[pp.int.general] PPI congress - meeting

[Reinier Bakels]

>> Uppsala declaration (about EU-Parliament strategy) from the Uppsala
>> conference that all conference participants agreed too: This text was
>> strongly rejected by an EU PP that did not attend the conference.
>>
> Actually, if I remember correctly, it was rejected by a number of
> parties, mostly because it was represented to the media as an
> agreement of all parties, yet many hadn't heard of it at all, until

The Uppsala declaration simply suffered from a lack of maturity. Working on 
it was a wonderful tool to have a fruitful workshop from which I learned a 
lot. But a declaration fir for external communication and promotion is an 
endeavour that can not be accomplished in two days.

In my perception, the meetings so far served a purpose to know each other 
and to stay informed, in particular in relation to the EP elections. That is 
over now.

If we want the next meeting to be more than just a social event, I guess we 
need proper and extensive preparation. Issues to be addressed imho include:
* What sort of copyright do we want, ideally, if we would be able to decide? 
Copyright still serves a purpose, e.g. for Open Source software. A five year 
copyright would be wonderful, but disastrous for Open Source. I *hate* 
people making money from the works I have made available for free (see 
www.kunstderfuge.com for things I have provided - I did not know yer about 
Creative Commons when I contributed to this website - and it was free at the 
time)
* What do we do with patents? I recently attended a WIPO "propaganda" 
conference explaining that patents are a wonderful tool to solve all the 
worlds problems (climate change, aids, pverty, famine) - while I always 
heard that they were an obstacle. But the logic is stunning: one needs money 
to solve these problems, and firms are reluctant to invest in "innovation" 
without strong patent protection. Any other questions?
* How do we explain that surveillance is a threat rather than a benefit 
(this is a problem in my country because many people believe that e.g. 
pervasive camera surveillance *helps* to enhance the safety in the public 
space). Also: "Data retention helps to protect the human rights of 
proprietors."
* "Lisbon" is a step forward we should exploit - or: "Lisbon" exacerbates 
the democratic deficit of Europe. What's the solution? yet another attemtp 
to draft a blueprint for the EU? Exploit the decision of the german Supreme 
Court? Or perhaps try to enhance the visibility of "Brussels"? (my personal 
pet subject). If people don't know what happens in Bxl and Ssb, democracy 
won't work anyway.

For a fruitful discussion on such topics, I believe *advance* preparation is 
needed. Someone should sit down and write a "position paper", something that 
people can agree or disagree on, but which should help to provide clarity. 
Needless to say, thius is a lot of work. But is should be done anyway - and 
it is infeasible at a conference tiself, if only because the underlying 
facts and sources have to be researched. perhaps even some funding is 
needed - not everybody can afford to spend (e.g.) a month to volunteer work. 
(I don't say this for my own benefit - I happen to be financially 
independent)

reinier