standards are defined by the group as those that are not proprietary, or owned by any one company, and that are published and freely available for use by developers. However, the road map does not focus on any one aspect of what the group calls an open "ICT ecosystem," but covers various components. Such an ecosystem "encompasses the policies, strategies, processes, information, technologies, applications and stakeholders that together make up a technology environment for a country, government or an enterprise. Most importantly, and ICT ecosystem includes people -- diverse individuals who create, buy, sell, regulate, manage and use technology."
An open ICT system allows for interoperability across "diverse architectures," is user-centric, collaborative, sustainable and flexible, according to the report, which emerged out of a meeting arranged last February by the Berkman Center and which has led to ongoing work by meeting participants. Open standards are not the same as open-source software, the road map says. Both open-source software and proprietary software are components of an open-standards approach, according to the report.
A standard is open when it has six elements, the report says. Such a standard "cannot be controlled by any single person or entity with any vested interests" and further evolves and is managed is a "transparent process." Such systems also are "platform independent, vendor neutral and usable for multiple implementations," as well as being "openly published," and "available royalty free or at minimal cost." The standard also is open if it is "approved through due process by rough consensus among participants."
Though the report says proprietary software can be part of an open-standards systems, the ePolicy Group's road map comes out at a time when Microsoft Corp.'s Windows is under increasing pressure from open-source advocates worldwide. In an effort to lower costs, enhance open systems, enhance security and promote local developers, national and municipal governments around the world have started drafting policies that call for adoption of open-source software.
The ePolicy Group report says that governments should be among the participants in the process that leads to open standards and "play a critical role in the adoption and endorsement of open standards," and contends that government policy should mandate choice in technology.
Bolstering the role of government, the report outlines specific open ICT ecosystems employed by various nations, including Denmark's eBusiness initiative, aimed at creating a centralized ordering and invoicing process that is expected to save the country €160 million (US$198 million).
Denmark's initiative uses work by the OASIS Universal Business Language Technical Committee and the open standard UBL specification. The Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards, or OASIS, is a nonprofit international consortium focused on e-business standards. The group includes more than 4,000 participants that represent over 600 organizations and other members, including Sun Microsystems Inc., Oracle, IBM, SAP AG, Nokia Corp., General Motors Corp. and Microsoft.
"For many governments, open ICT ecosystems are becoming a key element of their economic development strategy. They see a virtuous cycle of openness increasing access to technology and market opportunities for local industries," the report says. Open systems also foster competition, which is good for users as well as to drive economic growth, and the same is said for innovation and efficiency. "Open technologies lower barriers in the marketplace and in the community," the report says. "Open standards, in particular, allow any company or person to build on existing protocols and procedures, and to innovate on top of them."
Such systems evolve over time, says the report, which offers examples showing how open ICT systems can be developed.
Interestingly, the 33-page report opens with a recounting of last December's tsunami that sounds eerily akin to similar issues that arose after Hurricane Katrina slammed into the U.S. Gulf Coast not quite two weeks ago. "Responding agencies and nongovernmental groups are unable to share information vital to the rescue effort," the report recalls of the government in Thailand in the tsunami's immediate aftermath. "Each uses different data and document formats. Relief is slowed; coordination is complicated. The need for common, open standards for disaster management was never more stark or compelling."
The government in Thailand created a common Web site for registering missing persons and also made open file formats "an immediate national priority," the report says.
The road map is meant to be a starting point for consideration and "a catalyst for changing mental models globally about ICT ecosystems and pathways to innovation," wrote Jeff Kaplan, director of the Berkman center and founder of the Open ePolicy Group, in an introduction to the report. The group's Web site is http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/epolicy.
Friday, September 09, 2005
Canada-Australia Comparative IP & Cyberlaw Conference
Join us this fall in Ottawa for a bilateral conference between Canadian and Australian IP, Privacy and IT legal experts.
Conference Programme and Registration Form (pdf)
Canada-Australia Comparative IP & Cyberlaw Conference will be held at the University of Ottawa on Friday, September 30th and Saturday, October 1st, 2005. Bringing together leading academics from Canada and Australia, the conference will explore comparative approaches to intellectual property and discuss privacy, information technology and other cyberlaw issues.
A Techlaw Student Summit will be held on the afternoon of Thursday September 29, 2005 for technology law students clubs across the country. Students are invited to a networking lunch held at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law. The afternoon will feature presentations by local and visiting students on current technology law issues and contemporary research. Interested students are asked to contact UO’s Information Technology Law Society (ITLS) for further details at: exec@itls.ca
Speakers
Jane Bailey, University of Ottawa (CANADA)
Carys Craig, Osgoode Hall Law School (CANADA)
Michael Deturbide, Dalhousie University (CANADA)
Peter Drahos, Australian National University (AUSTRALIA)
Brian Fitzgerald, Queensland University of Technology (AUSTRALIA)
Graham Greenleaf, University of New South Wales (AUSTRALIA)
Dan Hunter, University of Pennsylvania (AUSTRALIA)
Elizabeth Judge, University of Ottawa (CANADA)
Ian Kerr, University of Ottawa (CANADA)
David Lametti, McGill University (CANADA)
David Lindsay, Monash University (AUSTRALIA)
Carolyn Penfold, University of New South Wales (AUSTRALIA)
Matthew Rimmer, Australian National University (AUSTRALIA)
Myra Tawfik, University of Windsor (CANADA)
Sam Trosow, University of Western Ontario (CANADA)
Kim Weatherall, University of Melbourne (AUSTRALIA)
Conference Programme and Registration Form (pdf)
Canada-Australia Comparative IP & Cyberlaw Conference will be held at the University of Ottawa on Friday, September 30th and Saturday, October 1st, 2005. Bringing together leading academics from Canada and Australia, the conference will explore comparative approaches to intellectual property and discuss privacy, information technology and other cyberlaw issues.
A Techlaw Student Summit will be held on the afternoon of Thursday September 29, 2005 for technology law students clubs across the country. Students are invited to a networking lunch held at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law. The afternoon will feature presentations by local and visiting students on current technology law issues and contemporary research. Interested students are asked to contact UO’s Information Technology Law Society (ITLS) for further details at: exec@itls.ca
Speakers
Jane Bailey, University of Ottawa (CANADA)
Carys Craig, Osgoode Hall Law School (CANADA)
Michael Deturbide, Dalhousie University (CANADA)
Peter Drahos, Australian National University (AUSTRALIA)
Brian Fitzgerald, Queensland University of Technology (AUSTRALIA)
Graham Greenleaf, University of New South Wales (AUSTRALIA)
Dan Hunter, University of Pennsylvania (AUSTRALIA)
Elizabeth Judge, University of Ottawa (CANADA)
Ian Kerr, University of Ottawa (CANADA)
David Lametti, McGill University (CANADA)
David Lindsay, Monash University (AUSTRALIA)
Carolyn Penfold, University of New South Wales (AUSTRALIA)
Matthew Rimmer, Australian National University (AUSTRALIA)
Myra Tawfik, University of Windsor (CANADA)
Sam Trosow, University of Western Ontario (CANADA)
Kim Weatherall, University of Melbourne (AUSTRALIA)
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Thursday, July 07, 2005
No software patents in Europe
Free Software Foundation Europe:
No software patents in Europe, requests EPO review instrument
After years of struggle, the European Parliament finally rejected the
software patent directive with 648 of 680 votes: A strong signal
against patents on software logic, a sign of lost faith in the
European Union and a clear request for the European Patent Office
(EPO) to change its policy: the EPO must stop issuing software patents
today.
"This outcome does not affect patents on high-tech inventions in any
way," explains Stefano Maffulli, Italian representative of FSFE:
"High-tech innovation has always been patentable, and even if the
directive had been passed with all proposed amendmends, it would have
remained patentable. It is important to point this out because the
proponents of software logic patents have tried to confuse people
about high-tech inventions being subject of this directive."
FSFE's president, Georg Greve adds: "The parliament understood this
when it amended the directive in the first reading to keep high-tech
innovation inside and software outside the patent system."
"Unfortunately, the council of the European Union ignored this
decision of the Parliament and removed those amendments. Many MEPs
were appalled at this obvious corruption of democratic process that
day and seem to have lost faith in seeing their amendments treated
with more respect this time."
"Rejection of the directive became the very last option to send a
clear and strong signal against software patents in Europe," Greve
continues. "The Free Software Foundation Europe commends the European
Parliament on this decision: in the interest of harmonisation we would
have preferred a directive along the lines of the first reading, but
we understand that rejection became the last realistic option to avoid
doing irreparable harm to European economy."
Jonas Öberg, vice-president of FSFE: "This reaffirms the 1973 European
Patent Convention (EPC), which excludes software from patentability.
The European Patent Office (EPO) has largely ignored this central
convention and granted approximately 30.000 software patents in the
past years: this must stop today! The EPO should not be allowed to
further ignore European policies!"
Georg Greve explains the proposal of FSFE: "Much trouble was caused by
the inability of the European Union to hold the European Patent Office
responsible for acting against agreed-upon policies: unlike other
parts of a democratic executive, the EPO is not liable for the
decision it takes. We propose to establish an EPO supervision
instrument that holds the EPO management liable for its decisions and
prevents further patent system degradation."
About the Free Software Foundation Europe:
The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is a charitable
non-governmental organisation dedicated to all aspects of Free
Software in Europe. Access to software determines who may
participate in a digital society. Therefore the Freedoms to use,
copy, modify and redistribute software - as described in the Free
Software definition- allow equal participation in the information
age. Creating awareness for these issues, securing Free Software
politically and legally, and giving people Freedom by supporting
development of Free Software are central issues of the FSFE. The
FSFE was founded in 2001 as the European sister organisation of the
Free Software Foundation in the United States.
Further information: http://www.fsfeurope.org
Monday, June 27, 2005
Sunday, June 12, 2005
=================================================
CALL FOR PAPERS
=================================================
First International Conference on Information and Communication
Technologies and Development (ICTD 2006)
May 25-26, 2006
Berkeley, California, U.S.A.
http://sims.berkeley.edu/ictd2006
The past decade has witnessed an explosion in projects that apply
information and communication technologies (ICT) to support socio-economic development.
Every sector is involved - governments, academia, small start-ups, large corporations, inter-governmental organizations, and non-profits and non-
governmental organizations. In spite of the tremendous energy and
resources behind these projects, scientifically sound research in this space is
just beginning to emerge. What is the actual impact of ICT projects? What novel technology is required to meet development needs? What methodologies lead to success or failure of a project?
The goal of the ICTD conference is to provide a forum for academic
researchers working with ICT applied to development. The conference will be
scientifically rigorous and multi-disciplinary - papers reporting high-quality original research are solicited. Submitted papers will be subjected to double-blind peer review, and a full proceedings will be published at the time of the conference. (Best papers, as selected by a subset of the program committee, will be published in a special edition of the journal, Information Technologies and International Development.)
The conference will bring together researchers in both the social and
technical sciences, with anticipated representation from anthropology,
sociology, economics, political science, computer science, electrical engineering, industrial design, and so on.
We expect this to be the first of an ongoing series of conferences to occur every
one or two years, and moving from country to country.
For the purposes of this conference, the term "ICT" will comprise
computing devices (e.g., PCs, PDAs, sensor networks), technologies for voice and data connectivity, the Internet, and related technologies. Application
domains include, but are not restricted to, education, agriculture, healthcare, poverty alleviation, general communication, and governance. Papers considering novel design, new technology, project assessment, policy impact, content, social issues around ICT for development, and so forth will be considered. Well-presented negative results from which generalizable conclusions can be drawn are also sought.
Important Dates (exact dates to be updated on website):
* Deadline for abstracts and intent to submit: October 21, 2005
* Deadline for full paper submissions: December, 2005
* Notification to authors: January, 2006
* Deadline for camera-ready copy: March, 2006
* Conference dates: May 25-26, 2006
Only original, unpublished papers in English will be considered. Reviews will be double blind. Abstracts will facilitate the review process, and should be 200-400 words in length.
For further information, please see the conference website at
http://sims.berkeley.edu/ictd2006. Inquiries should be sent to
ictd2006@yahoo.com.
Organizers:
Honorary Chairs: VS Arunachalam (Tamil Nadu Planning Commission) and
Ken Keniston (MIT)
Chairs: Raj Reddy (CMU) and AnnaLee Saxenian (UC Berkeley)
Organizing Committee: Joyojeet Pal (UC Berkeley), Balaji Parthasarathy
(IIIT- Bangalore), Rahul Tongia (CMU), Kentaro Toyama (MSR India)
Sponsors: MSR India, SIMS UC Berkeley. We are seeking additional
sponsors, primarily for travel grants.
