All corrections that are needed will be in effect only after the retake. I have notes on each one who has interacted with me in this regard. If later than the 15th you see no changes, please, write to the email of the course to look into that. In the meantime, rest! It is almost Summer! It is all said and done anyway.
Monday 4 June 2012
Monday 28 May 2012
"Retake" opportunity
People who are interested in improving their final grades can opt for the retake test scheduled for the 12th of June.
Format: Electronic
Posted online or delivered to your mailboxes at 10:00am and due for submission at 14:00pm
Content: cases and short essay questions about essential aspects of the course. No chapter is excluded. The final grade can be also reduced, if this evaluation is unsuccessful.
Send an email BEFORE June 6, for registration.
Format: Electronic
Posted online or delivered to your mailboxes at 10:00am and due for submission at 14:00pm
Content: cases and short essay questions about essential aspects of the course. No chapter is excluded. The final grade can be also reduced, if this evaluation is unsuccessful.
Send an email BEFORE June 6, for registration.
Saturday 26 May 2012
Final averages
As explained, selecting the assignments to take into account was based on criteria that would benefit MOST students. This was no special privileges or considerations would be given to any one. As a result, some people could not pass the course, but the same would have been true had it be done differently, and to many more people.
60% corresponds to:
-The first and second assignments were counted on the mere submission with 100% (when both were submitted). Still, few did not present them and they got a zero.
The third was not counted (hierarchy) because 80% of the group failed it with 0.
-The grade on the debate (adjusted according to my own notes and your comments on the survey). I you had a better grade on the quiz, this last was not changed.
-the combined grade of the mindmap/presentation, and the individual research that followed (most people chose to describe the forms of business organisations in their country). Late submissions do not count! These two are also averaged to your convenience.
40% corresponds to the final paper.
This list will be updated shortly, please check later if your ID does not appear below. For details, write an email or contact me via Skype on Monday.
107479= 5% (0)
107970= 68% (2)
107472= 60% (1)
113554= 71% (3)
107538= 51% (1)
120121= MI
105934= 47% (0)
120131= MI
108001= MI
105974= 48% (0)
096444= 86% (4)
110346= 42% (0)
108541= 92% (5)
107467= MI
107532= 56% (1)
107477= 82% (4)
113579= 71% (3)
105897= 57% (1)
105989= 48% (0)
080553= 56% (1)
105977= 66% (2)
105893= 48% (0)
105933= 74% (3)
120264= MI
105978= 57% (1)
105975= 57% (1)
120173= MI
096448= 63% (2)
107803= 46% (0)
105932= 54% (1)
107480= 75% (3)
105899= 70% (2)
107528= 52% (1)
107539= 49% (0)
105942= 53% (1)
107468= 74% (3)
120152= 63% (2)
120133= 60% (1)
110347= 48% (0)
107541= 71% (3)
096485= 72% (3)
105705= 56% (1)
105906= 56% (1)
105984= 61% (2)
105787= 62% (2)
095983= MI
YY= 37% (0)
096488= 78% (3)
107530= 78% (3)
60% corresponds to:
-The first and second assignments were counted on the mere submission with 100% (when both were submitted). Still, few did not present them and they got a zero.
The third was not counted (hierarchy) because 80% of the group failed it with 0.
-The grade on the debate (adjusted according to my own notes and your comments on the survey). I you had a better grade on the quiz, this last was not changed.
-the combined grade of the mindmap/presentation, and the individual research that followed (most people chose to describe the forms of business organisations in their country). Late submissions do not count! These two are also averaged to your convenience.
40% corresponds to the final paper.
This list will be updated shortly, please check later if your ID does not appear below. For details, write an email or contact me via Skype on Monday.
107479= 5% (0)
107970= 68% (2)
107472= 60% (1)
113554= 71% (3)
107538= 51% (1)
120121= MI
105934= 47% (0)
120131= MI
108001= MI
105974= 48% (0)
096444= 86% (4)
110346= 42% (0)
108541= 92% (5)
107467= MI
107532= 56% (1)
107477= 82% (4)
113579= 71% (3)
105897= 57% (1)
105989= 48% (0)
080553= 56% (1)
105977= 66% (2)
105893= 48% (0)
105933= 74% (3)
120264= MI
105978= 57% (1)
105975= 57% (1)
120173= MI
096448= 63% (2)
107803= 46% (0)
105932= 54% (1)
107480= 75% (3)
105899= 70% (2)
107528= 52% (1)
107539= 49% (0)
105942= 53% (1)
107468= 74% (3)
120152= 63% (2)
120133= 60% (1)
110347= 48% (0)
107541= 71% (3)
096485= 72% (3)
105705= 56% (1)
105906= 56% (1)
105984= 61% (2)
105787= 62% (2)
095983= MI
YY= 37% (0)
096488= 78% (3)
107530= 78% (3)
Wednesday 16 May 2012
The end
The course is finished for the term and the final papers due on Monday afternoon, the latest. Your final averages will take no longer than a week to be communicated. Only 4 of the assignments (those with the best results fo rmost) will be taken into account; detailed records will be made available.
