06.05.09
Gemini version available ♊︎After 3 Months, Europe Lets Microsoft-Influenced EU Panel be Seen
THIS is the last part in a series that explores Microsoft’s invasion into EU panels and the Commission’s unwillingness to obey transparency rules. It was never supposed to take so long and we were just about to complain at the ombudsman. To list previous posts chronologically (for context):
- European Open Source Software Workgroup a Total Scam: Hijacked and Subverted by Microsoft et al
- Microsoft’s AstroTurfing, Twitter, Waggener Edstrom, and Jonathan Zuck
- Does the European Commission Harbour a Destruction of Free/Open Source Software Workgroup?
- The Illusion of Transparency at the European Parliament/Commission (on Microsoft)
- 2 Months and No Disclosure from the European Parliament
Finally we have copies of the documents (sent at the 90th minute as I was going to mail the ombudsman on Monday):
Dear Mr. Schestowitz,
Thank you for your e-mail of the 20th of March registered on 23rd of March applying for a copy of documents in accordance with Regulation (EC) N° 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
You have requested access to the documents as follows:
“I hereby request electronic access to all documents related to the Towards the European Software Strategy process in the posession of the EU-Commission, in particular access to the following documents:
* the list of participants in the industry expert group
* the list of WGs, WGs sleaders and observing Commission officials
* draft contributions of all industry Working groups on a the European Software Strategy
* draft input to all WG prepared by the Commission
* the participant list of the related meeting on January 20th in Brussels
* all submissions from industry to the ESS consultation under the applicable provisions of regulation 1049/2001 which grant me a right of access to all documents mentioned above.”We are unable to identify the documents referred to in the 6th item “all submissions from industry to the ESS consultation”, as we notified you previously (see our emails dated 15th April 2009, 8th May 2009 and 27th of May 2009).
We enclose a copy of the documents requested in first five items which we hope will meet your needs. I would draw your attention to the fact that they can in no way be reproduced or disseminated for commercial purposes unless we have first been consulted.
The documents included are for:
* the list of participants in the industry expert group
“list of participants in the industry expert group.pdf”* the list of WGs, WGs sleaders and observing Commission officials
“Working Groups.pdf”* the participant list of the related meeting on January 20th in Brussels
“Participants list 20th of January.pdf”* draft input to all WG prepared by the Commission
“Moderator for the European Software Strategy Working Group SMEs Reduction of Fragmentation – D104400.tif”
– Note that the e-mail is a model for all the e-mails send to the moderatorsPlease note that the following documents have been drawn up by independent experts and do not necessarily represent the European Commission’s views and can in no way be reproduced or disseminated for commercial purposes unless we have first been consulted.
* draft contributions of all industry Working groups on a the European Software Strategy
“WG1_Future_Internet.pdf”
“WG2_Technology and Business Trends in the Software Industry.pdf”
“WG 3 – IPR, Standards, and Interoperability.zip”
“WG4_Public Procurement – Financing Software Innovation.pdf”
“WG5_SMEs-Reduction of Fragmentation.pdf”
“WG6_Skills.pdf”
“WG7_OSS.pdf”* draft input to all WG prepared by the Commission
“Software_Strategy_Issues_Paper.pdf”Yours sincerely,
[Anonymised]
—–Original Message—–
From: [Anonymised]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 4:48 PM
To: [Anonymised]
Cc: [Anonymised]
Subject: RE: FW: Gestdem 2009/1562 FW: Document access application purpusant to Article 6 EC/1049/2001 (D/122791)Dear Mr. Schestowitz,
Thank you for confirming, on 22nd May 2009, your application of the 20th March 2009 registered on 23rd March applying for a copy of documents in accordance with Regulation (EC) N° 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
We are processing your application; however, as we notified you previously (see our emails dated 15th April 2009 and 8th May 2009) we are unable to identify the documents referred to in the 6th item “all submissions from industry to the ESS consultation”. Please could you clarify your request so that we may continue to process this item. You clarified item 4 on your list but not item 6.
If you wish to receive the items that we have identified before sending any clarification of item 6 please inform us and we will dispatch them.
For the procedure to be followed when applying for access to documents, please refer to “Access to European Commission Documents – A Citizen’s Guide”
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/access_documents/docs/guide_citoyen/en.pdf
Yours sincerely,
[Anonymised]
These documents are not “disseminated for commercial purposes” but only to inform people about a process which was rigged by Microsoft and its EU lobbyists. The links at the top provide extensive background and evidence. See the presence of Jonathan Zuck (ACT) for example. How about IDC, BSA, CompTIA and others who are in Microsoft’s pocket? The lists of companies are very telling. In some cases, Microsoft employees have more presence than any other company, despite being an American company in these EU panels.
Here are the files:
- list of participants in the industry expert group.pdf
[PDF][HTML] - Moderator for the European Software Strategy Working Group SMEs Reduction of Fragmentation – D104400.tif
[TIFF] - Working Groups.pdf
[PDF][HTML] - Participants list 20th of January.pdf
[PDF][HTML] - Software_Strategy_Issues_Paper.pdf
[PDF][HTML] - WG1_Future_Internet.pdf
[PDF][HTML] - WG2_Technology and Business Trends in the Software Industry.pdf
[PDF][HTML] - WG3 – IPR-Standards and Interoperability
[HTML] - WG4_Public Procurement – Financing Software Innovation.pdf
[PDF][HTML] - WG5_SMEs-Reduction of Fragmentation.pdf
[PDF][HTML] - WG6_Skills.pdf
[PDF][HTML] - WG7_OSS.pdf
[PDF][HTML]
There is no reason why documents that instruct on pubic policy should not be accessible to the affected public. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
The Mad Hatter said,
June 6, 2009 at 11:19 am
Heh. I can see I have some interesting reading this afternoon.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Next I shall ask them for more documents, including written contributions of the different participants. What they are giving us are the final papers, not the history of the whole editing process.
They also made a mockery of our request, the Zuck contribution is not even in there. I was advised by peers to go to the Ombudsman immediately and file a complaint.
Why does the Commission continue to hide documents published by Wikileaks?
The Mad Hatter said,
June 6, 2009 at 7:35 pm
They are probably hoping you won’t notice.
orbit said,
June 9, 2009 at 7:30 am
“all submissions from industry to the ESS consultation under the applicable provisions of regulation 1049/2001 which grant me a right of access to all documents mentioned above.”
Why does the Commission is not publishing the ACT paper?
Are they trying to protect lobbyists?
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
June 9th, 2009 at 7:36 am
I’ve asked for these again and I’ll be filing a complaint this week.
“Ombudsman report highlights EU’s lack of transparency”
http://www.euractiv.com/en/pa/ombudsman-report-highlights-eu-lack-transparency/article-181794?Ref=RSS