Friday, August 25, 2006

 

Procedural punt

The CRTC has denied our request to permit carriers to block the illegal content originating outside Canada.

It cites procedural grounds.

You can find the press release from Canadian Jewish Congress here.

Technorati Tags:
, , , ,

Comments:
Absolutely unbelievable!
 
Contrary to what you and the CJC wrote, the Commission did not denied the application citing "procedural grounds". On the contrary, its decision is based on one of the most fundamental right: Audi Alteram Partem, i.e. the right for a person involved into a proceeding to make representations, to defend it self...

The CRTC notes "that the Application was filed on an ex parte basis – without specific notice to Canadian carriers and other interested parties and without affording an opportunity for all such persons to be heard.

(...) The Commission therefore considers that all interested parties should be afforded an opportunity to provide their views on these important issues.

In addition, the Commission notes that it would normally expect that an application seeking approval for a Canadian carrier to block certain websites pursuant to section 36 of the Act would be filed by the carrier(s) in question. The Commission considers that Canadian carriers should at least be provided notice that an application has been filed by another person for approval pursuant to section 36 of the Act and an opportunity to be heard.

In the Commission's view, given the unprecedented nature of the relief sought in the Application and the serious and fundamental issues it raises, as well as the fact that the specific approval is being sought in favour of Canadian carriers without notice to such carriers, it would be inappropriate to consider granting the interim relief sought in the Application on an ex parte basis, and in particular without affording Canadian carriers and all other interested parties the opportunity to comment. Such a public process would allow for consideration of the broader policy and legal issues regarding the scope, and appropriate use, of the Commission's powers pursuant to section 36 of the Act."

It is a sound decision!
PS I agree with Michael Geist and Rob Hyndman
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?