CALL FOR PAPERS
=================================================
First International Conference on Information and Communication
Technologies and Development (ICTD 2006)
May 25-26, 2006
Berkeley, California, U.S.A.
http://sims.berkeley.edu/ictd2006
The past decade has witnessed an explosion in projects that apply
information and communication technologies (ICT) to support socio-economic development.
Every sector is involved - governments, academia, small start-ups, large corporations, inter-governmental organizations, and non-profits and non-
governmental organizations. In spite of the tremendous energy and
resources behind these projects, scientifically sound research in this space is
just beginning to emerge. What is the actual impact of ICT projects? What novel technology is required to meet development needs? What methodologies lead to success or failure of a project?
The goal of the ICTD conference is to provide a forum for academic
researchers working with ICT applied to development. The conference will be
scientifically rigorous and multi-disciplinary - papers reporting high-quality original research are solicited. Submitted papers will be subjected to double-blind peer review, and a full proceedings will be published at the time of the conference. (Best papers, as selected by a subset of the program committee, will be published in a special edition of the journal, Information Technologies and International Development.)
The conference will bring together researchers in both the social and
technical sciences, with anticipated representation from anthropology,
sociology, economics, political science, computer science, electrical engineering, industrial design, and so on.
We expect this to be the first of an ongoing series of conferences to occur every
one or two years, and moving from country to country.
For the purposes of this conference, the term "ICT" will comprise
computing devices (e.g., PCs, PDAs, sensor networks), technologies for voice and data connectivity, the Internet, and related technologies. Application
domains include, but are not restricted to, education, agriculture, healthcare, poverty alleviation, general communication, and governance. Papers considering novel design, new technology, project assessment, policy impact, content, social issues around ICT for development, and so forth will be considered. Well-presented negative results from which generalizable conclusions can be drawn are also sought.
Important Dates (exact dates to be updated on website):
* Deadline for abstracts and intent to submit: October 21, 2005
* Deadline for full paper submissions: December, 2005
* Notification to authors: January, 2006
* Deadline for camera-ready copy: March, 2006
* Conference dates: May 25-26, 2006
Only original, unpublished papers in English will be considered. Reviews will be double blind. Abstracts will facilitate the review process, and should be 200-400 words in length.
For further information, please see the conference website at
http://sims.berkeley.edu/ictd2006. Inquiries should be sent to
ictd2006@yahoo.com.
Organizers:
Honorary Chairs: VS Arunachalam (Tamil Nadu Planning Commission) and
Ken Keniston (MIT)
Chairs: Raj Reddy (CMU) and AnnaLee Saxenian (UC Berkeley)
Organizing Committee: Joyojeet Pal (UC Berkeley), Balaji Parthasarathy
(IIIT- Bangalore), Rahul Tongia (CMU), Kentaro Toyama (MSR India)
Sponsors: MSR India, SIMS UC Berkeley. We are seeking additional
sponsors, primarily for travel grants.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Policy Loundering
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-185519
Privacy International Announces Project to Stop "Policy Laundering"13/04/2005Privacy International, in concert with its partners the American Civil Liberties Union and Statewatch, today announced the formation of a new international "Policy Laundering Project". This international project will monitor and influence the increasingly common formation of civil liberties-sensitive security policies through international organizations. "Governments are increasingly pushing the illiberal policies through international treaty organizations, then bringing them back home", says Dr. Gus Hosein, Senior Fellow with Privacy International.
"This is the strategy we call policy laundering. The UK has recently laundered communications surveillance policies through the European Union and ID cards through the United Nations. The Government returns home to Parliament, holding their hands up saying 'We are obliged to act becauseof international obligations' and gets what they want with little debate."[...] the website for the project is http://www.policylaundering.org/
Privacy International Announces Project to Stop "Policy Laundering"13/04/2005Privacy International, in concert with its partners the American Civil Liberties Union and Statewatch, today announced the formation of a new international "Policy Laundering Project". This international project will monitor and influence the increasingly common formation of civil liberties-sensitive security policies through international organizations. "Governments are increasingly pushing the illiberal policies through international treaty organizations, then bringing them back home", says Dr. Gus Hosein, Senior Fellow with Privacy International.
"This is the strategy we call policy laundering. The UK has recently laundered communications surveillance policies through the European Union and ID cards through the United Nations. The Government returns home to Parliament, holding their hands up saying 'We are obliged to act becauseof international obligations' and gets what they want with little debate."[...] the website for the project is http://www.policylaundering.org/
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Our friend Schneider is currently a Research Fellow at the Berkman Center, Harvard Law School...
Our friend Henrick Schneider from the ICT 2003 Training Program in Budapest, Hungary, goes to The Berkman Center for Internet & Society as a Research Fellow. Beside The Berkman Center, you can also meet him in April 2005 at the “Seeing, Understanding, Learning in the Mobile Age” conference, where he will introduce his research findings. (Here is a UsabilityNews.com article about the conference, discussing it as an example of a working private-academic partnership.)
For his personal page, recent works and e-mail address at the Berkman Center just click on his photo!
Congratulations and good luck Henrik!
Our friend Henrick Schneider from the ICT 2003 Training Program in Budapest, Hungary, goes to The Berkman Center for Internet & Society as a Research Fellow. Beside The Berkman Center, you can also meet him in April 2005 at the “Seeing, Understanding, Learning in the Mobile Age” conference, where he will introduce his research findings. (Here is a UsabilityNews.com article about the conference, discussing it as an example of a working private-academic partnership.)For his personal page, recent works and e-mail address at the Berkman Center just click on his photo!
Congratulations and good luck Henrik!
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Weekly Digest 4.13 for March 25, 2004
is now available at
http://www.markle.org/weekly_digest/weeklydigest_vol.4_issue13.pdf
Stefaan Verhulst- Markle Foundation
is now available at
http://www.markle.org/weekly_digest/weeklydigest_vol.4_issue13.pdf
Stefaan Verhulst- Markle Foundation
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
WIPO OFFERS NEW TOOL FOR ANALYSIS OF UDRP TRENDS
The Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has created and made available online a new information tool that offers a concise overview of trends in decisions taken under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) – a quick and cost effective dispute resolution procedure relating to Internet addresses. The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions considers common and important substantive and procedural questions that have been extracted from the over 7,000 UDRP cases handled so far by WIPO. The Overview is available at http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/search/overview/index.html.
"By offering a concise overview of UDRP decision trends, this new tool will further enhance the consistency and reasoning of decisions taken under the UDRP and will help parties to better assess their chances under the UDRP," said Mr. Francis Gurry, WIPO Deputy Director General who oversees the work of the Center. Mr. Gurry said he expected a wide variety of professionals, as well as Internet users to benefit from this analysis. "Of course, legal practitioners will find this tool very useful. But I also expect academics, policy-makers, as well as existing and potential owners of domain names to benefit from the analysis of thousands of cases we have handled to date," he added.
The UDRP, which was proposed by WIPO and has become accepted as an international standard for resolving domain name disputes, is designed specifically to discourage and resolve the abusive registration of trademarks as domain names. Under the UDRP, a complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, that the respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name and that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. Disputes are decided by independent panelists drawn from the Center’s list of 400 trademark specialists from over 50 countries.
The rules governing the UDRP – whose popularity stems from its cost-effectiveness, the predictability of the process and swift enforcement of the results – are clear and concise. As a result, as the WIPO Overview shows, consensus or clear majority views have developed on most issues. However, with UDRP decisions covering a multitude of facts and arguments, it is hard to avoid genuine differences of opinion on some of the issues, all the more so in view of the fact that panelists and parties come from a multitude of jurisdictions. By providing this analysis of UDRP decisions, the new WIPO Overview will enhance the predictability of the UDRP mechanism.
The introduction to this new tool on WIPO’s website recalls that decision-making authority under the UDRP lies exclusively with the appointed panels. The Overview assists awareness of their views on key procedural and substantial issues. Decision references supporting each line of opinion are included, with over 100 decisions from over 80 different UDRP panelists listed.
While some of the listed issues arise only infrequently, all of them are, or are perceived to be, relevant to the operation of the UDRP. The Center’s identification of questions and evaluation of opinions is based on the 7,000 UDRP cases it has administered through February 2005. More detailed information on all views is available from the Center’s frequently used online Legal Index of WIPO Panel Decisions (http://arbiter.wipo.int/cgi-bin/domains/search/legalindex), as well as from the decisions themselves which are also available on-line.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
European iLaw program
The first European iLaw program will take place in Turin, Italy, on 25-27 May 2005 at the Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli; it will be organized in cooperation with the Berkman Center and will feature an intensive three-day schedule dedicated to the analysis of legal, economic, and technical issues related to the Internet and digital technologies in general. Five world-famous professors from the Harvard Law School, who will be joined by select Italian and European professors, will address topics such as:
http://ilaw.ieiit.cnr.it/index_en.html
- the future of copyright on the Internet;
- Intellectual property and software protection measures;
- the architecture of the Internet;
- cyberspace regulation: from peer-to-peer to wireless, digital contents and privacy.
http://ilaw.ieiit.cnr.it/index_en.html
Monday, February 21, 2005
WIPO ACADEMY OFFERS NEW COURSES IN 2005
Since the launch of its General Course on Intellectual Property (DL 101), in 1999, some 33,000 participants from 180 countries have registered for the course. In 2003, an interactive learning management system was deployed by the Academy which provided on-line learning resources for participants and a live discussion forum. The Academy’s tutorial faculty includes some 80 experienced IP teachers and experts from across the globe who tutor in 7 languages. The next General Course on Intellectual Property (DL 101) will start on March 1, 2005. The course is available in 7 languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, and Russian) and is free-of-charge. To register for the course, please go to ( http://academy.wipo.int). Since 2003, completion of this course has been a requirement to participate in other training programs offered by the Academy and other institutions.
New advanced courses on different aspects of intellectual property will also be available this year. These include the Advanced Course on Copyright and Related Rights (DL 201) in English, French and Spanish. This course covers a range of issues including WIPO’s role in this area as well as recent developments and trends in the area of international copyright law. The course will run from May 1 to July 10, 2005.
The Advanced course on Electronic Commerce and Intellectual Property (DL202) will also be available in English. This course covers IP aspects of e-commerce in three main areas, namely copyright, trademarks and patents. This course will run from May 1 to June 15, 2005.
Registration dates for both courses run from March 1 to 15, 2005.
Three additional courses: Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property (DL 203), Biotechnology and Intellectual Property (DL 204) and the International Protection of Plant Varieties (DL-205) are expected to be launched later this year.
These courses will be offered on a fee basis with reduced charges for participants from certain countries. Further information about fees is available from the Academy website (http:// academy.wipo.int).
The WIPO Summer School will also resume this year. This is a four-week program in English held in Geneva from July 4 to 29, 2005. The program consists of lectures and individual or group research on assigned topics. The program is open to candidates from all regions of the world and from all academic backgrounds. Details of how to apply for the WIPO Summer School are available at http://www.wipo.int/academy.
Friday, February 18, 2005
SOME SAMPLES OF EU CASE LAW:
TELECOMMUNICATION - COMPETITION POLICY-
TREATY, ARTICLE 82 - 86 (*)
DOMINANT POSITION: ABUSE :
TELEFONICA SA : INTERNATIONAL DIALLING CODE : GIBRALTAR : REFUSAL TO RECOGNISE
By the contested decision the Commission rejected a complaint by the applicant filed on 31 October 1996 alleging that the Spanish telecommunications operator, Telefonica SA, had committed a series of abuses of dominant position contrary to Article 82 EC in refusing to recognise Gibraltar's International Dialling Code (‘350’) and insisting on acceptance of restrictive conditions for the exchange of automatic direct dial traffic between Spain and Gibraltar. The applicant later converted that complaint into a complaint under Article 86 EC, in conjunction with Articles 82 EC, 49 EC and 12 EC against Spain, alleging that Telefonica was acting under instructions from the Spanish Government, which claims sovereignty over Gibraltar. /
LAWTEL TEXT: Action by Gibtelcom Limited against the Commission 15/9/2004
Action for the annulment of a Commission Decision rejecting a complaint that Telefonica SA, had committed a series of abuses of dominant position.
Gibtelcom Limited claimed the Court should annul a Commission Decision rejecting Gibtelecom's complaint under Arts 86 and 82 of the EC Treaty, that Telefonica SA, had committed a series of abuses of dominant position, by refusing to recognise Gibraltar's international dialling code, and insisting on acceptance of restrictive conditions for the exchange of automatic direct dial traffic between Spain and Gibraltar. Gibtelcom argued that the Commission had erred in finding that Telefonica SA was not a public undertaking or that it enjoyed special rights. Further, Gibtelcom argued that Spain had infringed Directives 90/388, 97/33, 2002/21 and 2002/77. Gibtelcom also contended breach of its legitimate expectations, and failure of the Commission to act within a reasonable period.
