[WSIS CS-Plenary] Strategic priorities for WGIG

[Federico Heinz]

(Sorry, a truncated version of this message went out by mistake earlier)

On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 16:37 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> I think there is a broad consensus that IPR is one of the key issues.
> Those who have appeared to dissent from that consensus

I am not sure that the consensus is in favor of treating "IPR" as a key
issue, not even that there is such a consensus. Your painting the people
who don't think the WGIG should address an "IPR" issue as "dissenting
from the consensus" may be premature.

> have raised two issues, neither of which detracts from the centrality
> of IPR to the WGIG: i) they have objected to the term "intellectual
> property," proposing instead PCT, which is not a serious problem,
> either term could be used; ii) they stated that the WGIG was intended
> to be technical in focus, which is plainly wrong and can be proved so
> simply by reading the WGIG's charter. 

Some people have indeed made points similar to the ones you mention, but
I'm afraid we have failed to communicate them appropriately. Let me try
to explain it anew:

     1. some people feel that "Intellectual Property Rights" as a title
        is confusing, because it encourages to oversimplify, and lump
        together regimes that are wildly different, such as copyrights,
        patents, trademarks and even geographical denominations. What
        these people advocate is not that WGIG discuss these issues
        under the "PCT" banner instead of "IPR", but something much
        deeper: that every time these issues are up for discussion, that
        each of them be treated separately, according to their nature.
        So, *if* WGIG were going to discuss patents, copyrights,
        trademarks and other kinds of state-granted monopolies, it ought
        to do separating clearly each regime: copyrights on one side,
        patents on other, trademarks on yet another. Otherwise, any
        recommendation on "IPR" done by the WGIG (or any other group)
        are bound to be problematic and ambiguous, because it wouldn't
        be clear to which regime it applies.
     2. it's not a supposed technical nature of the WGIG that may make
        it unsuitable to discuss patents, copyrights and trademarks, but
        the fact that these issues are hardly relevant to "internet
        governance". These are all regimes that exist *outside* the
        internet, and are regulated by national laws. How each country
        wishes to handle these issues is a matter of sovereignity, and
        the internet has no role in enforcing any country's legislation,
        neither in that country nor in others. That is something that
        must be left to law enforcement and international
        relations/treaties, not to any "internet governance body" (such
        as ICANN or others) that has no mandate to enact and enforce
        laws.

Therefore, some people think that WGIG should address neither patents,
nor copyright, nor trademark.

This does not mean that each of this regimes does not need extensive
reform, but that it may not be WGIG's role to call for it.

I hope to have contributed some clarity to the issues at stake.

	Fede
-- 
GnuPG Public Key: gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net --recv-key BD02C6E0
Key Fingerpr

int: 04F4 08C5 14B7 2C3D DB21  ACF8 6CF5 0B0C BD02 C6E0
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050127/43a3c4de/attachment.pgp