<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 19 May 2015 11:43 PM,
Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:555B7D35.2030303@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear all
I am writing against my better judgement, but here goes anyway.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dear Anriette<br>
<br>
Allow me to refocus on the real issues raised in my email that you
respond to.<br>
<br>
Your email seems to give an impression that I have shown scant
regard to the importance of the global congress on IP and public
interest. Whereas quite to the contrary I stated it as a role model
for how civil society should be devoted to addressing public
interest with regard to global Internet governance. In fact some JNC
members suggested that the Internet Social Forum be held at the same
time (before or after) in India as this congress bec so many
progressive actors in a closely allied area will be in Delhi.
However, time may be short to consider this proposal seriously. But
this tells clearly what I and JNC thinks of the global congress on
IP and public interest, and thus lets get over that particular hump,
which in my view, is a red herring. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:555B7D35.2030303@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The Global Congress on IP has been one of the most important spaces were
radical civil society has mobilised and strategised against some of the
most problematic US-government lead initiatives with regard to impact on
access to knowledge in recent years - ACTA and TPP.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
My question is; where is such a 'radical civil society', as you
speak of, in the IG space? Is this question not worth asking and
considering? When was a similar global congress held in the global
IG space, especially when no other area can even come close to IG in
the number of global meetings that are held. Why no global congress
- or rather a dedicated series of them - of 'radical civil society'
exploring public interest in IG and giving strong relevant and
actionable recommendations as have emerged from such congresses in
the IP area. <br>
<br>
To put it another, positive, way: why dont we get together to hold a
conference on IG and public interest, in a similar way as that on
IP, with a similar structure (i strongly believe that structure is
related to, even determines, the content, on which more later) ...
This is a real and serious proposal, and as I said earlier some of
us have been thinking on these lines for some time. I am happy
whoever takes a lead on it. APC? Any others? <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:555B7D35.2030303@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I have only ever been an observer at the Global Congress (when it was in
Cape Town in 2013) but have always learnt a lot, and I really value the
work that this community does in WIPO among other spaces. In Africa the
Global Congress has collaborated with projects such as the African
Access to Knowledge project.. people that we have done really important
work with, and who have influenced intellectual property legislation
positively. They work with groups such as councils for the blind and
visually impaired, and the library community. People that we need in
internet governance spaces if we want to build movement for social
justice in internet governance.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Exactly.... Check out JNC membership, you will find the list full of
such progressive groups, and even more are joining the Internet
Social Forum. Bringing on board such public interest group only
takes place within certain structures, and is not independent of the
structure. I think this should be obvious.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:555B7D35.2030303@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I find it extremely disappointing and distressing that the debate in
this thread is not about substantial issues that the Global Congress
will address, but about whether it is 'multistakeholder' or not -</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
You seem to contend that the nature and treatment of substantial
issues is (at least, largely) independent on the 'structure' of such
assemblages or meetings. My contention, on the contrary, is that
content and structure are very closely related. So, please do not
get disappointed and distressed just because such a view is
presented. A very many civil society people and groups hold such a
view - see for instance the charter of the World Social Forum,
especially the participation criteria. And why, of course, if you
take a studied look at the structure of the congresses on IP and
public interest, the content-structure connection will be clear.