2004/C284/48 C284 p.24 (Application)
(Case T-365/04) 2004/C 284/47) Official Journal of the European Union,
_____________________________________________
WANADOO INTERACTIVE SA v COMMISSION
CFI
Action brought by Wanadoo Interactive S.A. against the Commission 2/10/2003
COMPETITION POLICY - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FINE : ANNULMENT : PREDATORY PRICING : PACK EXTENSE : WANADOO ADSL : INTERNET : ART.82 EC TREATY
Action for the annulment of the Commission Decision imposing a fine on Wanadoo Interactive for infringing Art.82 EC Treaty.
Wanadoo Interactive brought an action before the Court claiming that it should:(1) annul the Commission's decision of 16 July 2003, imposing a fine of 10.35 million euros upon it;(2) in the alternative, withdraw the fine or reduce its amount.Wanadoo Interactive, which was a French limited liability company 99 % owned by Wanadoo SA, which was in turn owned as to 70.6 % by France Telecom, challenged the Commission's decision accusing it of infringing Art.82 EC Treaty by charging predatory prices for its Pack eXtense and Wanadoo ADSL services which did not allow it to cover its variable costs from March to August 2001 or its full costs from August 2001 until 15 October 2002, as part of plan aimed at pre-empting the market for high-output internet access services. On that basis, the Commission imposed a fine of 10.35 million euros.In support of its action, Wanadoo Interactive claimed that essential procedural requirements and in particular, its defence rights had been infringed. It also argued that the Commission had infringed Art.82 EC Treaty.
2003/C289/70 (Application) p.34
Judgment: case pending.
Application: Full Text (copyright European Communities)
Document No. ER0234003 - http://www.lawtel.com/~8cca8aa0edc04289afa422a0ec080ce7~/content/display.asp?ID=ER0234003&HL=Y&BK=Y
____________________
Case T-59/03 - (1) TQ3
TRAVEL SOLUTIONS GMBH (2) TQ3 TRAVEL SOLUTIONS EMEA GMBH v COMMISSION
CFI
Action by TQ3 Travel Solutions GmbH and TQ3 Travel Solutions EMEA GmbH against the Commission 19/2/2003
COMPETITION POLICY - TRANSPORT - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - TELECOMMUNICATIONS
OPODO LIMITED: AIRLINES: ONLINE TRAVEL PORTAL: MERGER : COMPLAINT : ART.81 EC TREATY : ART.82 EC TREATY
Action for the annulment of the Commission Decision of 9 December 2002 rejecting the applicants' complaint against the notified joint venture setting up Opodo Limited.
The applicants were active in the travel agency business, especially for business passenger air transport services and connected services. On 3 November 2000, a joint venture agreement setting up Opodo Limited, an online travel portal created by nine of the largest European airlines, was notified to the Commission. Following the Notice published by the Commission setting out the undertakings proposed by the notifying parties and the intention of the Commission to clear the joint venture (see 2001/C323/03), one of the applicants filed a formal complaint against the creation of Opodo, alleging infringements of Art.81 and Art.82 EC Treaty. In the contested Decision, the Commission rejected the complaint of the applicant. The applicants therefore brought an action before the Court, claiming that it should annul the Commission Decision of 9 December 2002 rejecting their complaint in Case COMP/A.38321/D2-TQ3 Travel Solutions GmbH/Opodo Limited.The applicants submitted various arguments in support of their application including manifest error of assessment, an infringement of the Commission's obligation to investigate complaints with due diligence, with respect to the risk of coordination under Art.81(1) EC Treaty and with respect to discrimination under Art.82(2) EC Treaty.
2003/C101/85 (Application)
Judgment: case pending.
Application: Full Text (copyright European Communities)
Document No. ER0205903 http://www.lawtel.com/~8cca8aa0edc04289afa422a0ec080ce7~/content/display.asp?ID=ER0205903&HL=Y&BK=Y
_______________________
http://www.qlinks.net/quicklinks/competit.htm : http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/88
Mergers: Commission clears BT’s acquisition of Infonet
The European Commission has approved under the EU Merger Regulation the acquisition by British Telecommunications of Infonet Services Corporation, a US operator providing global telecommunications services to large multinational corporations. As the incremental share of the target company in these services is limited, the Commission considers that the operation will not significantly impede effective competition in the European Economic Area (EEA) or any substantial part of it.
With its acquisition of all issued and outstanding shares in Infonet Services Corporation (“Infonet”), British Telecommunications (“BT”) acquires control of the whole of Infonet.
The Commission investigated the competitive effects of the proposed transaction on the possible markets for global telecommunications services (“GTS”) that are provided to multinational corporations (“MNCs”). It found that the transaction would not change significantly the market conditions either on a global or on a European scale as Infonet brings only a minimal incremental market share to BT. The combined BT/Infonet will continue to face a number of competitors that are present in these markets. In addition, customers have indicated that they will still have the possibility to switch competitively to alternative GTS suppliers.
BT, a company organised under the laws of England and Wales, is a provider of telecommunications services on a worldwide basis. Its principal activities include local, national and international telecommunications services, internet products and services and IT solutions. Among other things, BT provides global telecommunications services to MNCs with global operations.
Infonet is a Delaware (US) company and its shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Infonet’s main shareholders are Swisscom, TeliaSonera, KDDI, KPN, Telefonica and Telstra, which together hold approximately 97% of the voting rights. The rest of the shares is held by other, smaller shareholders. Infonet provides GTS to a range of MNCs on a global basis and (unlike BT) has a comparatively strong presence in the Americas and in the Asia Pacific region. Infonet provides its services through its worldwide network, including broadband, wired and wireless services, IP Video VPN, and integrated security services.
http://www.lawtel.com/~8cca8aa0edc04289afa422a0ec080ce7~/content/display.asp?ID=AC0105312&HL=Y&BK=Y
___________________________
R (On the application of (1)
T-MOBILE (UK) LTD (2) VODAFONE LTD (3) ORANGE PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES LTD) v (1) THE COMPETITION COMMISSION (2) DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS (2003)
[2003] EWHC 1566
QBD (Moses J) 27/6/2003
TELECOMMUNICATIONS - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
OFTEL : TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1984 : INTERCONNECTION DIRECTIVE : MOBILE PHONES : COMPETITION COMMISSION : CALL TERMINATION CHARGES : FAIR CHARGES : CAPS : LICENCE MODIFICATIONS : INTERCONNECTION : NETWORK OPERATORS : REVENUES : MOBILE MARKET : MARKET POWER : PRICE CONTROLS : PUBLIC INTEREST : CONSUMERS : ADVERSE EFFECTS : COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 97/33/EC : AMENDING DIRECTIVE 98/61 : FAIRNESS : REASONABLENESS : RATIONALITY
Challenge against recommendations of the Competition Commission that charges for call termination made by mobile network operators exceeded its assessment of a fair charge and should be capped and challenge to the imposition by the Director General of Telecommunications of such caps by way of licence modifications and proposals to continue such regulation after the new European regime fell to be implemented on 25 July 2003 were dismissed.
____________________________
(*) Requires Lawtel registration: www.lawtel.com and/or Athens Password
__________________________________________________
TELECOMMUNICATION - COMPETITION POLICY-
TREATY, ARTICLE 82 - 86 (*)
DOMINANT POSITION: ABUSE :
TELEFONICA SA : INTERNATIONAL DIALLING CODE : GIBRALTAR : REFUSAL TO RECOGNISE
By the contested decision the Commission rejected a complaint by the applicant filed on 31 October 1996 alleging that the Spanish telecommunications operator, Telefonica SA, had committed a series of abuses of dominant position contrary to Article 82 EC in refusing to recognise Gibraltar's International Dialling Code (‘350’) and insisting on acceptance of restrictive conditions for the exchange of automatic direct dial traffic between Spain and Gibraltar. The applicant later converted that complaint into a complaint under Article 86 EC, in conjunction with Articles 82 EC, 49 EC and 12 EC against Spain, alleging that Telefonica was acting under instructions from the Spanish Government, which claims sovereignty over Gibraltar. /
LAWTEL TEXT: Action by Gibtelcom Limited against the Commission 15/9/2004
Action for the annulment of a Commission Decision rejecting a complaint that Telefonica SA, had committed a series of abuses of dominant position.
Gibtelcom Limited claimed the Court should annul a Commission Decision rejecting Gibtelecom's complaint under Arts 86 and 82 of the EC Treaty, that Telefonica SA, had committed a series of abuses of dominant position, by refusing to recognise Gibraltar's international dialling code, and insisting on acceptance of restrictive conditions for the exchange of automatic direct dial traffic between Spain and Gibraltar. Gibtelcom argued that the Commission had erred in finding that Telefonica SA was not a public undertaking or that it enjoyed special rights. Further, Gibtelcom argued that Spain had infringed Directives 90/388, 97/33, 2002/21 and 2002/77. Gibtelcom also contended breach of its legitimate expectations, and failure of the Commission to act within a reasonable period.
2004/C284/48 C284 p.24 (Application)
(Case T-365/04) 2004/C 284/47) Official Journal of the European Union,
_____________________________________________
WANADOO INTERACTIVE SA v COMMISSION
CFI
Action brought by Wanadoo Interactive S.A. against the Commission 2/10/2003
COMPETITION POLICY - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FINE : ANNULMENT : PREDATORY PRICING : PACK EXTENSE : WANADOO ADSL : INTERNET : ART.82 EC TREATY
Action for the annulment of the Commission Decision imposing a fine on Wanadoo Interactive for infringing Art.82 EC Treaty.
Wanadoo Interactive brought an action before the Court claiming that it should:(1) annul the Commission's decision of 16 July 2003, imposing a fine of 10.35 million euros upon it;(2) in the alternative, withdraw the fine or reduce its amount.Wanadoo Interactive, which was a French limited liability company 99 % owned by Wanadoo SA, which was in turn owned as to 70.6 % by France Telecom, challenged the Commission's decision accusing it of infringing Art.82 EC Treaty by charging predatory prices for its Pack eXtense and Wanadoo ADSL services which did not allow it to cover its variable costs from March to August 2001 or its full costs from August 2001 until 15 October 2002, as part of plan aimed at pre-empting the market for high-output internet access services. On that basis, the Commission imposed a fine of 10.35 million euros.In support of its action, Wanadoo Interactive claimed that essential procedural requirements and in particular, its defence rights had been infringed. It also argued that the Commission had infringed Art.82 EC Treaty.
2003/C289/70 (Application) p.34
Judgment: case pending.
Application: Full Text (copyright European Communities)
Document No. ER0234003 - http://www.lawtel.com/~8cca8aa0edc04289afa422a0ec080ce7~/content/display.asp?ID=ER0234003&HL=Y&BK=Y
____________________
Case T-59/03 - (1) TQ3
TRAVEL SOLUTIONS GMBH (2) TQ3 TRAVEL SOLUTIONS EMEA GMBH v COMMISSION
CFI
Action by TQ3 Travel Solutions GmbH and TQ3 Travel Solutions EMEA GmbH against the Commission 19/2/2003
COMPETITION POLICY - TRANSPORT - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - TELECOMMUNICATIONS
OPODO LIMITED: AIRLINES: ONLINE TRAVEL PORTAL: MERGER : COMPLAINT : ART.81 EC TREATY : ART.82 EC TREATY
Action for the annulment of the Commission Decision of 9 December 2002 rejecting the applicants' complaint against the notified joint venture setting up Opodo Limited.
The applicants were active in the travel agency business, especially for business passenger air transport services and connected services. On 3 November 2000, a joint venture agreement setting up Opodo Limited, an online travel portal created by nine of the largest European airlines, was notified to the Commission. Following the Notice published by the Commission setting out the undertakings proposed by the notifying parties and the intention of the Commission to clear the joint venture (see 2001/C323/03), one of the applicants filed a formal complaint against the creation of Opodo, alleging infringements of Art.81 and Art.82 EC Treaty. In the contested Decision, the Commission rejected the complaint of the applicant. The applicants therefore brought an action before the Court, claiming that it should annul the Commission Decision of 9 December 2002 rejecting their complaint in Case COMP/A.38321/D2-TQ3 Travel Solutions GmbH/Opodo Limited.The applicants submitted various arguments in support of their application including manifest error of assessment, an infringement of the Commission's obligation to investigate complaints with due diligence, with respect to the risk of coordination under Art.81(1) EC Treaty and with respect to discrimination under Art.82(2) EC Treaty.