People with low attendance patterns (4 or less sessions) will probably be in need to repeat the course.
If in need of specific information, please write an email or arrage for an appointment. Thank you for your participation, and remember the last lesson´s message: To prevent disputes, conflicts should be well administered or resolved. Be good, do well!
People with low attendance patterns (4 or less sessions) will probably be in need to repeat the course.
If in need of specific information, please write an email or arrage for an appointment. Thank you for your participation, and remember the last lesson´s message: To prevent disputes, conflicts should be well administered or resolved. Be good, do well!
Tuesday 15 May 2012
Week 16: May 14-19
In the last class the topic will be legal disputes and their resolution. Conflict management in as much as we have time. The class will start at 10:10. Your papers are not due on this date, but submissions are welcome. If most groups need extra time to prepare the paper, then we can discuss the possibility of extending the term.
Wednesday 9 May 2012
Useful for groups working on ACTA and related issues
This is a post on the EDRI newsletter, where a contributor reports on the current developments of the legislative procedure on ACTA at the European Parliament:
"Next week, the European Parliament's Development Committee (DEVE), the first of the five Committees responsible for providing opinions on the proposed ACTA agreement will vote on its draft recommendation.
As of today, it appears more likely than not that the Development Committee will vote in favour of ACTA. The Parliamentarian leading on the dossier is Czech Eurosceptic Jan Zahradil. While there is an obvious attraction for a Eurosceptic to support (ironically following the European Commission's line very diligently) an EU proposal which is deeply unpopular and flawed, a “yes” vote would come as a big shock to many observers and risks creating political momentum that could potentially breathe new life into the allegedly “dead” proposal. Of course, a “yes” vote can only happen if the Parliamentarians, whose job is to support policies that defend development, ignore the opinions of
organisations like Médicins sans Frontières, ignore the analysis of the dangers for development described by the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development and, last but not least, ignore the political direction agreed in several of the political groups. To contact Parliamentarians on the DEVE Committee to ask them not to vote in favour of Mr Zahradil's position, please see the links below.
The dangers of splits in the political groups that have already declared their opposition to ACTA are best illustrated by the amendments tabled to the draft Opinion in the Industry Committee (ITRE). There, in line with the majority of interventions in the Committee discussions, the Parliamentarian in charge of the dossier, Amelia Andersdotter (Sweden, Greens/EFA) proposed rejection. However, the Danish Liberal Jens Rohde (who sat alongside his group leader at the press conference where the
Liberal group's against ACTA was announced) has co-signed an amendment with the conservative EPP group, in order to delete the recommendation to reject ACTA. In response to a blog article criticising him for this, Mr Rhode said that, when preparing an Opinion for another Committee on a
proposal, it was not the role of the Committee to make a recommendation. He did not explain what the purpose of an Opinion is, if it is not to express an opinion.
The third Committee working on this dossier is the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI), where Marielle Gallo (EPP, France) is responsible. Unsurprisingly, as Ms Gallo is a staunch defender of repressive measures to support IPR enforcement, her draft report is in favour of ACTA. Her solution to ACTA's problems is to require the European Commission to produce annual reports on ACTA's implementation and, where breaches of fundamental rights are identified, to “immediately” persuade the European Court of Justice to bring them to an end. And this would be a good strategy if the European Commission did not have a long history of failing to respect its reporting obligations (its data retention report was seven months late), if the Commission had not proposed “voluntary”
breaches of European law itself, if the mechanism for the European Court to immediately end infringements identified by the Commission actually existed, if ACTA was a purely internal instrument and if one of the biggest risks to fundamental rights was not from foreign companies
regulating EU freedom of communication.
The Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE) published the draft Opinion from the MEP responsible Dimitrios Droutsas (Greece, S&D). The Opinion raises a whole range of dangers for fundamental rights created by ACTA, strongly implying that ACTA is illegal under EU law. However, Mr
Droutsas appears to prefer to include that conclusion only after the dossier has been fully debated in the Committee. The Committee will have a public hearing next Wednesday morning (16 May) with invited experts from civil society (including EDRi and La Quadrature), the European Commission, the EDPS and others.
The fifth Committee, the International Trade Committee (INTA), will be responsible for the final Committee vote, before the dossier is sent to the Plenary sitting of the European Parliament in July. While the draft final report by the MEP in charge, David Martin has been published, this
Committee's work on the dossier is at an earlier stage than the others, as they are supposed to take the other Committee's opinions into account before finalising their position. Mr Martin's draft recommendation states that the costs of ACTA outweigh the potential benefits and it should, therefore, be rejected.