Just look at the <a
href="http://infojustice.org/washington-declaration">Washington
Declaration on IP and Public Interest.</a>.. Can we with any
degree of honesty claim that such a declaration can come out of a
multistakeholder space...No it cannot, and it is for this reason
that we need to cultivate 'radical civil society' spaces, which can
happen only when we learn to build certain distance from the big
Internet corporates. <br>
<br>
What I see however is quite the contrary - and the trend seems to be
consolidating. The civil society preparatory meeting before the
recent UNESCO meeting was held in the premises of International
Chambers of Commerce, back to back with a multistakeholder
meeting... In any other global civil society area today, this is
completely unthinkable (please do correct me if I am wrong). Even
more recently, I see a letter floating around about opening up the
WSIS plus 10 process (a very good objective other than the fact that
most groups promoting it worked against opening it up when the real
fight was on in the UN GA, but whatever...) . This letter seem to
have been prepared by some CS groups along with ICC and ISOC before
bringing this issue to the CS spaces.... Such things you know..<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:555B7D35.2030303@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">evolving into yet another set of assertions that everyone who supports
the notion of multistakeholder in ANY sense at all is by definition
coopted by empire.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Your statement is of course largely rhetorical - but I do say that
with corporates sitting and participating on equal footing you will
never get the right conceptions of public interest. This is
precisely why you do not see the participation of important IP
stakeholders - like the big pharma and agri companies - in these
congresses on IP and public interest. I dont understand why should
you object when I just posit this illuminating comparison. <br>
<br>
And it is not only in this area where public interest groups have
kept clear of corporations in developing spaces aimed at addressing
public interest, and coming up with immediate and long term
political strategies and actions that are needed in pursuance of
public interest. Last week's IP Watch provided a link to this
article with a telling title " <a
href="http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/did-who-just-invite-corporates-set-health-policy">Did
the WHO just invite corporates to
set health policy?</a>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -1999px; left: -1988px;"
id="stcpDiv">Did the WHO just invite corporates to set health
policy? - See more at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/did-who-just-invite-corporates-set-health-policy#sthash.ISr8p1Cd.kYDf1NaM.dpufxxxxxxxxxx">http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/did-who-just-invite-corporates-set-health-policy#sthash.ISr8p1Cd.kYDf1NaM.dpufxxxxxxxxxx</a></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -1999px; left: -1988px;"
id="stcpDiv">Did the WHO just invite corporates to set health
policy? - See more at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/did-who-just-invite-corporates-set-health-policy#sthash.ISr8p1Cd.kYDf1NaM.dpuf">http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/did-who-just-invite-corporates-set-health-policy#sthash.ISr8p1Cd.kYDf1NaM.dpuf</a></div>
"<br>
<br>
And a quote from it " During a preliminary discussion many
countries in Africa, Latin America, Brazil and India cautioned
against passing the resolution that will allow companies to enter
the
policy setting stadium.
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>"<br>
<br>
Such opposition to corporate invasion of policy spaces is taking
place in many other areas as well - climate change, agriculture,
etc..... <br>
<br>
Why then such almost violent resistance to speaking against
corporatist multistakeholderism in the IG space? I note your use of
term 'disappointing and distressing' and then a immediate follow
through of some plus ones. Please tell me, all of you, why should IG
space censor such talk and raising of this category of issues when
it is one of the key and hottest topics in all other global civil
society spaces? (If Internet and IG is indeed so different to
justify it, my earlier email did invite a discussion on what could
be the basis of such Internet-exceptionalism, but then instead of
coming up with points and arguments I just see what I termed as
somewhat violent resistance.)<br>
<br>
<br>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -1999px; left: -1988px;"
id="stcpDiv">During a preliminary discussion many countries in
Africa, Latin America, Brazil and India cautioned against passing
the resolution that will allow companies to enter the policy
setting stadium. - See more at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/did-who-just-invite-corporates-set-health-policy#sthash.ISr8p1Cd.kYDf1NaM.dpuf">http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/did-who-just-invite-corporates-set-health-policy#sthash.ISr8p1Cd.kYDf1NaM.dpuf</a></div>
<blockquote cite="mid:555B7D35.2030303@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Why not write about substantive issues, and about how to pursue a social
justice agenda around the issues that are internet-related that the
Global Congress will address?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am never short on substantive issues, and in fact I wonder how
many documents issued from most dominant CS grouping in IG spaces
have largely just said, lets promote multistakeholderism....Anyway,
my point here is, I firmly believe that content (substantive issues)
is directly linked to substance, as, say, true development is linked
to democracy (Amartya Sen). For anyone to insist on talking about
content while resisting discussions on the structure of the
political space whose content is implied is simply, allow me to say,
highly politically naive. I and the groups I work with want to be
politically effective and upfront, and therefore always give
adequate importance to the structure of the political space of
global IG. So sorry, you are far from stopping to hear about issues
and problems with corporatist multistakeholderism, and our continued
'disappointment and distress' at how many CS groups want to
completely avoid such issues.<br>
<br>
Best regards , parminder <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:555B7D35.2030303@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Anriette
On 19/05/2015 18:51, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 19/05/2015 5:50 am, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Coming to the context of the series of congresses on 'Intellectual
property and public interest', here is the list of participants
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf"><http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf></a>of
the 2011 Congress . Just one big business participant - Google among
scores and scores others. And none in program committee, or among the
hosing group or funders (except one, again Google, which is certainly
an oddity, perhaps explainable but wont go there right now) . No way
to me this looks like a multistakeholder or MS conference, as we have
come to understand the term in the Internet governance space.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Apples and oranges; the Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest
never purported to be a multi-stakeholder event; it is closer to a Best
Bits meeting or your Internet Social Forum, both of which are civil
society only, than it is to something like the IGF.
--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://eff.org">https://eff.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt">https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt</a>
PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en">https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en</a>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>