2003/C101/85 (Application)
Judgment: case pending.
Application: Full Text (copyright European Communities)
Document No. ER0205903 http://www.lawtel.com/~8cca8aa0edc04289afa422a0ec080ce7~/content/display.asp?ID=ER0205903&HL=Y&BK=Y
_______________________
http://www.qlinks.net/quicklinks/competit.htm : http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/88
Mergers: Commission clears BT’s acquisition of Infonet
The European Commission has approved under the EU Merger Regulation the acquisition by British Telecommunications of Infonet Services Corporation, a US operator providing global telecommunications services to large multinational corporations. As the incremental share of the target company in these services is limited, the Commission considers that the operation will not significantly impede effective competition in the European Economic Area (EEA) or any substantial part of it.
With its acquisition of all issued and outstanding shares in Infonet Services Corporation (“Infonet”), British Telecommunications (“BT”) acquires control of the whole of Infonet.
The Commission investigated the competitive effects of the proposed transaction on the possible markets for global telecommunications services (“GTS”) that are provided to multinational corporations (“MNCs”). It found that the transaction would not change significantly the market conditions either on a global or on a European scale as Infonet brings only a minimal incremental market share to BT. The combined BT/Infonet will continue to face a number of competitors that are present in these markets. In addition, customers have indicated that they will still have the possibility to switch competitively to alternative GTS suppliers.
BT, a company organised under the laws of England and Wales, is a provider of telecommunications services on a worldwide basis. Its principal activities include local, national and international telecommunications services, internet products and services and IT solutions. Among other things, BT provides global telecommunications services to MNCs with global operations.
Infonet is a Delaware (US) company and its shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Infonet’s main shareholders are Swisscom, TeliaSonera, KDDI, KPN, Telefonica and Telstra, which together hold approximately 97% of the voting rights. The rest of the shares is held by other, smaller shareholders. Infonet provides GTS to a range of MNCs on a global basis and (unlike BT) has a comparatively strong presence in the Americas and in the Asia Pacific region. Infonet provides its services through its worldwide network, including broadband, wired and wireless services, IP Video VPN, and integrated security services.
http://www.lawtel.com/~8cca8aa0edc04289afa422a0ec080ce7~/content/display.asp?ID=AC0105312&HL=Y&BK=Y
___________________________
R (On the application of (1)
T-MOBILE (UK) LTD (2) VODAFONE LTD (3) ORANGE PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES LTD) v (1) THE COMPETITION COMMISSION (2) DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS (2003)
[2003] EWHC 1566
QBD (Moses J) 27/6/2003
TELECOMMUNICATIONS - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
OFTEL : TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1984 : INTERCONNECTION DIRECTIVE : MOBILE PHONES : COMPETITION COMMISSION : CALL TERMINATION CHARGES : FAIR CHARGES : CAPS : LICENCE MODIFICATIONS : INTERCONNECTION : NETWORK OPERATORS : REVENUES : MOBILE MARKET : MARKET POWER : PRICE CONTROLS : PUBLIC INTEREST : CONSUMERS : ADVERSE EFFECTS : COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 97/33/EC : AMENDING DIRECTIVE 98/61 : FAIRNESS : REASONABLENESS : RATIONALITY
Challenge against recommendations of the Competition Commission that charges for call termination made by mobile network operators exceeded its assessment of a fair charge and should be capped and challenge to the imposition by the Director General of Telecommunications of such caps by way of licence modifications and proposals to continue such regulation after the new European regime fell to be implemented on 25 July 2003 were dismissed.
____________________________
(*) Requires Lawtel registration: www.lawtel.com and/or Athens Password
__________________________________________________
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
UNESCO’s Information for All Programme - 20 February
The deadline for submission of proposals to be funded under UNESCO’s Information for All Programme, an international information society initiative launched in 2001, will expire on 20 February 2005. The call for proposals was launched end of last year.
Proposals with budgets ranging from approximately US$25,000 (national projects) to US$45,000 (international projects) should cover one of three areas: information literacy, preservation of information, and ethical, legal and societal implications of the information society.
Projects shall have specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound objectives and be operationally, technically and financially feasible. They must include an evaluation component. Projects submitted should also contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and correspond to the areas of the Action Plan adopted by the World Summit on the Information Society.
Project applicants must complete on-line project proposals forms at http://www.unesco.org/webworld/ifapprojects, where detailed submission guidelines are available. Applications must be submitted no later than 20 February 2005.
The Information for All Programme (IFAP) provides a framework for international co-operation and international and regional partnerships. It supports the development of common strategies, methods and tools for building inclusive, open and pluralistic knowledge societies and for narrowing the gap between the information rich and the information poor. IFAP contribute to the fulfillment of UNESCO's mandate to contribute to "education for all", to the "free exchange of ideas and knowledge" and to "increase the means of communication between peoples".
The Special Fund of the Information for All Programme (IFAP Special Fund) is supported by voluntary contributions from
Monday, February 14, 2005
Friday, February 11, 2005
Online Music
Romanian Copyright Office sets fixed fee for online music
============================================================
The Arbitration Commission of the Romanian Copyright Office (ORDA) has published two remarkable decisions on the price for online music andring-tones. Romanian internet users will have to pay a fixed annual feefor any music they wish to offer on their website (via streaming or for downloading) of approximately 80 euro (3 million Romanian Lei). If the website owner charges a fee for music to be downloaded, they will have topay 10% of the fee to the collecting society, with a minimum of 8 eurocent per downloaded track, independent of the origin of the music. The decisions followed after unsuccessful negotiations between theRomanian Musical Performing and Mechanical Rights Society, the Romanian Association of ISPs and the association of ring-tone providers. Thedecisions were published in the Official Monitor no. 58 of 18 January2005. Even though the name of the first decision is 'methodology for usingmusical works on the Internet' the methodology refers only to web-pages. The copyright owner only has the right to opt-out. He can provide the collecting society with a list of musical works that cannot be used on theInternet.The Commission also decided on the methodology for using musical works asring-tones, along the same lines. Providers of ring-tones will have to pay10% of the fee they charged, with a minimum of 8 eurocent. Again the authors can only opt-out, by providing the collecting society with a list of works that should not be turned into ring-tones.The ISP association has announced they will appeal the decision, because they still find the 10% charge much too high.
ORDA (Romanian Copyright Office) http://www.orda.ro
UCMR - ADA (Romanian music collecting society) http://www.ucmr-ada.ro
ANISP (ISP association) http://www.anisp.ro
Musical works methodology decision (in Romanian, 18.01.2005) http://www.legi-internet.ro/utilizare_muzica_pe_internet.htm
Ring tones methodology decision (in Romanian, 18.01.2005) http://www.legi-internet.ro/utilizare_ringtonuri
============================================================
The Arbitration Commission of the Romanian Copyright Office (ORDA) has published two remarkable decisions on the price for online music andring-tones. Romanian internet users will have to pay a fixed annual feefor any music they wish to offer on their website (via streaming or for downloading) of approximately 80 euro (3 million Romanian Lei). If the website owner charges a fee for music to be downloaded, they will have topay 10% of the fee to the collecting society, with a minimum of 8 eurocent per downloaded track, independent of the origin of the music. The decisions followed after unsuccessful negotiations between theRomanian Musical Performing and Mechanical Rights Society, the Romanian Association of ISPs and the association of ring-tone providers. Thedecisions were published in the Official Monitor no. 58 of 18 January2005. Even though the name of the first decision is 'methodology for usingmusical works on the Internet' the methodology refers only to web-pages. The copyright owner only has the right to opt-out. He can provide the collecting society with a list of musical works that cannot be used on theInternet.The Commission also decided on the methodology for using musical works asring-tones, along the same lines. Providers of ring-tones will have to pay10% of the fee they charged, with a minimum of 8 eurocent. Again the authors can only opt-out, by providing the collecting society with a list of works that should not be turned into ring-tones.The ISP association has announced they will appeal the decision, because they still find the 10% charge much too high.
ORDA (Romanian Copyright Office) http://www.orda.ro
UCMR - ADA (Romanian music collecting society) http://www.ucmr-ada.ro
ANISP (ISP association) http://www.anisp.ro
Musical works methodology decision (in Romanian, 18.01.2005) http://www.legi-internet.ro/utilizare_muzica_pe_internet.htm
Ring tones methodology decision (in Romanian, 18.01.2005) http://www.legi-internet.ro/utilizare_ringtonuri
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Thursday, January 13, 2005
CIS is HIRING
2005-2006 FELLOWSHIP POSITION WITH
CENTER FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY
The Center for Internet and Society (CIS), located at Stanford Law
School, is offering a one-year Fellowship (2004-2005) to work in
conjunction with its Cyberlaw Clinic on public interest litigation
involving technology and the Internet.
The Center for Internet and Society is a leading center for the study
of the relationship between the public interest, law and technology.
CIS was founded by Professor of Law Lawrence Lessig and is headed by
Executive Director attorney Jennifer S. Granick, who also teaches the
Cyberlaw Clinic.
The CIS Clinic is an in- house clinic of eight students assisting in
the direct representation of clients in matters involving security,
privacy, free speech scientific innovation and technology, as well as
policy analysis and public information campaigns. Illustrative
litigation includes representing a company that distributes
peer-to-peer file sharing software in a lawsuit filed by the
recording industry; protecting the rights of Internet publishers to
speak anonymously on- line; and protecting speech interests against
claims of intellectual property infringement.
The Fellow will be directly and primarily responsible for one or more
of the intellectual property 'impact' cases that CIS is litigating.
She will also assist on other CIS litigation and work with students
in the Cyberlaw Clinic on cases and projects on an as-needed basis.
In addition, the Fellowship may provide the opportunity for the
pursuit of individual research and scholarship.
The position is for 12 months, with the possibility of renewal for a
second twelve months. The start date is flexible, anytime from July
2005 to September 2005. At least two years of post-law school civil
litigation experience is required. Salary is $40,000 per year, with
benefits. Interested applicants should submit a cover letter, resume,
writing sample and a list of references by February 28, 2005 to
Executive Director Jennifer S. Granick at: Crown Quadrangle, 559
Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, CA 94305-8610 or through the CIS website.
For further information, please contact Ms. Granick's legal
assistant, Joanne Newman, at: 650-723-4336.
---------------------------------
SUMMER INTERNSHIP POSITION WITH STANFORD'S
CENTER FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY
The Center for Internet and Society (CIS) at Stanford Law School is
hiring a Summer Intern to work public interest issues involving
technology and the Internet.
The Center for Internet and Society is a leading center for the study
of the relationship between the public interest, law and technology.
CIS was founded by Professor of Law Lawrence Lessig and is headed by
Executive Director attorney Jennifer S. Granick, who also teaches the
Cyberlaw Clinic. The Summer Intern works with Attorney Granick and
Professor Lessig on CIS and Cyberlaw Clinic litigation, including
cases challenging the extension of copyright to works that had passed
into the public domain, protecting the rights of Internet publishers
to speak anonymously on-line, protecting speech interests against
claims of intellectual property infringement, and providing legal
information in response to cease and desist letters sent to Internet
publishers.
The Summer Intern also assists in preparing materials and research
for Cyberlaw Clinic course and caseload, keeping the CIS website and
calendar up-to-date and various administrative tasks on an as-needed
basis. The position is for approximately 12 weeks. Second and third
year law students are preferred, as is experience with computers,
including email, instant messaging, Movable Type, and Excel. Hourly
rate in accordance with the Law School work-study rates, to be
announced. Interested applicants should submit a cover letter,
resume, writing sample and a list of references by February 28, 2004
to Executive Director Jennifer S. Granick at: Crown Quadrangle, 559
Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, CA 94305-8610. For further information,
please contact Ms. Granick's legal assistant, Joanne Newman, at:
650-723-4336.
CENTER FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY
The Center for Internet and Society (CIS), located at Stanford Law
School, is offering a one-year Fellowship (2004-2005) to work in
conjunction with its Cyberlaw Clinic on public interest litigation
involving technology and the Internet.
The Center for Internet and Society is a leading center for the study
of the relationship between the public interest, law and technology.
CIS was founded by Professor of Law Lawrence Lessig and is headed by
Executive Director attorney Jennifer S. Granick, who also teaches the
Cyberlaw Clinic.
The CIS Clinic is an in- house clinic of eight students assisting in
the direct representation of clients in matters involving security,
privacy, free speech scientific innovation and technology, as well as
policy analysis and public information campaigns. Illustrative
litigation includes representing a company that distributes
peer-to-peer file sharing software in a lawsuit filed by the
recording industry; protecting the rights of Internet publishers to
speak anonymously on- line; and protecting speech interests against
claims of intellectual property infringement.
