It might be interesting to add that during this round of discharge reports,
there have been several statements for the use of open source software.

It is partly reported here:
https://european-pirateparty.eu/european-parliament-strongly-recommends-any-software-developed-by-and-for-the-eu-institutions-to-be-made-publicly-available-under-free-and-open-source-software-licence/

Besides the European Parliament (full text in [1]) there was also similar
statements for the Ombudsman [2]. Court of Auditors [3], European Data
Protection Supervisor [4] and European External Action Service [5]

[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0084_EN.html
[2] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0086_EN.html
[3] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0088_EN.html
[4] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0087_EN.html
[5] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0094_EN.html


Best,
Jan Ainali
http://ainali.com


Den fre 29 maj 2020 kl 12:22 skrev Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <
[email protected]>:

>
> tl;dr
>
> We have an updated work programme by the Commission: Digital Services Act
> will be proposed by the end of the year, but the Artificial Intelligence
> dossier is being pushed back and is now expected first half of 2021.
> Meanwhile the European Parliament is gathering input from MEPs on both
> these topics in an array of non-binding reports.
>
> This and previous reports on Meta-Wiki:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor
>
> ======
>
> Digital Services Act (DSA)
>
> ---
>
> Back on track: Contrary to what your Wikimedia Brussels team was sure and
> certain of, the Digital Serves Act timeline won’t be postponed, according
> to the adjusted Commission Work Programme presented this week. [1] Despite
> the fact that we are still waiting for the consultation to be published,
> which was originally supposed to happen early May and is expected next week
> now, Commissioner Breton and associates still want to have a legislative
> proposal out in time by the end of this year.
>
> ---
>
> Meanwhile in the Parliament: The last of a number of own initiative draft
> reports on the DSA was published by Kris Peeters (EPP BE) in the Civil
> Liberties committee (LIBE). [2] Petters supports “limited liability for
> content and the country of origin principle”, key components of the current
> regime under the e-Commerce Directive. However he suggests  that harmful
> content, as opposed to only illegal content, should be addressed.
>
> ---
>
> Meanwhile in Parliament II: Last month’s Monitoring Report already talked
> about the other two parliamentary draft reports, by Alex Saliba (S&D MT) in
> the Internal Market committee (IMCO) and by Tiemo Wölken (S&D DE) in the
> Legal Affairs committee (JURI). [3] The MEPs and their staff are now
> parsing through hundreds of amendments on these (non-binding) reports.
> [4][5] Votes are expected in September. Some key questions include:
>
> *Should harmful content be included in the scope?
>
> *Should there be extra rules for some, more dominant platforms?
>
> *Should these extra rules be for platforms that are “dominant”,
> “systemic”, “which significant network effects”, “holding a significant
> gatekeeper role”. [6]
>
> *Should platforms that moderate content enjoy liability protections? (They
> now risk losing it.)
>
>  On the other hand, it seems that almost everyone sees the need for some
> sort of notice and action procedures for content removal to be enshrined.
>
> ======
>
> Artificial Intelligence: The consultation on Artificial Intelligence is
> due in a couple of weeks. Several of you already contributed (mille
> grazie!). [7] We are having a call Monday, 1 June, at 15:00 CEST to polish
> our answers to the Commission survey. Ping me if you like to join!
>
> ======
>
> Data Strategy: The Commission is asking about things like “data
> altruism”, “data for the public good” and data “donations”. All these terms
> are crucial to the interpretation of the questions and their answers and,
> of course, there are no where defined. We called the Commission out on
> this, submitted a position on “quality requirements for High-Value
> Datasets” (which was asked about as such sets should become open as per
> Open Data Directive). We also gave examples of data being already gathered
> and used for the public good and a few ideas what potential “data trustees”
> could look like. We, of course, didn’t forget to repeat our “Carthago
> delenda est” a.k.a. “No new IP rights!” Our final submissions are now
> linked on the Meta-Wiki page of the consultation. [8]
>
> ======
>
> Competition Consultation: [9][10]
>
> One of the European Commission’s main objectives for the current
> legislative is regulating platforms. The Digital Services Act is an
> important but not the only one part of this endeavor, as the EC’s
> Vice-President Margrethe Vestager seems to be set to solving some of the
> problems through competition mechanisms. It is in fact good news, as
> pushing everything that relates to dominant platforms into a Digital Single
> Market regulation may be limiting to solve issues that have little to do
> with the common market area and a lot to do with how powerful some actors
> have become.
>
> The EC plans to evaluate a 1997 Notice on market definition[9], a set of
> binding guidelines used to define what's the "market" a business operates
> in. This is a crucial step in determining things such as whether a business
> has a large or small market share, whether a business is dominant, or
> whether a merger would reduce competition and cause harm.
>
> The process has started with gathering of feedback on the scope and
> rationale of the evaluation. Both the Wikimedia Foundation and Free
> Knowledge Advocacy Group submitted responses underlining the need to
> evaluate the notice as to its adequacy for the digital sphere and markets.
> The analysis of a relevant market should be centered around user behaviour
> and how the results of examining that behaviour can be integrated in the
> market definition. You can check both responses on a dedicated meta
> page[10] or on the EC’s website[11][12].
>
> We will be following this process as the next step is consultation on the
> Notice planned to start in the second quarter of 2020[13]. If you would
> like to be involved in drafting the consultation response, let us know!
>
> ======
>
> [1]
> https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/cwp-2020-adjusted-annexes_en.pdf
>
> [2]https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-PR-650509_EN.pdf
>
> [3]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/publicpolicy/2020-April/002002.html
>
> [4]
> https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=&reference=2020/2018(INL)
>
> [5]
> https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=&reference=2020/2019(INL)
>
> [6]https://twitter.com/Kirst3nF/status/1265985306144256000
>
> [7]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Consultation_on_the_White_Paper_on_Artificial_Intelligence_(2020)
>
> [8]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Consultation_on_a_European_Strategy_for_data#Submission
>
> [9]
> https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1586343289199&uri=CELEX:31997Y1209(01)
>
> [10]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/consultations/Feedback_Notice_on_market_definition
>
> [11]
> https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12325-Evaluation-of-the-Commission-Notice-on-market-definition-in-EU-competition-law/F519586
>
> [12]
> https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12325-Evaluation-of-the-Commission-Notice-on-market-definition-in-EU-competition-law/F519591
>
> [13]
> https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12325-Evaluation-of-the-Commission-Notice-on-market-definition-in-EU-competition-law
>
> ======
>
> END
>
> ======
> _______________________________________________
> Publicpolicy mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
>
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy

Reply via email to