Re: [Foundation-l] ACTA signed but not ratified Re: ACTA analysis?
Here's a link to a useful post by Member of European Parliament detailing the schedule for ACTA in the next months: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ow1v5/acta_note_from_marietje_schaake_member_of_the/ Regards, -- Orionist On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: ==Update== ACTA has been signed by the EU and 22 member states, but must still be ratified. We have time for a good analysis, and time to set up a game plan before that time. OTOH If we decide to act, we shouldn't be *too* slow, or we'll lose the momentum that has built up. Currently la quadrature du net is coordinated best. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta-signed-by-the-eu-lets-defeat-it-together https://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/How_to_act_against_ACTA sincerly, Kim Bruning -- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ACTA signed but not ratified Re: ACTA analysis?
Apparently the ambassador of the Netherlands did not get permission in time to sign the agreement. It seems nobody really knows yet why that was, but it is expected that the signature will follow. Also the signature of Spain, Slovenia and Cyprus seems to be missing yet. Source: http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/109330/nederland-mist-ondertekening-acta-verdrag---update.html No dia 27 de Janeiro de 2012 09:08, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.comescreveu: 2012/1/27 Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl: ==Update== ACTA has been signed by the EU and 22 member states, but must still be ratified. We have time for a good analysis, and time to set up a game plan before that time. OTOH If we decide to act, we shouldn't be *too* slow, or we'll lose the momentum that has built up. Currently la quadrature du net is coordinated best. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta-signed-by-the-eu-lets-defeat-it-together https://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/How_to_act_against_ACTA Yes. Exactly. Actually, from EU only Germany and Holland has not signed ACTA yet. Would be good to make a search on which stage there are formal discussions in these countries. In many countries - also in Poland, the ACTA formal discussion was made semi-secret - I mean, theoretically they were not secret, bo goverment made evrything to hide it from eyes of its own citizens. The ratification in EU Parliament was originally planned at June, but due to strike of Kader Arif it might be 1-2 months later. Before that there will be ratification debates in local EU-countries parliaments. -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29title=tomasz-ganicz ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] WMF Global Development Midyear report 2011-12
Hi all, the Wikimedia Foundation's Global Development department has recently published a midyear report on its activities, regarding the 2011-12 annual plan. You can find it on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Development_Midyear_report_2011-12 -- Tilman Bayer Movement Communications Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] POV in Chechen Wikipedia
I opened a RFC request on Meta, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/POV_in_Chechen_Wikipedia In my view, this is a situation similar to the one in Acehnese Wikipedia, which we had recently - when a group of users basically hijack a WMF project and start to promote goals incompatible with the WMF mission. Whereas we still need to listen to all sides of the conflict and I might be wrong on that, I still find the situation alarming and I would like to get reactions. Note that I was not involved (and I would prefer not to be involved), I am just an observer. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] POV in Chechen Wikipedia
Hoi, Thanks for bringing this up, Yaroslav. If it turns out to be a really solid claim, we would need someone neutral with language competence to figure out what is going on there... Any ideas? I have a retired professor in mind who speaks the language fairly well (Johanna Nichols from UC Berkeley), but that could involve costs for the WMF. I don't know anyone else who is not from Chechnya and still speaks Chechen. Th. 2012/1/27 Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru: I opened a RFC request on Meta, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/POV_in_Chechen_Wikipedia In my view, this is a situation similar to the one in Acehnese Wikipedia, which we had recently - when a group of users basically hijack a WMF project and start to promote goals incompatible with the WMF mission. Whereas we still need to listen to all sides of the conflict and I might be wrong on that, I still find the situation alarming and I would like to get reactions. Note that I was not involved (and I would prefer not to be involved), I am just an observer. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] POV in Chechen Wikipedia
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:58:02 +0100, Thomas Goldammer tho...@googlemail.com wrote: Hoi, Thanks for bringing this up, Yaroslav. If it turns out to be a really solid claim, we would need someone neutral with language competence to figure out what is going on there... Any ideas? I have a retired professor in mind who speaks the language fairly well (Johanna Nichols from UC Berkeley), but that could involve costs for the WMF. I don't know anyone else who is not from Chechnya and still speaks Chechen. Th. I see http://ce.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BD:Contributions/62.235.129.170 that today in all articles Russian Federation was again replaced with Chechnya as the state in the infobox. Which means, I am afraid, that the claim is serious. Indeed, I think we should be looking for people who are not ethnic Chechens but still speak the language to some extent. May be the Language Committee has better ideas. If we could not find any reasonable solution, may be one needs just to close down the project, because currently it seems to be just a POV website. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for moderators
On 27 January 2012 06:38, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
Sue has asked me to create a mailing list to discuss advocacy and
Wikimedia's position in it for the future. Although I don't yet have the
list created, I wanted to put out a call for moderators. If you're
interested in moderating this mailing list (a bit more of an active
moderation role, nudging people on topic, etc), would you please let me
know by private email (philippe{{@}}wikimedia.org)? Depending on how many
people express interest, I'll figure out how we proceed forward.