The Fellow will be directly and primarily responsible for one or more
of the intellectual property 'impact' cases that CIS is litigating.
She will also assist on other CIS litigation and work with students
in the Cyberlaw Clinic on cases and projects on an as-needed basis.
In addition, the Fellowship may provide the opportunity for the
pursuit of individual research and scholarship.
The position is for 12 months, with the possibility of renewal for a
second twelve months. The start date is flexible, anytime from July
2005 to September 2005. At least two years of post-law school civil
litigation experience is required. Salary is $40,000 per year, with
benefits. Interested applicants should submit a cover letter, resume,
writing sample and a list of references by February 28, 2005 to
Executive Director Jennifer S. Granick at: Crown Quadrangle, 559
Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, CA 94305-8610 or through the CIS website.
For further information, please contact Ms. Granick's legal
assistant, Joanne Newman, at: 650-723-4336.
---------------------------------
SUMMER INTERNSHIP POSITION WITH STANFORD'S
CENTER FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY
The Center for Internet and Society (CIS) at Stanford Law School is
hiring a Summer Intern to work public interest issues involving
technology and the Internet.
The Center for Internet and Society is a leading center for the study
of the relationship between the public interest, law and technology.
CIS was founded by Professor of Law Lawrence Lessig and is headed by
Executive Director attorney Jennifer S. Granick, who also teaches the
Cyberlaw Clinic. The Summer Intern works with Attorney Granick and
Professor Lessig on CIS and Cyberlaw Clinic litigation, including
cases challenging the extension of copyright to works that had passed
into the public domain, protecting the rights of Internet publishers
to speak anonymously on-line, protecting speech interests against
claims of intellectual property infringement, and providing legal
information in response to cease and desist letters sent to Internet
publishers.
The Summer Intern also assists in preparing materials and research
for Cyberlaw Clinic course and caseload, keeping the CIS website and
calendar up-to-date and various administrative tasks on an as-needed
basis. The position is for approximately 12 weeks. Second and third
year law students are preferred, as is experience with computers,
including email, instant messaging, Movable Type, and Excel. Hourly
rate in accordance with the Law School work-study rates, to be
announced. Interested applicants should submit a cover letter,
resume, writing sample and a list of references by February 28, 2004
to Executive Director Jennifer S. Granick at: Crown Quadrangle, 559
Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, CA 94305-8610. For further information,
please contact Ms. Granick's legal assistant, Joanne Newman, at:
650-723-4336.
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Monday, December 27, 2004
The Internet Governance Project released today (Tuesday Dec. 21) one of our most significant WSIS contributions: "A Framework Convention: An International Option for Internet Governance." http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/igp-FC.pdf
The paper, by John Mathiason, compares today's situation to the controversies over climate change in the 1980s. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, rather than seeking to solve all of the problems in a single treaty, pursued a "framework convention," which first established the principles and norms under which international action would proceed. It also set up a procedure for future negotiations over more detailed arrangements. We suggest a similar approach for Internet governance.The short paper (4 pages) can be downloaded at the Internet Governance Project web site: http://www.internetgovernance.org
The paper, by John Mathiason, compares today's situation to the controversies over climate change in the 1980s. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, rather than seeking to solve all of the problems in a single treaty, pursued a "framework convention," which first established the principles and norms under which international action would proceed. It also set up a procedure for future negotiations over more detailed arrangements. We suggest a similar approach for Internet governance.The short paper (4 pages) can be downloaded at the Internet Governance Project web site: http://www.internetgovernance.org
Friday, December 24, 2004
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Cybercrime Convention- Critisisms
The overall criticisms on the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime
The condition of the Convention to be entered into force was depending on 5 ratifications including at least 3 member States of the CoE.
As of December 12, 2004 [i] total number of signatures is 30 and there are 8 states those ratified. The protocol on “Acts of a racist or xenophobic nature” has received 22 signatures and one ratification. Although it entered into force in July 1, 2004 it cannot be said that the first effects are apparent, as few countries have ratified at the moment. The Convention aimed three main topics; “harmonisation of the national laws which define offences”, “definition of investigation and prosecution procedures to cope with global networks”, “establishment of a rapid and effective system of international co-operation” and made no party so satisfied in particular the NGO’s whose participation was not given importance. [ii] Most of the civil liberty organizations including “Cyber-Rights-Cyber-Liberties”[iii] criticized the Convention as follows:
The condition of the Convention to be entered into force was depending on 5 ratifications including at least 3 member States of the CoE.
As of December 12, 2004 [i] total number of signatures is 30 and there are 8 states those ratified. The protocol on “Acts of a racist or xenophobic nature” has received 22 signatures and one ratification. Although it entered into force in July 1, 2004 it cannot be said that the first effects are apparent, as few countries have ratified at the moment. The Convention aimed three main topics; “harmonisation of the national laws which define offences”, “definition of investigation and prosecution procedures to cope with global networks”, “establishment of a rapid and effective system of international co-operation” and made no party so satisfied in particular the NGO’s whose participation was not given importance. [ii] Most of the civil liberty organizations including “Cyber-Rights-Cyber-Liberties”[iii] criticized the Convention as follows:
- It is fundamentally imbalanced. It includes powers of computer search and seizure and government surveillance of voice, email and data communications, but no correspondingly standards to protect privacy and limit government use of such powers. In other words, the procedural provisions, which also are threatening the human rights, have more space than the substantial provisions.
- It has some positive and some negative elements. It is very broad, reaching far beyond computer crime as such. Whilst it requires signatories to adopt laws giving the government access to computer data (for all crimes) and while it states that such powers must be subject to procedural safeguards protecting privacy, it fails to specify such procedural safeguards. Accordingly, developing countries should be cautious in approaching the Council of Europe convention as a model. A major section of the treaty aims to require governments to cooperate with other countries seeking to search and seize computers, compel disclosure of data stored in computers, and carry out real-time interceptions – in all kinds of criminal cases – in other countries. It also covers extradition for computer crimes as defined under the treaty. [iv]
- The Explanatory Report states that the phrase “without right” may refer to conduct undertaken without contractual authority. This interpretation seems unwise, for it could make violations of a service provider’s terms of service into a criminal offence. Within the first drafts “hacking” was about to without any circumstances be criminalized, but later on it was formulated with “without right”. Whilst it is so sensitive matter to assess “who has or has not the right” through the objective criteria or substantial rules, leaving that to judges or law enforcement circles’ judgement is a way which is far from equity rules.
- It brings too heavy responsibilities to ISP’s. (Article 15)
- The word of “Privacy” has never been used in the Treaty except the “Introduction” volume of the explanatory report.
- A vague reference to proportionality will not be adequate to ensure that civil liberties are protected. It is recognized that countries have varying methods for protection of civil liberties, but as a Council of Europe Convention drafted in consultation with other democratic nations, this document missed an important opportunity to ensure that minimum standards consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and other international human rights instruments were actually implemented. This failure is, in part, a result of the non-transparency of the process. [v]
- It fails to consistently require dual criminality as a condition for mutual assistance between countries. No nation should ask another to interfere with the privacy of its citizens or to impose onerous requirements on its service providers to investigate acts, which are not a crime in the requested nation. Governments should not investigate a citizen who is acting lawfully, regardless of whatever mutual assistance conventions are in place. Article 34 (Mutual assistance regarding the interception of content data) allows interception to the extent permitted by other treaties and domestic law. An acceptable condition would have been that requests for interception could only take place if it is permitted under the relevant criminal law as an offence that merits interception in both countries. Requests should also have a specified level of authorisation, i.e. where warrants are only acted upon if they are received from a judicial authority in the requested country. [vi]
SPECIFICALLY:
- "Treaty on Cybercrime Sounds Like A Great Idea Until You Read Fine Print..."
The analogy between the WIPO treaty and the Convention on Cybercrime ... http://www.cryptome.org/cycrime-godwin.htm - Civil rights and ambiguity of crime “prevention” Statement by ALCEI - January 24, 2004
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/jan/datret.htm - "CoE "cybercrime" convention: legitimising internet surveillance"
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2001/mar/17b.htm - "Eight Reasons the US Should Reject the International Cybercrime TreatyThe International Cybercrime Convention: What Is It? "
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/privacy/Cybercrime_Feature.html
____________________________________________________
[i] Albania, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Romania. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/CadreListeTraites.htm
[ii] Under the acronym GILC (Global Internet Liberty Campaign), 22 associations in nine European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom), the US, Japan, Australia and South Africa have campaigned against the draft Convention. They saw it as a "portmanteau" text embodying measures, which are disproportionate, destructive of liberty, and a threat to fundamental rights and national sovereignty.
[iii] Dr. Yaman Akdeniz, “An Advocacy Handbook for the NGO’s, The CoE’s Cyber-Crime Convention 2001 and the additional protocol on the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems”, December 2003, Updated March 2004 – Online: http://www.cyber-rights.org/cybercrime/coe_handbook_crcl.pdf
[iv] http://www.infodev-security.net/handbook/
[v] http://www.crime-research.org/articles/CoE_Cybercrime/
[vi] http://www.crime-research.org/articles/CoE_Cybercrime/ P.3
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
UN Global E-government Readiness Report 2004 -
available online on UNPAN
BTW: I started to study here !
A.T.
available online on UNPAN
BTW: I started to study here !
A.T.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
The Italian Effect | Program 6A
An INTERESTING MEETING:
THE ITALIAN EFFECT
Radical Thought, Biopolitics and Cultural Subversion
9th-11th September 2004, The University of Sydney & UTS
__________________________
"COMMON PLACES"
The Italian Effect | Program 6A
Jussi Vähämäki (University of Tampere, Finland): The Concept of
Common Places and their Role in Societies of Control
The paper analyses the 'materiality' of language in cognitive capitalism or in 'bio-linguisitic capitalism'. Instead of focusing on the postive side of the concept of the commonplace as a common resourse to "the many" or " the homeless", I would like to concentrate on the concept of commonplace as a model fora new, emerging dispositive of control proper to the societies of control. From the necessary starting point to action, production or discussion, commonplaces as user-friendly interfaces have transformed into a goal and end of production. They form the basic model for the new controls of spatially boundless and temporally endless immaterial labour. The paper analyses commonplaces under their different aspects in cognitive capitalism and their role in the construction of the new dispositive of control:
1. They are without identity and without source. They not need any institution or instance of sovereignty to legitimate themselves. They are self-sufficient.
2. They are undeniable.
3. They have an important organizing function in ordinary communication. Without a commonplace to start with communication would regress into a communication about communication.
4. They save time.
5. They never manifests themselves as such. They are real and function on level of real but they are not actual, like the dispositives of Foucault and Deleuze.
THE ITALIAN EFFECT
Radical Thought, Biopolitics and Cultural Subversion
9th-11th September 2004, The University of Sydney & UTS
__________________________
"COMMON PLACES"
The Italian Effect | Program 6A
Jussi Vähämäki (University of Tampere, Finland): The Concept of
Common Places and their Role in Societies of Control
The paper analyses the 'materiality' of language in cognitive capitalism or in 'bio-linguisitic capitalism'. Instead of focusing on the postive side of the concept of the commonplace as a common resourse to "the many" or " the homeless", I would like to concentrate on the concept of commonplace as a model fora new, emerging dispositive of control proper to the societies of control. From the necessary starting point to action, production or discussion, commonplaces as user-friendly interfaces have transformed into a goal and end of production. They form the basic model for the new controls of spatially boundless and temporally endless immaterial labour. The paper analyses commonplaces under their different aspects in cognitive capitalism and their role in the construction of the new dispositive of control:
1. They are without identity and without source. They not need any institution or instance of sovereignty to legitimate themselves. They are self-sufficient.
2. They are undeniable.
3. They have an important organizing function in ordinary communication. Without a commonplace to start with communication would regress into a communication about communication.
4. They save time.
5. They never manifests themselves as such. They are real and function on level of real but they are not actual, like the dispositives of Foucault and Deleuze.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
The implementation and application of the Right to Information Act by the Turkish Ministries
Dr. Yaman AKDENIZ
akdeniz@bilgiedinmehakki.org
Bilgiedinmehakki.org / BilgilenmeHakki.Org
28 September 2004
Dr. Yaman AKDENIZ
akdeniz@bilgiedinmehakki.org
Bilgiedinmehakki.org / BilgilenmeHakki.Org
28 September 2004
BilgilenmeHakki.Org / Bilgiedinmehakki.org published a report entitled "How do you contact the Turkish Freedom of Information Council?" in August 2004. Following the publication of this report, we started to monitor the implementation and application of the Turkish Right to Information Act No. 4982 by the 15 Ministries in Turkey. BilgilenmeHakki.Org / Bilgiedinmehakki.org published an 11 page report on the World Freedom of Information Day (only in Turkish for the moment) following its research conducted through-out August and early September 2004.
