<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Also see </font><a
href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=4072">http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=4072</a>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">for how strong public
interest outcomes can be obtained at multi-lateral processes with good
civil society activism and participation. <br>
<br>
The new paradigms of public interest exceptions to global regimes that
are being worked out at WIPO are path-breaking work. Since we have been
analyzing civil society's role in global policy arena, I think that
these achievements at WIPO have significant role of CS, which has been
made possible because the progressive directions that CS espouses are
relatively clear and strong in IP arena, which is much more than can be
said about IG arena. This should make CS introspect as we bemoan the
issues with power and apathy of state and market players. <br>
<br>
One basic question is - in an arena - meaning IG - where we may appear
to have made much gain in much higher levels of 'formal' participation,
has this process been accompanied by certain structural elements that
may have in fact decreased 'real' participation which leads to better
public interest outcomes.<br>
<br>
Quoting from the article on WIPO linked to above.<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote>
<p>Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay, introduced the proposal into
committee, “have channelled into WIPO a legitimate and urgent demand
from the civil society,” members of the Brazilian delegation told <em>Intellectual
Property Watch</em> afterward.</p>
<p>“For the first time ever, a draft treaty on exceptions and
limitations is brought to the attention of the SCCR,” they said.</p>
<p>The treaty proposal, which originated from the World Blind Union,
“was broadly supported and member countries showed openness and
willingness to discuss” it, the Brazilians added.</p>
<p>“This has been a very important shift of what we would like to
call
the ‘new paradigm’, which is to give equal importance to the private
interests of rightsholders and the human rights of the public,” Flavio
Arosemena, national copyright director of Ecuador, said afterward.
“WIPO has just taken a first step towards assessing the intellectual
property system as a tool for development, and to contribute to better
the lives of all people not only rights holders.”</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4A2136D8.2000600@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Thanks Anriette, there
are
very useful insights in your report below, and they present some
significant dilemmas. How to best ensure and
represent public interest at global arenas remains a huge challenge
and is a long haul. What we in civil society, in my humble opinion,
can best do is to build
and strengthen civil society networks and capacities at the global
level. It consists both in anchoring strongly a vision of 'another
world is possible' and, perhaps even more importantly, invest in
processes of openness, collaboration and a very high degree of p2p and
bottom-up accountability in the civil society arena. That is our
legitimacy, and that alone can give us the needed strength to influence
these
processes better. Parminder </font><br>
<br>
Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1243672302.4198.264.camel@anriette-laptop"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thanks Adam... Friday was definitely *not* a good day at the CSTD in
Geneva. I don't have the copy of the final resolution yet, but it is not
particularly positive about the IGF, makes no reference to national and
regional IGFs, and proposed text with regard to consideration being
given to reporting on WSIS follow up from non-governmental stakeholders
was not included.
It has fairly good text on the general 'state' of the information
society, but that is about as far as it goes.
Negotiations were difficult and depressing, shaped by the narrow
interest of particular governments and far removed, in my opinion, from
the CSTD mandate which is oversight of WSIS implementation with
consideration of inputs of all stakeholders and the WSIS principles in
genera.
Many of the government representatives tried extremely hard to change
this, to be positive and proactive and open. I respect their hard work.
Without their efforts the final resolution would be even worse.
Anyone who has doubts that the IGF is an important and useful space, or
that feels frustrated by it not 'making decisions' or 'leading to
action' should have been here.
The consensus based decision-making process of intergovernmental forums
such as this one sometimes does more than just reduce outcomes to the
lowest common denominator - it punishes proactivity and discourages
collaboration and openness.
Anriette - in my personal capacity NOT speaking on behalf of APC :)
On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 15:42 +0900, Adam Peake wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Interesting things happening in the US:
President Obama's speech "Securing Our Nation's Cyber
Infrastructure",
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-Securing-Our-Nations-Cyber-Infrastructure/"><http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-Securing-Our-Nations-Cyber-Infrastructure/></a>
includes the paragraph:
"Let me also be clear about what we will not do. Our pursuit of
cybersecurity will not -- I repeat, will not include -- monitoring
private sector networks or Internet traffic. We will preserve and
protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as
Americans. Indeed, I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we
can keep the Internet as it should be -- open and free."
Administration supporting network neutrality, security *and* civil
liberty and privacy.
Next:
ICANN oversight hearing in the Congress, Thursday June 4. "Event:
'Oversight Of The Internet Corporation For Assigned Names And Numbers
(ICANN)' "
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=54&extmode=view&extid=47"><http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=54&extmode=view&extid=47></a>
Anyone know the speakers etc?
And interesting, seems Andrew McLaughlin will join the Obama
administration as Deputy Chief Technology Officer, reporting to
Aneesh Chopra
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/googles-top-policy-exec-to-join-obama-administration/"><http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/googles-top-policy-exec-to-join-obama-administration/></a>.
You can see Andrew talking about technology and government in this
video from the Obama transition
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InI5n3NTvR4"><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InI5n3NTvR4></a>.
Think Friday was a good day.
Adam
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>