MAPPING Europe's future: a Roman convocation

MAPPING is the acronym of Managing Alternatives for Privacy, Property and Internet Governance [Merpel prefers MAPPIG], a project funded by the European Commission to draw together people from different strands of life within the information sectors and allow them to discuss their differences and points of common interest. For two whole days, 20 and 21 May, over 100 invitees participated in an Extraordinary General Assembly in Rome's lovely Casa dell'Aviatore (suits and ties mandatory!) -- this Kat being among the small number of IP folk among the privacy and data protectionists, surveillance experts, internetters, governance folk and so on. This Assembly was intended to be something of a kick-start to the project and, while invitation-only, is seen as a means of identifying and inviting others to participate in what will be a four-year project.

The list of invitees (excepting this blogger, who is not qualified to comment on himself) was pretty impressive. If the EU had four corners, they could all be said to be represented, as were Europe's non-terrestrial territories. Invitees were also spotted from points beyond the EU, not excluding the United States.

Chatham House: an effective silencer?
The opening session contained the usual welcomes and explanations as to what everyone was doing here. Several minutes into this session, we were told that the Assembly was to be conducted under the Chatham House Rule, which this Kat is increasingly coming to regard as an impertinence where public money is being spent on bringing together quantities of people for a meeting at which most if not all are either repeating the positions of their employers or saying things that they have already published in print or on the internet. Merpel for once agrees, since it seems to her that the Rule is often apparently invoked as a means of making people at meetings governed by it feel more important in that they are invited to believe that they are hearing things that are so sensitive that they can't be attributed.

Be that as it may, an unnamed speaker at the opening session observed that there are two Europes -- one of the 28 Member States and another, wider one that is the Council of Europe. The latter has taken a lead in setting norms for 48 nations, particularly in the field of human rights, internet governance and cyber-crime, where its positions, agreements and judicial law-making have proved highly influential both in Europe and in over 100 countries worldwide where it has assisted in capacity-building. Interesting -- and worth a closer look.
MAPPING Europe's future: a Roman convocation MAPPING Europe's future: a Roman convocation Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 Rating: 5


  1. Thank goodness you did not take that Casa dell'Aviatore pic this morning :-) #chatham

  2. Jeremy, Surely one of the 'advantages' of the Chatham House Rule is that, contrary to your proposition that the delegates "are either repeating the positions of their employers or saying things that they have already published in print or on the internet", under the Rule, they can in fact take a position which is not that of their employer or any previous public utterances.
    Unlikely I know, but useful for a devil's advocate (as opposed to devilish advocates).

  3. Andy J -- if I thought there was a chance that anyone might speak out of turn and say something not sanctioned by their affiliation, I would have heartily agreed with you. In any event, when people do take a position that is contrary to their organisation, it is the fact that they have said it, rather than someone else, that is worth reporting!


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.