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.

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
__________________________________________________

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 UNESCO Member States or any other donors. The total level of funding available for 2005 is US$750,000

Parent Advocates - ParentAdvocates.org

An usual sanction! Go back to school to take ethics course!
Parent Advocates

---

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

Opinio Juris

Opinio Juris

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.

Ponemon Institute -- Ethical Information Management

Ponemon Institute -- Ethical Information Management

---

Promises to Keep

Promises to Keep

John Palfrey :

After the "i-law 2004":
John Palfrey :"Working Hypotesis" and Following the "i-law 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

SCRIPT-ed: Issue 4

SCRIPT-ed: Issue 4

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:

• 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

---

UN Global E-government Readiness Report 2004 -
available online on UNPAN

---

BTW: I started to study here !
A.T.

---

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 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

Bilgiedinmehakki.org / BilgilenmeHakki.Org Press Release

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.

---

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

---

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

---

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

Harvard Weblogs: Weblogs at the Harvard Law School

Which actor plays which professor in iLaw, The Movie?
Harvard Weblogs

---