Firstly, BilgilenmeHakki.Org / Bilgiedinmehakki.org examined whether the 15 Ministries implemented the Right to Information Act according to the requirements set out in the implementation plan which was published as part of the related Regulations published in April 2004 following the law coming into force on 24 April, 2004. This part of the research was conducted by collecting data from the ministries’ websites. Following this research, we contacted each Ministry and made an access to information request with a set of standard questions. The report that analysed the responses and information provided by the Ministries is published at http://www.bilgilenmehakki.org/doc/tr_uygulama_rapor.pdf in Turkish.
The summary of the BilgilenmeHakki.Org / Bilgiedinmehakki.org research is provided below:
The Turkish Right to Information Act has been in force for approximately 5 months.
All the 15 Ministries monitored in this report established their freedom of information units and started to accept access to information requests including requests sent through the Internet.
· We observed that the information provided in the Ministries’ websites was not standard. There are still freedom of information units with missing communication details and some do not provide full information about the law and the related regulations.
· The members of the public have started to use their right to information and several hundreds of requests have been made to the Ministries.
9 Ministries that provided a response and information received a total of 2519 access to information requests by mid August 2004. 1929 (%77) of these requests resulted with information being provided. 590 (%23) of these requests were denied information.
The Ministry of Justice received the most requests (765) and the Ministry of Transport did not deny information out of the 69 requests it received. So far the Ministry of Trade and Industry (197), and the Ministry of Defence (126) lead the chart of refusals.
· The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Trade and Industry replied to the access to information requests providing detailed information within the same day of application and provided further information on follow-up questions within 24hrs.
· Despite the formation of freedom of information units, four Ministries, namely Ministry of Health, Minisitry of Labour and Social Security, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, and Ministry of Education, did not reply to the access to information requests within 15 working days as required by law. In fact, these four Ministries ignored the requests and have never been in touch with us.
· A reply from the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources is still expected. This Ministry was 3 months late in establishing its freedom of information unit and therefore a request was only made in early September 2004.
· The Ministry of Defence, and the Ministry of Social Prosperity and Housing replied but refused to provide the information requested but they did provide the information after we appealed and wrote them a second time.
· We also appealed the decision of the Ministry of Interior Affairs not to provide us with the requested information. We are still waiting to hear from this Ministry in terms of our appeal.
· It has been noticed that none of the Ministries provide communications details for the Right to Information Assessment (Review) Council. This information was not communicated to us in detail when we asked for it. As should be noted BilgilenmeHakki.Org published contact details for the Council in its August 2004 report.
The short history, and the implementation and application of the Turkish Right to Information Law by the 15 Ministries therefore provides a complex picture. Serious problems associated with the application of the Law have been documented in this research study and the four Ministries that failed to respond cast a dark shadow on some of the good work done in terms of implementation and application by other Ministries.
The enactment of a right to information law is a significant step towards openness, transparency, and democratisation in Turkey. But if the Law is applied in a very arbitray way by the Ministries, this means there are serious problems in terms of implementation. It should not be forgotten that the emactment of a Right to Information Law is only the first step towards openness and transparency in Turkey. But for a more open and transparent Turkey, the proper implementation and applications of the law is crucial.
BilgilenmeHakki.Org asked the Prime Ministry and the Right to Information Assessment (Review) Council to address the problems identified and witnessed in its research and report.
BilgilenmeHakki.Org will continue to monitor the developments in Turkey.
For further information please contact Dr. Yaman Akdeniz at lawya@cyber-rights.org
Dr. Yaman Akdeniz, Lecturer in CyberLaw, University of Leeds, United Kingdom. Director, Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK), and a 2003-04 Fellow of the International Policy and Information Policy Fellowship programmes of the Open Society Institute.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
EPIC CELEBRATES INTERNATIONAL RIGHT TO KNOW DAY
Announces New Edition of Freedom of Information Litigation ManualWashington, DC - Today, on International Right to Know Day, EPICannounced the publication of Litigation Under the Federal OpenGovernment Laws 2004, the fully updated edition of the manual thatlawyers, journalists and researchers have relied on for more than 25years to obtain information about the United States government underthe Freedom of Information Act.The Freedom of Information Act is critical for the functioning ofdemocratic government because it helps ensure that the public is fullyinformed about matters of public concern. The Act has helped uncoverfraud, waste, and abuse in the federal government. Although EPIC hasfaced increasing claims of government secrecy in the last few years,it has successfully used the Freedom of Information Act recently inseveral important civil liberties controversies.
* EPIC revealed that Northwest Airlines turned over millions of passenger records to NASA, which used the personal information in an secret data mining study that was later cancelled. * EPIC found out that the Census Bureau gave the Department of Homeland Security information about Arab Americans when no similar information had been disclosed on any other ethnic group. The discovery led both the Census Bureau and Customs and Border Protection to revise their policies on how to handle requests for census data about "sensitive populations."
* Documents obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the federal government pursued a broad expansion of the passenger profiling system "CAPPS II," after assuring the public that it would only be used to identity terrorists. The Transportation Security Administration admitted that the expansion of CAPPS II's mission helped to doom the program.
* EPIC also uncovered government files that indicate that the Department of Justice conducted a vast public relations campaign that was intended to garner support for the controversial PATRIOT Act. At least 65 prosecutors made 244 actual or attempted contacts with members of Congress to urge them not to change the PATRIOT Act. EPIC also obtained several e-mails discussing the legality of the federal prosecutors' efforts.EPIC also successfully litigated several Freedom of Information Actcases. Among the key outcomes in the last few months:
* A federal judge rebuffed the Transportation Security Administration's claim that it had no obligation to release factual information in documents that are not finalized. The judge ordered the agency to review the documents for facts that could be released, or to justify why it was unable to do so. * In a lawsuit concerning the PATRIOT Act, a federal court rejected an effort by the Department of Justice to slow down the processing of an open government request and held that EPIC fulfills an important educational function by routinely disseminating the information it obtains.
* In another case brought by EPIC, a federal court held that a classified contract between the FBI and ChoicePoint, which involved the sales of personal information on Americans to the law enforcement agency, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.EPIC also applauds open records organizations around the world,including the Freedom of Information Advocates Network, which areworking to make government more accountable and more transparent."The key to democratic government is information about the activitiesof government. The Freedom of Information Act is the foundation ofopen society," said Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director EPIC.Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2004 was edited byHarry A. Hammitt of Access Reports and David L. Sobel, and Tiffany A.Stedman of EPIC. The manual provides an overview of the Freedom ofInformation Act, explains the law's exemptions, addresses fees and feewaivers, and discusses litigation strategy. It also covers thePrivacy Act, Government in the Sunshine Act, and Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act. Appendices include the text of the relevant acts andsample pleadings for litigators.EPIC is a public interest research center in Washington, D.C. It wasestablished in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging civilliberties issues and to protect privacy, the First Amendment, andconstitutional values. EPIC is a recognized leader in the use of theFreedom of Information Act to obtain information about governmentpolicy on emerging issues. In the past year, EPIC's Freedom of Information work resulted in significant disclosures about the Total Information Awareness program, passenger screening developments, andthe growing number of privacy complaints that consumers have sent tofederal agencies. These documents have been the subject ofCongressional hearings and news reports across the country.EPIC, Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2004:
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/foia2004
September 28 Right to Know Day Celebrations, Freedom of InformationAdvocates Network: http://www.foiadvocates.net
EPIC's Open Government Overview: http://www.epic.org/open_gov
EPIC's Freedom of Information Gallery: http://www.epic.org/open_gov/foiagallery
EPIC's Litigation Docket: http://www.epic.org/privacy/litigation
"Freedom of Information Laws From Around the World": http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/foia/foia-laws.jpg.
Contact: Marcia Hofmann, Staff Counsel
(202) 483-1140 ext. 112 hofmann@epic.org
Announces New Edition of Freedom of Information Litigation ManualWashington, DC - Today, on International Right to Know Day, EPICannounced the publication of Litigation Under the Federal OpenGovernment Laws 2004, the fully updated edition of the manual thatlawyers, journalists and researchers have relied on for more than 25years to obtain information about the United States government underthe Freedom of Information Act.The Freedom of Information Act is critical for the functioning ofdemocratic government because it helps ensure that the public is fullyinformed about matters of public concern. The Act has helped uncoverfraud, waste, and abuse in the federal government. Although EPIC hasfaced increasing claims of government secrecy in the last few years,it has successfully used the Freedom of Information Act recently inseveral important civil liberties controversies.
* EPIC revealed that Northwest Airlines turned over millions of passenger records to NASA, which used the personal information in an secret data mining study that was later cancelled. * EPIC found out that the Census Bureau gave the Department of Homeland Security information about Arab Americans when no similar information had been disclosed on any other ethnic group. The discovery led both the Census Bureau and Customs and Border Protection to revise their policies on how to handle requests for census data about "sensitive populations."
* Documents obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the federal government pursued a broad expansion of the passenger profiling system "CAPPS II," after assuring the public that it would only be used to identity terrorists. The Transportation Security Administration admitted that the expansion of CAPPS II's mission helped to doom the program.
* EPIC also uncovered government files that indicate that the Department of Justice conducted a vast public relations campaign that was intended to garner support for the controversial PATRIOT Act. At least 65 prosecutors made 244 actual or attempted contacts with members of Congress to urge them not to change the PATRIOT Act. EPIC also obtained several e-mails discussing the legality of the federal prosecutors' efforts.EPIC also successfully litigated several Freedom of Information Actcases. Among the key outcomes in the last few months:
* A federal judge rebuffed the Transportation Security Administration's claim that it had no obligation to release factual information in documents that are not finalized. The judge ordered the agency to review the documents for facts that could be released, or to justify why it was unable to do so. * In a lawsuit concerning the PATRIOT Act, a federal court rejected an effort by the Department of Justice to slow down the processing of an open government request and held that EPIC fulfills an important educational function by routinely disseminating the information it obtains.
* In another case brought by EPIC, a federal court held that a classified contract between the FBI and ChoicePoint, which involved the sales of personal information on Americans to the law enforcement agency, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.EPIC also applauds open records organizations around the world,including the Freedom of Information Advocates Network, which areworking to make government more accountable and more transparent."The key to democratic government is information about the activitiesof government. The Freedom of Information Act is the foundation ofopen society," said Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director EPIC.Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2004 was edited byHarry A. Hammitt of Access Reports and David L. Sobel, and Tiffany A.Stedman of EPIC. The manual provides an overview of the Freedom ofInformation Act, explains the law's exemptions, addresses fees and feewaivers, and discusses litigation strategy. It also covers thePrivacy Act, Government in the Sunshine Act, and Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act. Appendices include the text of the relevant acts andsample pleadings for litigators.EPIC is a public interest research center in Washington, D.C. It wasestablished in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging civilliberties issues and to protect privacy, the First Amendment, andconstitutional values. EPIC is a recognized leader in the use of theFreedom of Information Act to obtain information about governmentpolicy on emerging issues. In the past year, EPIC's Freedom of Information work resulted in significant disclosures about the Total Information Awareness program, passenger screening developments, andthe growing number of privacy complaints that consumers have sent tofederal agencies. These documents have been the subject ofCongressional hearings and news reports across the country.EPIC, Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2004:
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/foia2004
September 28 Right to Know Day Celebrations, Freedom of InformationAdvocates Network: http://www.foiadvocates.net
EPIC's Open Government Overview: http://www.epic.org/open_gov
EPIC's Freedom of Information Gallery: http://www.epic.org/open_gov/foiagallery
EPIC's Litigation Docket: http://www.epic.org/privacy/litigation
"Freedom of Information Laws From Around the World": http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/foia/foia-laws.jpg.
Contact: Marcia Hofmann, Staff Counsel
(202) 483-1140 ext. 112 hofmann@epic.org
Thursday, September 09, 2004
An indirectly received message from Dieter Zinnbauer, our dear Director, during "ICT 2003":
*** Democracies Online Newswire - http://dowire.org/ ****** Headlines from top blogs: http://dowire.org/feeds ***
Definitely worth a close look: http://www.ssrc.org/programs/itic/itic_publications/dprealms.page
Papers include: With the Internet and Information Disclosure towards a New Quality in Democratic Governance: A Policy Agenda and Ways to Take it Forward-Dieter Zinnbauer The Transformation of Governance and E-Transparency: Current Practice, Future Prospects-Dieter Zinnbauer E-government as A Driver for more Institutional Transparency? A Closer Look at Interests, Policy Frames, and Advocacy Efforts-Dieter Zinnbauer Institutional Transparency, Global Governance and ICT: Why and Where to?
