[donator99]

European Parliament loses amendment in key Internet vote Written by Monica Horten Apr 16, 2009 at 10:17 AM An amendment is mysteriously dropped as the IMCO committee unquestioningly make an important vote on the Internet's future, with only 27 members present, and a key Shadow absent. And more deals being done on the Trautmann report. How democratic are the European Parliament's Committee procedures?

With only 60 per cent of IMCO members present, and the key socialist Shadow absent, the IMCO committee voted through without questioning, amendments which will fundamentally alter the structure of the Internet. One amendment was permitted by the rapporteur on condition that he can ‘improve it.'
The results of their vote - on the Universal Services and e-Privacy directive (Harbour report) - have now been published in the consolidated Recommendation for Second Reading . But Amendment 6=110 tabled by Malcolm Harbour and Jacques Toubon is
missing. That is, it has not been transcribed into the consolidated amendments for the revised Harbour report of 23 February. This amendment was voted by the IMCO committee on 31 March.

The significance of this amendment is not what is says, but what it doesn't say. It amended the Parliament's First Reading position of 24 September, which said that ISPs should not be asked to take any kind of punitive action against their customers. The punitive action could be a court action OR a filtering block. Harbour and Toubon changed it by crossing out the relevant words, so that ISPs could be asked to take punitive action such as filtering. The way it currently reads, it has deceived many people, including lawyers, who ask me why I don't like it, because it simply restates the status quo that ISPs cannot be asked to take criminal action against their customers.

Whatever the case, the process should be followed correctly. If the rapporteur is going to withdraw it, he should make it clear. Otherwise, how do MEPs know whether it is going to be reinstated at a later stage, when no-one will notice, and they could end up voting for it.
It is indicative of an overall sloppiness in procedure for this vote. I noticed that during the vote, the Chair-woman was not clear on where the split was in the split vote of CA5, but she just put it through anyway. I've also noticed that the numbering on the voting listis incorrect for Amendments 91-96, and the commitee actually voted in two different versions of Article 18, although this is not reflected in the consolidated version.
The committee voted with only 24 members out of 44 - almost half were absent - and 3 substitutes - totalling 27 present. That is 60% of the total committee members were there, for one of the most important votes which will affect users rights on the Internet for many years to come.
One of the Shadow rapporteurs, Bernadette Vernaud, did not show up at all for the vote. Janelly Fourtou, the wife of Vivendi CEO, did attend. She voted in favour of the report, which will also favour Vivendi's business interests, and which has the support of the French pro-copyright MEP Jacques Toubon.

Malcolm Harbour said after the vote that he wants to change Article 32(a) which is a safeguard for users against the punitive sanctions that he and M . Toubon want to permit with their amendment. He said it ‘needs improvements' - if those improvements are anything like the re-write that M. Toubon has already tabled, they will certain improve things for the copyright industries, but not for users.
He thanked the committee for their ‘vote of confidence in our approach'. Now, my understanding is that the committee vote is definitive for the plenary - but how can it be so, when the rapporteur has not finished his job, and the committee can not be in a position to know what it is voting on?
Meanwhile, Catherine Trautmann is understood already done a deal before amendments tabled to her report can be considered. Mrs Trautmann is rapporteur for the Framework, Access and Authorisation directives (Trautmann report). As an example, on the Framework directive, Article 9.1, the Greens have tabled an amendment to remove the language of ‘resstrictions' but Mrs Trautmann has bowed to the French and UK governments, and altered the language to match Mr Harbour's language on ‘conditions limiting access to applications and services'.
When the individual rapporteurs have the unquestioned power to alter the structure of Internet with their keyboard, how democratic is this process?

Izvor.