Thanks!
pb
When you say a mailing list to discuss advocacy and Wikimedia's position
in it, do you mean a list dedicated to discussing how/why/whether we
should use Wikimedia's visibility and credibility for political lobbying
purposes - e.g filings in court actions, submissions to various government
policy reviews and of course the recent blackouts?
If so, that sounds like an excellent idea. There are local political issues
that might help or hinder our movement in many countries - Obviously SOPA
in the US, ACTA in Europe right now, the proposed Internet Filter in
Australia... Whilst we certainly shouldn't ever think that political
activities are our primary purpose (and it would be against the rules of
most countries for a Charity to do that anyway), I do think that we've only
just started to flex our muscles in influencing governments to listen to
our perspective. Certainly the encyclopedia contains neutrally-worded
information, but delivering free-knowledge is a highly political and
potentially subversive act!
Once they've got a baseline of organisational capacity, Chapters are
ideally placed to get involved in this kind of advocacy in their
countries/regions and I look forward to the day when, for example, 20+
Chapters can submit coordinated responses to a European Union Copyright
review.
Sincerely,
-Liam
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] POV in Chechen Wikipedia
Hm, I think closing it is no option we should really consider. Maybe we must try to share apart those who have understood the principles and abide by them and those who don't and - well - remove sysop rights of the latter group and encourage the first group to have the wiki cleaned up and to enforce the basic principles... But, as I said, someone trustworthy with language abilities will be needed. Th. I see http://ce.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BD:Contributions/62.235.129.170 that today in all articles Russian Federation was again replaced with Chechnya as the state in the infobox. Which means, I am afraid, that the claim is serious. Indeed, I think we should be looking for people who are not ethnic Chechens but still speak the language to some extent. May be the Language Committee has better ideas. If we could not find any reasonable solution, may be one needs just to close down the project, because currently it seems to be just a POV website. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] POV in Chechen Wikipedia
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:23:22 +0100, Thomas Goldammer tho...@googlemail.com wrote: Hm, I think closing it is no option we should really consider. Maybe we must try to share apart those who have understood the principles and abide by them and those who don't and - well - remove sysop rights of the latter group and encourage the first group to have the wiki cleaned up and to enforce the basic principles... But, as I said, someone trustworthy with language abilities will be needed. Th. Right, I do not think closing would be any good. I think we should hear the sides first. I mailed Umar Dagirov a link (he did not respond yet), and I would appreciate if one of the stewards would inform the other party in Chechen Wikipedia. (I am hesitant to do it, since I may be immediately blocked there, and this would really complicate things). This can hopefully be all done without a language expert. At the next stage, we would indeed need to see who has understood the principles and is willing to follow them - and afterwards we might need a language expert. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] POV in Chechen Wikipedia
I haven't read the RFC carefully, but since it is opened, so I informed Sasan700 and Dagger on their talk page. Also emailed Sasan700. Best regards, Benjamin Chen / User:Bencmq On Friday, January 27, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:23:22 +0100, Thomas Goldammer tho...@googlemail.com (mailto:tho...@googlemail.com) wrote: Hm, I think closing it is no option we should really consider. Maybe we must try to share apart those who have understood the principles and abide by them and those who don't and - well - remove sysop rights of the latter group and encourage the first group to have the wiki cleaned up and to enforce the basic principles... But, as I said, someone trustworthy with language abilities will be needed. Th. Right, I do not think closing would be any good. I think we should hear the sides first. I mailed Umar Dagirov a link (he did not respond yet), and I would appreciate if one of the stewards would inform the other party in Chechen Wikipedia. (I am hesitant to do it, since I may be immediately blocked there, and this would really complicate things). This can hopefully be all done without a language expert. At the next stage, we would indeed need to see who has understood the principles and is willing to follow them - and afterwards we might need a language expert. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] POV in Chechen Wikipedia
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:14:40 +0800, Benjamin Chen cnchenmi...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't read the RFC carefully, but since it is opened, so I informed Sasan700 and Dagger on their talk page. Also emailed Sasan700. Best regards, Benjamin Chen / User:Bencmq Great, thanks, Benjamin. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] POV in Chechen Wikipedia
As for the article on Ramzan Kadyrov, I just checked and the only editor was Дагиров Умар plus a bot (Luckas-bot) Best regards, Benjamin Chen / User:Bencmq On Friday, January 27, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:23:22 +0100, Thomas Goldammer tho...@googlemail.com (mailto:tho...@googlemail.com) wrote: Hm, I think closing it is no option we should really consider. Maybe we must try to share apart those who have understood the principles and abide by them and those who don't and - well - remove sysop rights of the latter group and encourage the first group to have the wiki cleaned up and to enforce the basic principles... But, as I said, someone trustworthy with language abilities will be needed. Th. Right, I do not think closing would be any good. I think we should hear the sides first. I mailed Umar Dagirov a link (he did not respond yet), and I would appreciate if one of the stewards would inform the other party in Chechen Wikipedia. (I am hesitant to do it, since I may be immediately blocked there, and this would really complicate things). This can hopefully be all done without a language expert. At the next stage, we would indeed need to see who has understood the principles and is willing to follow them - and afterwards we might need a language expert. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Growing