(Memo)-Dieter Zinnbauer Steven Clift
http://dowire.org
.S. Speaking of access to information, check out these blogs:
http://thememoryblog.org/ http://www.resourceshelf.com
------- Forwarded message follows -------
From: "Dieter Zinnbauer" <d.zinnbauer@lse.ac.uk>To: <clift@publicus.net>
Subject: Resources e-transparency
Date sent: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 15:05:33 +0200
Dear colleagues,
I would like to bring to your attention a series of memos on transparency and ICTs that I have just completed for the U.S. Social Science Research Council:
http://www.ssrc.org/programs/itic/itic_publications/dprealms.page
In a nutshell, the memos seek to inspire fresh thinking on the roleofthe Internet for transparency beyond the current anti-corruptionfocusby pulling together interesting insights and findings from a verydiverse body of current academic and policy-oriented research. In retrospect, the titles sound a little too much alike, but the analysis basically moves from normative foundations of transparency (memo1: why...) to the advocacy situation for e-transparency (memo 2:policy frames...) then to a mapping of the status quo ine-transparency (memo 3: current state..) and finally to practical strategies forward (memo 4: policy agenda...). For more research on ICT and political engagement produced under this SSRC imitative start at: http://www.ssrc.org/programs/itic/
Please feel free to share widely.
Comments are always very welcome.
With best regards,
Dieter Zinnbauer---------------------------------------------
Postdoctoral Fellow Development Studies
Institute London School of Economics
Houghton Street WC2 2AE London,
UKfax: +44-(0)20 7955 6488e:
d.zinnbauer at lse.ac.uk
*** Democracies Online Newswire - http://dowire.org/ ****** Headlines from top blogs: http://dowire.org/feeds ***
Definitely worth a close look: http://www.ssrc.org/programs/itic/itic_publications/dprealms.page
Papers include: With the Internet and Information Disclosure towards a New Quality in Democratic Governance: A Policy Agenda and Ways to Take it Forward-Dieter Zinnbauer The Transformation of Governance and E-Transparency: Current Practice, Future Prospects-Dieter Zinnbauer E-government as A Driver for more Institutional Transparency? A Closer Look at Interests, Policy Frames, and Advocacy Efforts-Dieter Zinnbauer Institutional Transparency, Global Governance and ICT: Why and Where to?
(Memo)-Dieter Zinnbauer Steven Clift
http://dowire.org
.S. Speaking of access to information, check out these blogs:
http://thememoryblog.org/ http://www.resourceshelf.com
------- Forwarded message follows -------
From: "Dieter Zinnbauer" <d.zinnbauer@lse.ac.uk>To: <clift@publicus.net>
Subject: Resources e-transparency
Date sent: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 15:05:33 +0200
Dear colleagues,
I would like to bring to your attention a series of memos on transparency and ICTs that I have just completed for the U.S. Social Science Research Council:
http://www.ssrc.org/programs/itic/itic_publications/dprealms.page
In a nutshell, the memos seek to inspire fresh thinking on the roleofthe Internet for transparency beyond the current anti-corruptionfocusby pulling together interesting insights and findings from a verydiverse body of current academic and policy-oriented research. In retrospect, the titles sound a little too much alike, but the analysis basically moves from normative foundations of transparency (memo1: why...) to the advocacy situation for e-transparency (memo 2:policy frames...) then to a mapping of the status quo ine-transparency (memo 3: current state..) and finally to practical strategies forward (memo 4: policy agenda...). For more research on ICT and political engagement produced under this SSRC imitative start at: http://www.ssrc.org/programs/itic/
Please feel free to share widely.
Comments are always very welcome.
With best regards,
Dieter Zinnbauer---------------------------------------------
Postdoctoral Fellow Development Studies
Institute London School of Economics
Houghton Street WC2 2AE London,
UKfax: +44-(0)20 7955 6488e:
d.zinnbauer at lse.ac.uk
TURKISH FOIA
On 8-12 September , 2004, the project Bilgilenmehakki.Org will be highlighted on the home page of the Aarhus Clearinghouse. Brief entries about the project's website and the article "How do you contact the Turkish Freedom of Information Council?" have also been added to the Clearinghouse's Resource Directory :
http://aarhusclearinghouse.unece.org/resources.cfm
http://aarhusclearinghouse.unece.org/resources.cfm
Monday, September 06, 2004
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
An Intergovernmental meeting will be held in Geneva on FOSS under UNCTAD coordination: Expert meeting on Free and Open Source Software: Policy and development implications
Geneva, 22–24 September 2004
http://www.unctad.org/Templates/meeting.asp?intItemID=1942&lang=1&m=8936
Resources available on UNCTAD webpage on FOSS linkaged to some issues and aplications:
http://r0.unctad.org/ecommerce/ecommerce_en/freeopen_en.htm
For who from developing and LD countries has good relationship or contacts with key people in its Governement and also can be considered an expert on FOSS by the Government there are fellowships available.
Notification
The Expert Meeting on Free and Open Source Software, convened in accordance with the decision taken by the Commission on Enterprise, Business Facilitation and Development at its eighth session, will be held from 22 to 24 September 2004. The Meeting will open at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 22 September 2004.
Background and purpose of the Meeting
An increasing number of countries are developing national policies and strategies to promote the digital economy. Many have recognized the important role of software - in addition to hardware, affordable access and human capacities and skills - as the medium that enables people to use technology productively.Because social and economic activities are heterogeneous and human and natural environments are varied and different, the role of software as the interface between this human diversity and, often ubiquitous, hard technology is fundamental to the wide adoption of information technologies and to closing the digital divide. Given this singularly important role of software, the increasing prominence and use of so-called free and open source software (FOSS) has encouraged a debate about its ability to help, in particular, developing countries overcome the digital divide and increase the use and productive effects of information technology in commercial activities, governance and other fields. FOSS is software whose source code - its set of instructions - has been made open to the public and freely available under a license that prevents its appropriation. It is not necessarily free, as in "gratis" or free-of-charge. It is "free" and "open" because it can be used, changed and redistributed in a relatively unhindered manner. This Expert Meeting will bring together experts from both developed and developing countries, from international and regional bodies involved in FOSS issues, from the software technology industry and from civil society organizations. The objective of the Expert Meeting is twofold. First, it will provide the UNCTAD Commission on Enterprise, Business Facilitation and Development with a substantive basis that could support discussions about FOSS at a higher policy level. Second, it will allow an assessment and exchange of experience among experts from UNCTAD member States, while benefiting from inputs from participating FOSS specialists from academia, business and civil society.
Participation
Experts are expected to include officials from government offices responsible for information technology strategy, including software and FOSS policy and implementation. Representatives from other public or private institutions, the academic world and NGOs, with proven expertise in the subject, will also be invited to participate. Experts are nominated by their national governments but will participate in the Meeting in their personal capacities. Nominations should be submitted to the UNCTAD secretariat no later than 26 July 2004. (I've just got this info yesterday though! A.T.) In addition, experts from international and regional organizations dealing with FOSS issues will be invited. Specialized agencies and intergovernmental bodies wishing to participate in the Meeting, as well as non-governmental organizations in the General Category and those in the Special Category wishing to participate as observers, are requested to inform the UNCTAD secretariat of the names of their representatives.Financial assistanceFunds will be made available to finance the participation of a limited number of officially nominated experts from developing countries and economies in transition. Governments of developing countries and countries with economies in transition requiring funding are therefore invited to explicitly request financing in their letters of nomination. The Secretary-General of UNCTAD will base the decision as to which experts should receive financing on the principle of equitable geographical representation, beneficiary needs, in particular LDCs, and the expertise of the experts concerned. Changes in nominated experts will be considered as new nominations. Nominations with requests for financing should be received no later than eight weeks before the meeting (i.e. by 26 July 2004 at the latest), and should be accompanied with the following information about the nominee:
Curriculum vitae; Mailing address; Telephone and fax number; E-mail address; and Name of a contact person in the Permanent Mission in Geneva.
It should be noted in this connection that once the list of experts to be financed has been finalized, the Secretary-General of UNCTAD will have all travel arrangements made in accordance with United Nations rules and regulations, though use of the least costly travel fare will be authorized.
Background documents and contributed papers
The provisional agenda for the meeting, together with the secretariat´s annotations, is being circulated as document TD/B/COM.3/EM.21/1. The UNCTAD secretariat has prepared, as official documentation for the meeting, a background paper entitled "Free and open source software" (TD/B/COM.3/EM.21/2), aimed at facilitating the discussions. Experts are encouraged to submit written contributions on experiences with FOSS at the national level, focusing on the following items:
(i) overall familiarity with FOSS and the FOSS debate in the Government;
(ii) what strategic, administrative or normative approaches are being considered or implemented;
(iii) the extent of FOSS use in business and households;
(iv) examples of significant localization efforts and applications;
(v) possible economic effects and influence on related sectors and issues such as education and intellectual property regulation.
These papers will be made available to other participants in the form and language in which they are received.
Logistics
The meeting will take place at the United Nations Office of Geneva, Palais des Nations. Simultaneous interpretation will be provided in the six official languages of the United Nations.Upon arrival, participants are requested, before entering the Palais des Nations, to collect their badge at the UN Security Service, Villa Les Feuillantines, 13 Avenue de la Paix (close to the main entrance to the Palais on the Place des Nations, on the opposite side of the road). The Security Service is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (non-stop). Due to the existing security measures in force, participants are strongly advised to arrive before 8.30 a.m. in order to complete procedures and reach the Meeting in good time. Walking from Villa Les Feuillantines to the E-Building (Bâtiment E) of the Palais takes about 10 minutes. Participants are requested to carry a passport or similar national identity card with them. There is a general interdiction on the entry of taxis to the grounds of the Palais des Nations, and visitors will be dropped off at the requested entrance gates. Further, luggage is not authorized inside the buildings unless the Security Service grants special clearance.Further information and contact detailsLinks to information and details can be accessed at: http://www.unctad.org/ecommerce
Nominations and related communications concerning representation at the Meeting should be sent to the UNCTAD Secretariat, Intergovernmental Affairs and Outreach Service, Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10; fax: + 41(0)22 917 0056; e-mail: correspondence@unctad.org.
Substantive and other enquiries should be addressed to Mr. Dimo Calovski, Economic Affairs Officer, as the coordinator in the Services Infrastructure for Development and Trade Efficiency Division; E.7063, Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10; tel: +41(0)22 917 9946 or 917 5912 or 917 5515, fax: +41(0)22 917 0052, e-mail: fossem@unctad.org (signed)Rubens RicuperoSecretary-General of UNCTAD
Geneva, 22–24 September 2004
http://www.unctad.org/Templates/meeting.asp?intItemID=1942&lang=1&m=8936
Resources available on UNCTAD webpage on FOSS linkaged to some issues and aplications:
http://r0.unctad.org/ecommerce/ecommerce_en/freeopen_en.htm
For who from developing and LD countries has good relationship or contacts with key people in its Governement and also can be considered an expert on FOSS by the Government there are fellowships available.
Notification
The Expert Meeting on Free and Open Source Software, convened in accordance with the decision taken by the Commission on Enterprise, Business Facilitation and Development at its eighth session, will be held from 22 to 24 September 2004. The Meeting will open at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 22 September 2004.
Background and purpose of the Meeting
An increasing number of countries are developing national policies and strategies to promote the digital economy. Many have recognized the important role of software - in addition to hardware, affordable access and human capacities and skills - as the medium that enables people to use technology productively.Because social and economic activities are heterogeneous and human and natural environments are varied and different, the role of software as the interface between this human diversity and, often ubiquitous, hard technology is fundamental to the wide adoption of information technologies and to closing the digital divide. Given this singularly important role of software, the increasing prominence and use of so-called free and open source software (FOSS) has encouraged a debate about its ability to help, in particular, developing countries overcome the digital divide and increase the use and productive effects of information technology in commercial activities, governance and other fields. FOSS is software whose source code - its set of instructions - has been made open to the public and freely available under a license that prevents its appropriation. It is not necessarily free, as in "gratis" or free-of-charge. It is "free" and "open" because it can be used, changed and redistributed in a relatively unhindered manner. This Expert Meeting will bring together experts from both developed and developing countries, from international and regional bodies involved in FOSS issues, from the software technology industry and from civil society organizations. The objective of the Expert Meeting is twofold. First, it will provide the UNCTAD Commission on Enterprise, Business Facilitation and Development with a substantive basis that could support discussions about FOSS at a higher policy level. Second, it will allow an assessment and exchange of experience among experts from UNCTAD member States, while benefiting from inputs from participating FOSS specialists from academia, business and civil society.
