[WSIS CS-Plenary] [governance] Thinking about

[Chris Nicol]

Hi,

1) This discussion about IP is very interesting and I echo the comments
made by several people that we should continue it in a constructive way.

On Sat, 2004-09-18 at 19:27, Robin Gross wrote: 
> Yes I agree.  WSIS/WGIG could be an opportunity to push for that much 
> needed reform.  Although it remains unclear to me how great of an 
> opportunity.  WSIS/WGIG doesn't seem to have any real teeth at this stage.

2) I agree too. Whether or not you agree with Richard Stallman about not
using the term "intellectual property" (he does us a great favour by
insisting that we should not confuse the various areas that are grouped
under the term), the issues themselves will (and I think should) come up
in the WSIS IG context. As has been suggested, there is some chance of
influencing the results here, so it would be a pity to miss the
opportunity.

3) My own opinion, and what I draw from the discussion, is that there is
a great need to open up debate about the issues on many different
fronts. WIPO is an obvious one, and we should certainly be discussing
how to intervene there, how to support developing countries, etc. And
the campaign about patenting software in the European Union was
surprisingly successful, although we'll soon see how long that lasts.

But not only official international bodies. Civil society has a lot of
forums where these issues can be (and have been) brought up, such as the
World/European/Americas Social Forums. National and local events too.
And unless civil society as a whole becomes aware of and concerned about
such issues (not only IP and IG, but other internet and IS issues), we
will have very little success in improving the situation, because we
(the civil society part of WSIS) are very few compared with the size of
the  tasks facing us. 

The fight is not won or lost in one battle. If we are to have some
impact, it will take years of work, and we'll need to become greater in
numbers and allies. The Working Group is a start.

Regards,

Chris



> And there is a bias in the way it will be structured.  I don't see how 
> business can be justified an equal say with government and civil society 
> in "Internet governance" issues.  Sure business concerns should be 
> fairly taken account for.  But *equal* to government and civil society 
> seems too much weight in my view.  When it comes to intellectual 
> property issues, often the government is the puppet of the big IP 
> holders, big business.  So there is reason to believe that a WGIG 
> structured as it is could do more harm than good by taking up 
> intellectual property issues.  But there is no way that it won't address 
> these controversial issues.  So we must push for a positive agenda here. 
>   And the fact that developing country governments aren't quite as 
> beholden to US and EU IP holders together with a growing business 
> constituency that is harmed by the max IP rules means that maybe the 
> structure isn't so bad after all.  The jury is out.
> 
> But a concerted international effort to push for reform on intellectual 
> property wrongs is undoubtable coalescing.  WSIS/WGIG could be a good 
> forum for pushing for this reform.

> Robin
> 
> 
> 
> Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> > It should be clear that the wisest strategy is to work in BOTH
> > arenas (WGIG and WIPO). Keeping silent on IPR within the 
> > WGIG, or trying to 'play defense' by keeping it off the agenda, 
> > automatically gives an advantage to those who would keep the 
> > status quo or push for greater, stronger copyright, patent, 
> > trademark protections. If we do not actively 'problematize'
> > IPR within the framework of the WGIG, we have lost an
> > irreplaceable opportunity. If some governments and the civ 
> > soc advocates have already succeeded in injecting a more
> > critical approach into the WIPO forums, there is reason
> > to believe we could succeed in doing the same thing in WGIG.
> > 
> >  --MM
> > 
> > 
> >>>>robin at ipjustice.org 09/17/04 4:58 PM >>>
> >>
> >>Vittorio:
> >>
> >>>so I am ready to
> >>>trust whoever has experience of working there, to understand whether
> > 
> > it
> > 
> >>>would be easier to change the way WIPO works and win the fight there,
> > 
> > or try
> > 
> >>>to move the fight and win it elsewhere. In fact, among us we have a
> > 
> > huge
> > 
> >>>capital in terms of the experience necessary to work out good
> > 
> > strategies -
> > 
> >>>we only have to cooperate to exploit it well.
> >>
> >>Robin:
> >>I am hopeful that we can begin to see some slow reform at WIPO.  I was
> > 
> > a 
> > 
> >>participant at the meetings in Geneva last week working exactly on this
> > 
> > 
> >>goal.  There is no doubt that WIPO will have to become more balanced 
> >>after the hard pounding it took from the top academics and policy 
> >>makers.  There will be a Declaration that many of us have been working 
> >>on led by Jamie Love that will be released in the coming weeks that
> > 
> > puts 
> > 
> >>strong international pressure on WIPO to reform.  Brazil and Argentina 
> >>have issued a very powerful to challenge on these issues also in the 
> >>last week weeks.  But WIPO is more than a 1000 person organization and 
> >>will not move quickly and without constant prodding from us.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>