Interesting facts about size, growing and accelerating. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] WMF Board of Trustees meeting agenda
Hi all, The WMF Board of Trustees is planning our winter meeting for next weekend. The draft agenda is posted here for comment: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Board_Meetings/February_3-4,_2012 This is a very full agenda, focusing on three main topics: the WMF annual planning process for 2012/2013, fundraising and funds dissemination models, and the movement roles process. -- Phoebe (Board of Trustees Secretary, 2011-2012) -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF Board of Trustees meeting agenda
Hi Phoebe, Often the most interesting thing about an agenda is what it omits. So the first board meeting after the SOPA blackout is not going to discuss blackouts, SOPA and lobbying? WereSpielChequers Message: 9 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:22:56 -0800 From: phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] WMF Board of Trustees meeting agenda Message-ID: caai3vqfm1b2jdkpixsr7b2b8jauwh6cvr7qf5yo5foqyvem...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi all, The WMF Board of Trustees is planning our winter meeting for next weekend. The draft agenda is posted here for comment: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Board_Meetings/February_3-4,_2012 This is a very full agenda, focusing on three main topics: the WMF annual planning process for 2012/2013, fundraising and funds dissemination models, and the movement roles process. -- Phoebe (Board of Trustees Secretary, 2011-2012) -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * -- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 94, Issue 74 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF Board of Trustees meeting agenda
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:41 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Phoebe, Often the most interesting thing about an agenda is what it omits. So the first board meeting after the SOPA blackout is not going to discuss blackouts, SOPA and lobbying? I am assuming Legal will bring it up in the context of the annual plan! But in our last in person board meeting--very shortly after the Italian blackout, though I swear I put it on the agenda before that!--we discussed whether this was something we should get involved with/devote resources to at all, and what it would mean for us: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2011-10-07 (search for advocacy) Now we're just into specific implementations. :-) -Kat -- Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: k...@wikimedia.org, k...@mindspillage.org (G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF Board of Trustees meeting agenda
Phoebe, On this agenda, could you give more detail about the topic Paid editing discussion? There is a current discussion on EN at the Village Pump regarding, among other things, PR personnel who edit on Wikipedia in ways that might violate NPOV and COI policy. It would be good to know if the Board is taking up this specific subject. Alternatively, if paid editing discussion instead is about editors which will be paid by WMF to edit, I think the community would want to know that this is will be discussed. Thanks, Pine Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:22:56 -0800 From: phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] WMF Board of Trustees meeting agenda Message-ID: caai3vqfm1b2jdkpixsr7b2b8jauwh6cvr7qf5yo5foqyvem...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi all, The WMF Board of Trustees is planning our winter meeting for next weekend. The draft agenda is posted here for comment: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Board_Meetings/February_3-4,_2012 This is a very full agenda, focusing on three main topics: the WMF annual planning process for 2012/2013, fundraising and funds dissemination models, and the movement roles process. -- Phoebe (Board of Trustees Secretary, 2011-2012) -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF Board of Trustees meeting agenda
Phoebe, this meeting is not the one to approve or not the Recomendations from Sue, right? I always imagined that would be AFTER the meeting in Paris. _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 27 January 2012 17:22, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, The WMF Board of Trustees is planning our winter meeting for next weekend. The draft agenda is posted here for comment: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Board_Meetings/February_3-4,_2012 This is a very full agenda, focusing on three main topics: the WMF annual planning process for 2012/2013, fundraising and funds dissemination models, and the movement roles process. -- Phoebe (Board of Trustees Secretary, 2011-2012) -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF Board of Trustees meeting agenda
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Kat Walsh k...@mindspillage.org wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:41 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Phoebe, Often the most interesting thing about an agenda is what it omits. So the first board meeting after the SOPA blackout is not going to discuss blackouts, SOPA and lobbying? I am assuming Legal will bring it up in the context of the annual plan! But in our last in person board meeting--very shortly after the Italian blackout, though I swear I put it on the agenda before that!--we discussed whether this was something we should get involved with/devote resources to at all, and what it would mean for us: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2011-10-07 (search for advocacy) Now we're just into specific implementations. :-) -Kat What Kat said -- also, in general, topics that don't make it to the in-person agenda are usually discussed over email and/or IRC; the in-person time is so limited that we try to limit to topics that would really benefit from face-to-face discussions. This meeting in particular we are trying a slightly different strategy in that we tried to limit the number of topics discussed, so we can go further in-depth for each one. Also, I think broad advocacy discussions will certainly continue for a long time into the future (versus the annual planning and fundraising discussions, which are time-sensitive). phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ACTA analysis?
