EU Commission public meeting on ACTA
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 25 February 2010
The European Commission invites lobbyists to a meeting on ACTA. Meanwhile, the Internet service providers finally step out in opposition, so the meeting could be interesting.
The European Commission has announced a public 'stakeholders' meeting on ACTA (Anti-counterfeiting trade agreement) in March. Whilst this has the veneer of a consultation, it is in fact, not
so open as it might seem. In my experience, there is plenty of room for manipulation of these meetings, and it is to be expected that the speakers will be limited in what they can say, especially those who oppose ACTA.
It should be noted too, that this is not the Parliament. This is a lobbyists meeting at the Commission.
The call yesterday for transparency for the Parliament is more important, because the Parliament should have oversight of anything which will have legislative implications for Europe.
Meanwhile EuroISPA has spoken out against ACTA, joining its fellow trade association, ETNO in opposing the moves on ISP liability and requests to sanction users by suspension and disconnection of access.
In a statement, EuroISPA calls again on European institutions to ensure that no measures could be proposed that could lead to graduated response, criminal sanctions, US-style notice and take down and, indirectly, generalised monitoring of Internet traffic and service.
EuroISPA reminds the Commission to respect the acquis communitaire for telecommunications, as amended only last year in the Telecoms Package, and in particular, of the final agreement on Amendment 138.
Details of the ACTA Stakeholders Consultation Meeting
Date: Monday 22nd March 2010
Time: 10.00 – 12:30 Location: Charlemagne Building, Room Alcide de Gaspieri - Rue de la Loi, 170 B-1049 Brussels
To register for the meeting, and for more information, go to DG Trade website ACTA - Stakeholders Consultation Meeting
**Michael Geist has another leaked document which seems to show that several EU Member States, including Denmark and Germany, are opposed to the public release of ACTA documents.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK:England and Wales License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/ It may be used for non-commercial purposes only, and the author's name should be attributed. The correct attribution for this article is: Monica Horten (2010) EU Commission public meeting on ACTA http://www.iptegrity.com 25 February 2010
- Article Views: 8811
IPtegrity politics
- EU at loggerheads over chat control
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- EU puts chat control on back burner
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Creation of deep fakes to be criminal offence under new law
- AI and tech: Asks for the new government
- How WhatsApp holds structural power
- Meta rolls out encryption as political headwinds ease
- EU law set for new course on child online safety
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- MEPs reach political agreement to protect children and privacy
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Not a blank cheque: European Parliament consents to EU-UK Agreement
- UK border safety alert - mind the capability gap
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Former telecoms journalist, experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Politics & copyright
A Copyright Masquerade: How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online Freedoms
'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review
Online Safety
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
- Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
- National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
- Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
- What is content of democratic importance?
- Online Safety Bill: One rule for them and another for us
- Online Safety Bill - Freedom to interfere?
- Copyright-style website blocking orders slipped into Online Safety Bill
- 2 billion cost to British businesses for Online Safety Bill