[Chapter-delegates] Additional EU elements on EC ACTA Stakeholders' Consultation Meeting on 22 March 2010

Thu Mar 25 06:26:16 PDT 2010

Dear All,

You might have already seen -below-  the ISOC report on the EC ACTA Stakeholders ' Consultation meeting which took place in Brussels on 22 March.
You can also access the video record of this event here: http://webstream.ec.europa.eu/scic/trade/100322/day1or-1.wmv

I would like to make some additional comments on our EU List  with a view to provide you with some specific "EU centric" thoughts. Hope you will find this of interest.

As a general comment, the European Commission seemed rather defensive. The whole exercise was obviously twofold: to convince the audience that the current ACTA negotiations would *not* violate the (legislative) "acquis communautaire" and to reinsure European stakeholders (in particular the European Parliament) that the institutional "collaborative" process between EU institutions has always been/will continue to be respected. This calls for two comments.

- On the content. It is worth noting that the European Commission, would it limit negotiations to the current set of directives in Europe, might definitely leave intact in the negotiations a lot of provisions that might *induce* national legislators, national regulators and even ISPs to go (or be pushed to go) beyond the current acquis communautaire. And this ambiguity has not been cleared during the meeting, notwithstanding the many promises that *no* three strike measures nor similar technical measures were being discussed during the ACTA negotiations,  or that provisions re: ISPs liabilities would remain untouched.

- On the process. Interestingly the very recent implementation of the Lisbon Treaty ensures that the European Parliament is a co-legislator in Europe and, as such, that it should be informed in the very same way as the Council of Ministers. This was obviously not the case in the ACTA negotiations process so far, which prompted the recent EP Resolution. So lots of questions directed to the Commission during the meeting were asking EC to comment this Resolution, and in particular art. 8 & 9. 
(see European Parliament Resolution on ACTA (10 March 2010) "http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2010-0058+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN")

It's also worth noting that the (current) EU Spanish Presidency plays a key role in the negotiations, and in particular on all these issues that go *beyond* the mandate attributed to the Commission (ie. limited to the acquis communautaire). In other words, the Spanish Presidency-which currently represents the EU Ministers- *might* very well negotiate issues beyond the acquis communautaire.

As stated before, ISOC will keep following this critically important dossier at both regional and International level and report back.
At European level, the latest developments (EP Resolution and EC meeting) might help us to  keep the pressure on national /European stakeholders that are involved in the ACTA process. 
As many of us benefit of direct channels to local governments officials or national representatives within the EU institutions, I would welcome everybody to keep sharing information on this list of any move and/or any initiative in our respective countries. 

Thank you

Best Regards
Frédéric

Frédéric Donck
Director European Regional Bureau
Internet Society

www.isoc.org

Début du message réexpédié :

> De : "Christine Runnegar" <runnegar at isoc.org>
> Date : 23 mars 2010 20:09:36 HNEC
> À : <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> Objet : [Chapter-delegates] Note regarding the EC ACTA Stakeholders' Consultation Meeting on 22 March 2010
> 
> Hello all.
> 
> Frédéric Donck, Christopher Wilkinson and I attended the European Commission
> (EC) ACTA Stakeholders’ Consultation Meeting in Brussels on 22 March 2010. 
> 
> The meeting commenced with a presentation from the EC (given by the Head of
> Intellectual Property and Public procurement in DG for Trade (Luc-Pierre
> Devigne)). The substance of that presentation is contained in the PowerPoint
> slides available here
> http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/march/tradoc_145930.pdf.
> 
> The next round of ACTA negotiations will be held in New Zealand (12-16 April
> 2010). It was also announced that there would be a civil society meeting in
> Wellington NZ during the negotiations and that all chapters of the proposed
> treaty will be on the agenda.
> 
> Following this presentation, the EC opened the floor for questions and/or
> comments. 
> 
> This is my understanding of the salient points made by the EC representative
> during the course of that discussion:
> 
> •	ACTA only concerns enforcement of existing Intellectual Property
> rights – It will not affect substantive Intellectual Property laws
> •	None of the parties to the ACTA negotiations has proposed “three
> strikes” or a “graduated response” – “It is a non-issue.”
> •	Re ISP liability – existing European law provides for conditional
> exemption of liability for ISPs – the EC will not go beyond existing
> European law
> •	The EC will not comment on “leaked documents”.
> •	The negotiations in Mexico touched upon the first part of the
> “Internet environment” but not the “technical protection measures” – these
> will be discussed in the next round of negotiations.
> •	The parties to the ACTA negotiations have not yet discussed
> “institutional arrangements”. The EC intends to have a stakeholders’ meeting
> when it knows more about this issue.
> •	At the next round of negotiations, the EC will be asking for the
> texts under discussion to be released.
> •	The parties to the ACTA negotiations have not yet discussed
> arrangements for amending the treaty (assuming there is a treaty) in
> response to technological progress, changes in the law of parties to the
> treaty, etc.
> 
> And specifically, vis-à-vis Europe and the European negotiating position:
> 
> •	The EC is hoping to export European law for the protection of
> Intellectual Property rights to other countries for its own citizens’
> benefit (and also for the benefit of citizens of other countries).
> •	The EC’s guidelines for negotiating ACTA (issued by the Council of
> the European Union) are to respect existing European law (the "acquis") and
> negotiate a position that is consistent with that law – no further.
> Additionally, Europe has a lot of laws protecting fundamental human rights,
> privacy and data protection which other countries do not have.
> •	The EC indicated it would have liked to have conducted these
> negotiations through the WTO, but some members (unnamed) will not permit
> enforcement of Intellectual Property rights on the agenda.
> 
> As to what this means for the EU, I will defer to my colleague, Frédéric
> Donck, Director of the European Regional Bureau, who was also present.
> 
> We hope that the parties to the ACTA negotiations will agree to release the
> texts under consideration at their next meeting in April 2010 so that ISOC
> and others may contribute their voice and expertise to these important
> issues.
> 
> ISOC will continue to follow the ongoing ACTA negotiations as they unfold.
> If anyone has any news about public consultations in their region or other
> news pertaining to ACTA, please let me know. 
> 
> Footnote: Even though the EC representative said ACTA “will not induce” ISPs
> to impose “a graduated response” or other technical measures, it may be
> premature to be confident that the text under discussion does not include
> ISP liability conditional on ISPs having such measures in place.
> 
> Best regards,
> Christine
> 
> ______________________
> 
> Christine Runnegar
> Senior Manager Public Policy
> Internet Society
> Galerie Jean-Malbuisson 15
> CH-1204 Geneva
> Switzerland
> 
> Tel: +41 22 807 1455
> www.isoc.org 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20100325/d233d510/attachment.htm>