Hello Kim, Geoff asked me to prepare the following summaries of ACTA and OPEN with the understanding that it only represents some preliminary research to support the ongoing community discussion. You can find the research here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/ACTA http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/OPEN_Act I encourage the community to update or correct these pages as they see fit. In my personal opinion, the Wikipedia articles are not completely up to date on ACTA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement), so the community may also wish to improve those articles as we learn new information. ACTA is complicated because it is a treaty, not national law. It may or may not be implemented the same way in every country, and its impact will depend on a country's existing national law. My initial research was primarily focused on U.S. law, but many of the problems in ACTA will apply elsewhere. In the spirit of collaboration, your input and improvement is encouraged! Here are some highlights: * ACTA is already signed by many countries, but a country can withdraw with 180 days notice. * The anti-circumvention provisions are similar to the DMCA, but possibly worse. * The final text of ACTA is not as bad as the previous drafts. Importantly, my research does not represent an official legal opinion from the Wikimedia Foundation. It may contain errors and may be incomplete. You should know that the legal department can only represent the Wikimedia Foundation on legal matters, so this is not official legal advice to the community. Stephen LaPorte Legal Intern Office of the General Council Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ACTA analysis?
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: .. One does well to follow Michael Geist's blogs on this [http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ here]. He has been on top of this issue since it started, and provides links to developments on his left sidebar. ACTA is probably more damaging outside the US than within because it imposes US views in other countries without any of the due process that would normally be available to US persons. The entire agreement is a trade agreement which only happens to have copyright as a major content element. It seeks to protect the interests of American business. By framing the issues in terms of trade and enforcement, it ignores how seriously fucked-up copyright law has become. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/14071517529/new-petition-asks-white-house-to-submit-acta-to-senate-ratification.shtml 33,765 votes so far. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/end-acta-and-protect-our-right-privacy-internet/MwfSVNBK If I understand correctly, Obama has issued an executive order approving ACTA, but that executive order is suppressed as a state secret. And the administration hasnt given it a number because there are no gaps in the numbering of Obama's EO list..? https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Barack_Obama/Executive_orders And in the EU, 'Kader Arif, the rapporteur for ACTA, has quit that role in disgust over the process behind getting the EU to sign onto ACTA.' http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/3/3/european_parliament_official_in_charge_of_acta_quits_and_denounces_the_masquerade_behind_acta/ -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ACTA analysis?
I found two sentences unclear, but didn't know how to fix them; see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal/ACTA -- [[:en:User:Slashme|David Richfield]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ACTA analysis?
If I understand correctly, Obama has issued an executive order approving ACTA, but that executive order is suppressed as a state secret. And the administration hasnt given it a number because there are no gaps in the numbering of Obama's EO list..? As I understand it's rather called an executive agreement, which is another word for treaty; so the president signing the treaty itself is enough and there's no need for an executive order, but I might be wrong. However, sen. Wyden has been questioning the constitutionality of signing ACTA without getting Congressional approval: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/01545117544/as-ustr-insists-acta-doesnt-need-congressional-approval-wyden-asks-state-dept-second-opinion.shtml Regards, -- Orionist On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:33 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: .. One does well to follow Michael Geist's blogs on this [http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ here]. He has been on top of this issue since it started, and provides links to developments on his left sidebar. ACTA is probably more damaging outside the US than within because it imposes US views in other countries without any of the due process that would normally be available to US persons. The entire agreement is a trade agreement which only happens to have copyright as a major content element. It seeks to protect the interests of American business. By framing the issues in terms of trade and enforcement, it ignores how seriously fucked-up copyright law has become. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/14071517529/new-petition-asks-white-house-to-submit-acta-to-senate-ratification.shtml 33,765 votes so far. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/end-acta-and-protect-our-right-privacy-internet/MwfSVNBK If I understand correctly, Obama has issued an executive order approving ACTA, but that executive order is suppressed as a state secret. And the administration hasnt given it a number because there are no gaps in the numbering of Obama's EO list..? https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Barack_Obama/Executive_orders And in the EU, 'Kader Arif, the rapporteur for ACTA, has quit that role in disgust over the process behind getting the EU to sign onto ACTA.' http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/3/3/european_parliament_official_in_charge_of_acta_quits_and_denounces_the_masquerade_behind_acta/ -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
