<html>
<body>
I endorse the position of Vittorio and Milton Mueller regarding IPR.
<br><br>
For one thing, domain names are IP - they are encloseable or ownable bits
of intangible property of substantial commercial (and other) value.
<br><br>
Beyond this, material to which the Internet provides access - and
material its use creates (e.g. electronic documents and writings) are
also IP and also - in many cases - protected or protectable. This
protection and its enforcement determine the size and distribution of
benefits and incentives shaping future use.<br><br>
Third, the software and business and other methods that enable the
Internet are also IP. This might not matter were it not for
interoperability considerations. But we have already seen on these groups
how technical and legal 'barriers to entry' affect the geometry of
interconnection.<br><br>
In my view, an IG group that did not consider IP would be like a traffic
authority that ignored land ownership.<br><br>
Cheers,<br><br>
Jonathan<br><br>
At 22:43 27/01/2005, Milton Mueller wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">>>>
herve@info.unicaen.fr 1/27/2005 5:18:59 PM >>><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">IPR is really another domain,
which concern many other things as medicines, indigenous knowledge,
cultural domination through economy, spreading of scientific knowledge,
the nature of software industry, equal repartition between North and
South of the benefit of globalisation of trade, farmers and GM crops, the
future of biotech industries, the libraries, ... and so, and
so...</blockquote><br>
Yes, the term "IPR" encompasses many issues that are not
connected to Internet governance. But _some_ IPR issues, particularly
those dealing with copyright and trademark, and perhaps software patents,
are central to Internet governance. The creation of ICANN was prompted
largely by the desire to protect trademarks in the domain name space. The
WIPO Internet treaties (which is what WIPO calls them, not me) are about
copyright protection on the....Internet. etc., etc.<br><br>
It seems you have made a very basic logical error. You say: Because not
all IPR issues fall within the domain of Internet governance, therefore
an Internet governance WG should not touch IPR at all. It is a logical
fallacy. <br><br>
In advocating that WGIG deal with IPR, I am not suggesting a review and
reform of _ALL_ global IPR regimes on the planet; I am saying that those
aspects of IPR that affect Internet governance must be dealt with. The
sets intersect, and we should deal with the intersection. Not the<br>
union.</blockquote><br>
<font color="#0000FF">[Nice phrase:-)]<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Who in the WGIG is conceiving
the problem of crop licensing for poor farmers in the South
?</blockquote><br>
Out of scope, obviously, has nothing to do with Internet governance.
Until and unless crop seeds are transmitted via TCP/IP. ;-)<br><br>
--MM<br><br>
Dr. Milton Mueller<br>
Syracuse University School of Information Studies<br>
<a href="http://www.digital-convergence.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.digital-convergence.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.internetgovernance.org</a><br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Plenary mailing list<br>
Plenary@wsis-cs.org<br>
<a href="http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary" eudora="autourl">
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>