EDRi's Stop ACTA page
http://edri.org/stopacta
Médicins sans Frontières
http://www.msfaccess.org/conte
German Ministry position
http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/0
Danish blog article on Rohde's amendment
https://bitbureauet.dk/2012/05
Zahradil draft opinion
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Andersdotter draft opinion
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Gallo draft opinion
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Martin draft recommendation
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Infographic on the Parliament's procedures for ACTA
http://www.laquadrature.net/wi
Detailed information on the EU's decision-making processes
http://www.edri.org/files/2012
contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi http://www.edri.org/edrigram
"Next week, the European Parliament's Development Committee (DEVE), the first of the five Committees responsible for providing opinions on the proposed ACTA agreement will vote on its draft recommendation.
As of today, it appears more likely than not that the Development Committee will vote in favour of ACTA. The Parliamentarian leading on the dossier is Czech Eurosceptic Jan Zahradil. While there is an obvious attraction for a Eurosceptic to support (ironically following the European Commission's line very diligently) an EU proposal which is deeply unpopular and flawed, a “yes” vote would come as a big shock to many observers and risks creating political momentum that could potentially breathe new life into the allegedly “dead” proposal. Of course, a “yes” vote can only happen if the Parliamentarians, whose job is to support policies that defend development, ignore the opinions of
organisations like Médicins sans Frontières, ignore the analysis of the dangers for development described by the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development and, last but not least, ignore the political direction agreed in several of the political groups. To contact Parliamentarians on the DEVE Committee to ask them not to vote in favour of Mr Zahradil's position, please see the links below.
The dangers of splits in the political groups that have already declared their opposition to ACTA are best illustrated by the amendments tabled to the draft Opinion in the Industry Committee (ITRE). There, in line with the majority of interventions in the Committee discussions, the Parliamentarian in charge of the dossier, Amelia Andersdotter (Sweden, Greens/EFA) proposed rejection. However, the Danish Liberal Jens Rohde (who sat alongside his group leader at the press conference where the
Liberal group's against ACTA was announced) has co-signed an amendment with the conservative EPP group, in order to delete the recommendation to reject ACTA. In response to a blog article criticising him for this, Mr Rhode said that, when preparing an Opinion for another Committee on a
proposal, it was not the role of the Committee to make a recommendation. He did not explain what the purpose of an Opinion is, if it is not to express an opinion.
The third Committee working on this dossier is the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI), where Marielle Gallo (EPP, France) is responsible. Unsurprisingly, as Ms Gallo is a staunch defender of repressive measures to support IPR enforcement, her draft report is in favour of ACTA. Her solution to ACTA's problems is to require the European Commission to produce annual reports on ACTA's implementation and, where breaches of fundamental rights are identified, to “immediately” persuade the European Court of Justice to bring them to an end. And this would be a good strategy if the European Commission did not have a long history of failing to respect its reporting obligations (its data retention report was seven months late), if the Commission had not proposed “voluntary”
breaches of European law itself, if the mechanism for the European Court to immediately end infringements identified by the Commission actually existed, if ACTA was a purely internal instrument and if one of the biggest risks to fundamental rights was not from foreign companies
regulating EU freedom of communication.
The Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE) published the draft Opinion from the MEP responsible Dimitrios Droutsas (Greece, S&D). The Opinion raises a whole range of dangers for fundamental rights created by ACTA, strongly implying that ACTA is illegal under EU law. However, Mr
Droutsas appears to prefer to include that conclusion only after the dossier has been fully debated in the Committee. The Committee will have a public hearing next Wednesday morning (16 May) with invited experts from civil society (including EDRi and La Quadrature), the European Commission, the EDPS and others.
The fifth Committee, the International Trade Committee (INTA), will be responsible for the final Committee vote, before the dossier is sent to the Plenary sitting of the European Parliament in July. While the draft final report by the MEP in charge, David Martin has been published, this
Committee's work on the dossier is at an earlier stage than the others, as they are supposed to take the other Committee's opinions into account before finalising their position. Mr Martin's draft recommendation states that the costs of ACTA outweigh the potential benefits and it should, therefore, be rejected.
EDRi's Stop ACTA page
http://edri.org/stopacta
Médicins sans Frontières
http://www.msfaccess.org/conte
German Ministry position
http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/0
Danish blog article on Rohde's amendment
https://bitbureauet.dk/2012/05
Zahradil draft opinion
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Andersdotter draft opinion
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Gallo draft opinion
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Martin draft recommendation
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Infographic on the Parliament's procedures for ACTA
http://www.laquadrature.net/wi
Detailed information on the EU's decision-making processes
http://www.edri.org/files/2012
contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi http://www.edri.org/edrigram
Monday 7 May 2012
Week 15: May 7-11
On Wednesday the lecture will concentrate on the law of obligations and contracts. The group should be prepared to participate actively based on the guidelines presented in the last post. There is no deliverable for this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)