Participation
Experts are expected to include officials from government offices responsible for information technology strategy, including software and FOSS policy and implementation. Representatives from other public or private institutions, the academic world and NGOs, with proven expertise in the subject, will also be invited to participate. Experts are nominated by their national governments but will participate in the Meeting in their personal capacities. Nominations should be submitted to the UNCTAD secretariat no later than 26 July 2004. (I've just got this info yesterday though! A.T.) In addition, experts from international and regional organizations dealing with FOSS issues will be invited. Specialized agencies and intergovernmental bodies wishing to participate in the Meeting, as well as non-governmental organizations in the General Category and those in the Special Category wishing to participate as observers, are requested to inform the UNCTAD secretariat of the names of their representatives.Financial assistanceFunds will be made available to finance the participation of a limited number of officially nominated experts from developing countries and economies in transition. Governments of developing countries and countries with economies in transition requiring funding are therefore invited to explicitly request financing in their letters of nomination. The Secretary-General of UNCTAD will base the decision as to which experts should receive financing on the principle of equitable geographical representation, beneficiary needs, in particular LDCs, and the expertise of the experts concerned. Changes in nominated experts will be considered as new nominations. Nominations with requests for financing should be received no later than eight weeks before the meeting (i.e. by 26 July 2004 at the latest), and should be accompanied with the following information about the nominee:
Curriculum vitae; Mailing address; Telephone and fax number; E-mail address; and Name of a contact person in the Permanent Mission in Geneva.
It should be noted in this connection that once the list of experts to be financed has been finalized, the Secretary-General of UNCTAD will have all travel arrangements made in accordance with United Nations rules and regulations, though use of the least costly travel fare will be authorized.
Background documents and contributed papers
The provisional agenda for the meeting, together with the secretariat´s annotations, is being circulated as document TD/B/COM.3/EM.21/1. The UNCTAD secretariat has prepared, as official documentation for the meeting, a background paper entitled "Free and open source software" (TD/B/COM.3/EM.21/2), aimed at facilitating the discussions. Experts are encouraged to submit written contributions on experiences with FOSS at the national level, focusing on the following items:
(i) overall familiarity with FOSS and the FOSS debate in the Government;
(ii) what strategic, administrative or normative approaches are being considered or implemented;
(iii) the extent of FOSS use in business and households;
(iv) examples of significant localization efforts and applications;
(v) possible economic effects and influence on related sectors and issues such as education and intellectual property regulation.
These papers will be made available to other participants in the form and language in which they are received.
Logistics
The meeting will take place at the United Nations Office of Geneva, Palais des Nations. Simultaneous interpretation will be provided in the six official languages of the United Nations.Upon arrival, participants are requested, before entering the Palais des Nations, to collect their badge at the UN Security Service, Villa Les Feuillantines, 13 Avenue de la Paix (close to the main entrance to the Palais on the Place des Nations, on the opposite side of the road). The Security Service is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (non-stop). Due to the existing security measures in force, participants are strongly advised to arrive before 8.30 a.m. in order to complete procedures and reach the Meeting in good time. Walking from Villa Les Feuillantines to the E-Building (Bâtiment E) of the Palais takes about 10 minutes. Participants are requested to carry a passport or similar national identity card with them. There is a general interdiction on the entry of taxis to the grounds of the Palais des Nations, and visitors will be dropped off at the requested entrance gates. Further, luggage is not authorized inside the buildings unless the Security Service grants special clearance.Further information and contact detailsLinks to information and details can be accessed at: http://www.unctad.org/ecommerce
Nominations and related communications concerning representation at the Meeting should be sent to the UNCTAD Secretariat, Intergovernmental Affairs and Outreach Service, Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10; fax: + 41(0)22 917 0056; e-mail: correspondence@unctad.org.
Substantive and other enquiries should be addressed to Mr. Dimo Calovski, Economic Affairs Officer, as the coordinator in the Services Infrastructure for Development and Trade Efficiency Division; E.7063, Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10; tel: +41(0)22 917 9946 or 917 5912 or 917 5515, fax: +41(0)22 917 0052, e-mail: fossem@unctad.org (signed)Rubens RicuperoSecretary-General of UNCTAD
An "e-Discovery" event!
You are invited to attend Kroll Ontrack’s Webinar titled “Zubulake vs. UBS Warburg: E-Discovery Lessons Learned.” This online seminar is scheduled for Tuesday, August 31st, at 12:00 PM Central / 1:00 PM Eastern / 10:00 AM Pacific. This will be a live Internet broadcast.
Seating is limited, so please register by Friday, August 27th to reserve your complimentary seat. If you have colleagues who would be interested in learning more on the topic of e-discovery, please feel free to forward this invitation along to them.
For more information or to register for this event, visit our Web site at www.krollontrack.com/aug04webinar. If you are unable to attend this online seminar, but would like to attend a future one, please continue to check our website at www.krollontrack.com/eEvidence/UpcomingEvents/ for future online seminars.
We hope you are able to attend.
Regards,
Rick Anderson
You are invited to attend Kroll Ontrack’s Webinar titled “Zubulake vs. UBS Warburg: E-Discovery Lessons Learned.” This online seminar is scheduled for Tuesday, August 31st, at 12:00 PM Central / 1:00 PM Eastern / 10:00 AM Pacific. This will be a live Internet broadcast.
Seating is limited, so please register by Friday, August 27th to reserve your complimentary seat. If you have colleagues who would be interested in learning more on the topic of e-discovery, please feel free to forward this invitation along to them.
For more information or to register for this event, visit our Web site at www.krollontrack.com/aug04webinar. If you are unable to attend this online seminar, but would like to attend a future one, please continue to check our website at www.krollontrack.com/eEvidence/UpcomingEvents/ for future online seminars.
We hope you are able to attend.
Regards,
Rick Anderson
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Bogdan sent this:
An interesting conference on data protection dedicated for Eastern Europe:
Public Voice Symposium"Privacy in a New Era:Challenges, Opportunities and Partnerships" 13 September, 2004 Dorint HotelWroclaw, Poland
This conference aims to provide an opportunity for civil society leaders andacademic experts, particularly in the New European Union Member States, tomeet with European data protection authorities and to explore emergingchallenges to the protection of personal privacy. The event will be held inconjunction with the annual meeting of theInternational Conference on Privacy and Data Protection Commissioners.There are a limited number of Fellowships available for representatives ofnon-governmental/non-commercial organizations from EU New Member States.
For more information :http://www.thepublicvoice.org/events/wroclaw04/
Best regards,Bogdan Manoleawww.legi-internet.ro
An interesting conference on data protection dedicated for Eastern Europe:
Public Voice Symposium"Privacy in a New Era:Challenges, Opportunities and Partnerships" 13 September, 2004 Dorint HotelWroclaw, Poland
This conference aims to provide an opportunity for civil society leaders andacademic experts, particularly in the New European Union Member States, tomeet with European data protection authorities and to explore emergingchallenges to the protection of personal privacy. The event will be held inconjunction with the annual meeting of theInternational Conference on Privacy and Data Protection Commissioners.There are a limited number of Fellowships available for representatives ofnon-governmental/non-commercial organizations from EU New Member States.
For more information :http://www.thepublicvoice.org/events/wroclaw04/
Best regards,Bogdan Manoleawww.legi-internet.ro
Monday, August 09, 2004
BilgilenmeHakki.Org ("Freedomofinfo.org" in English) publishes report about the Turkish Freedom of Information Council
On 09 August, 2004 BilgilenmeHakki.Org published a report in PDF format about the Turkish Right to Information Assessment (Review) Council. Following a BilgilenmeHakki.Org investigation the following conclusions are made in the report:
• The Turkish Right to Information Act is in force.
• A considerable number of public institutions established their freedom of information units and started to accept access to information requests including through the Internet.
• The public started to use their right to information and several thousands of requests have been made to public institutions.
• The members of the Right to Information Assessment (Review) Council have been identified, and the Council have been established.
• With the publication of this report it is now public knowledge that the Council is fully functional and deals with appeals.
• So far the Council dealt with 73 appeals and 29 of these have been investigated and decided.
However, following this BilgilenmeHakki.Org investigation further significant questions are raised:
• There is no other publicly available document which provides the contact details of the Right to Information Assessment (Review) Council apart from this BilgilenmeHakki.Org report. So how will the public lodge appeals if necessary?
• Why does not the Council have an established website?
• Why is not the Council subject to the same regulations as laid down above in so far as the implementation plan is concerned? The public institutions were required to launch their websites by 27 June, 2004. Why does not this regulation apply to the Council?
• Why doesn’t the Council make public its decisions?
The enactment of a right to information law is a significant step towards openness, transparency, and democratisation in Turkey. Within such a short time, a considerable number of public institutions established their freedom of information units and the Act is fully functional. However, there are significant problems and question marks about the establishment of the Right to Information Assessment (Review) Council. It is unfortunate that we can only get information about the Council via a right to information request to the Prime Ministry.
BilgilenmeHakki.Org therefore recommends that
• The Right to Information Assessment (Review) Council is immediately brought to sunshine.
• The Council publishes its decisions and provides reasons for rejected appeals.
• The public institutions are informed about the whereabouts of the Council and that they provide the public information about how to appeal to the Right to Information Assessment (Review) Council if necessary.
BilgilenmeHakki.Org will make its recommendations to the Prime Ministry with the publication of this report and will continue to monitor the developments in Turkey.
On 09 August, 2004 BilgilenmeHakki.Org published a report in PDF format about the Turkish Right to Information Assessment (Review) Council. Following a BilgilenmeHakki.Org investigation the following conclusions are made in the report:
• The Turkish Right to Information Act is in force.
• A considerable number of public institutions established their freedom of information units and started to accept access to information requests including through the Internet.
• The public started to use their right to information and several thousands of requests have been made to public institutions.
• The members of the Right to Information Assessment (Review) Council have been identified, and the Council have been established.
• With the publication of this report it is now public knowledge that the Council is fully functional and deals with appeals.
• So far the Council dealt with 73 appeals and 29 of these have been investigated and decided.
However, following this BilgilenmeHakki.Org investigation further significant questions are raised:
• There is no other publicly available document which provides the contact details of the Right to Information Assessment (Review) Council apart from this BilgilenmeHakki.Org report. So how will the public lodge appeals if necessary?
• Why does not the Council have an established website?
• Why is not the Council subject to the same regulations as laid down above in so far as the implementation plan is concerned? The public institutions were required to launch their websites by 27 June, 2004. Why does not this regulation apply to the Council?
• Why doesn’t the Council make public its decisions?
The enactment of a right to information law is a significant step towards openness, transparency, and democratisation in Turkey. Within such a short time, a considerable number of public institutions established their freedom of information units and the Act is fully functional. However, there are significant problems and question marks about the establishment of the Right to Information Assessment (Review) Council. It is unfortunate that we can only get information about the Council via a right to information request to the Prime Ministry.
BilgilenmeHakki.Org therefore recommends that
• The Right to Information Assessment (Review) Council is immediately brought to sunshine.
• The Council publishes its decisions and provides reasons for rejected appeals.
• The public institutions are informed about the whereabouts of the Council and that they provide the public information about how to appeal to the Right to Information Assessment (Review) Council if necessary.
BilgilenmeHakki.Org will make its recommendations to the Prime Ministry with the publication of this report and will continue to monitor the developments in Turkey.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
CDT Releases Report on ICANN and Internet Governance
In the context of ongoing global debates about Internet governance, CDT has
released a report calling for continued reform at the Internet Corporation
on Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The report calls on ICANN to focus on
its limited mission and bottom-up, consensus-based approach, which remains
the best model for managing core Internet naming and numbering functions.
ICANN is meeting July 19-23 in Kuala Lumpur. July 14, 2004
CDT Report, "ICANN and Internet Governance: Getting Back to Basics" [PDF],
July 14, 2004:
http://www.cdt.org/dns/icann/20040713_cdt.pdf
More on ICANN:
http://www.cdt.org/dns
In the context of ongoing global debates about Internet governance, CDT has
released a report calling for continued reform at the Internet Corporation
on Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The report calls on ICANN to focus on
its limited mission and bottom-up, consensus-based approach, which remains
the best model for managing core Internet naming and numbering functions.
ICANN is meeting July 19-23 in Kuala Lumpur. July 14, 2004
CDT Report, "ICANN and Internet Governance: Getting Back to Basics" [PDF],
July 14, 2004:
http://www.cdt.org/dns/icann/20040713_cdt.pdf
More on ICANN:
http://www.cdt.org/dns
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)