<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000099">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Hi Bill<br>
<br>
Will first deal with the 'quibble' , because it sets up the rest of my
argument. <br>
<br>
>></font>
Internet is shaping a new global information and knowledge paradigm or
order. (Parminder)<br>
<br>
> Small quibble, paradigms and social orders are not the
same thing. (Bill)<br>
<br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">'Or' here is not used to
suggest same-ness, but to mean 'whichever way one may be inclined to
take it'. Information and communication (I & C) paradigm would a
more conservative, perhaps functionalist, way to seeing it, and 'I
& C order' a more political way, perhaps even suggesting power
imbalances, dominations etc. <br>
<br>
The suggested tittle of the workshop 'Transnational
(or trans-border) enforcement of a new information order – Issues of
rights and
democracy' deliberately carries the term 'order'. <br>
<br>
What is suggested is not so much one-off enforcements (though that
issues is also implicated) but an overall enforcement of a new 'I and
C' order through ACTA like globally non-democratic treaties which would
of course either become the default on which big companies will
provide or withdraw service (private enforcements) or/ and its
provisions will be more or less forced upon less powerful countries
through bilateral FTAs. <br>
<br>
Also to note that officials associated with FTA have often said this is
strictly about 'enforcement' and not new IP regimes, but many in the
civil society and some others think it is a new IP regime with clear
global aspirations and implications. <br>
<br>
(The main term used in the workshop name is 'transnational enforcement'
and
'trans-border enforcement' is included as one part within it).<br>
<br>
It is significant to see that on the Internet 'borders' have a very
different meanings, and trans-border enforcements thus take very
different
dimensions. Would cutting off services and connectivity for IP
violation also operate at and through global interconnection points
and/or through recognising IP address of some countries? Some such
things already happen.<br>
<br>
We would also like to include trade embargo issues on the Internet -
like denial of many services by US based companies to countries like
Iran and Syria, and well, also, Pakistan ( e-payment services for
instance). In fact, such trade embargo issues are mentioned in the
Vilnius program document. <br>
<br>
</font>>After all, ACTA is a plurilateral response to the increasing
difficulties its protagonists have faced getting their way >in
multilateral settings like WIPO, and to the perceived inadequacies and
costs of building an architecture through >unilateral imposition and
bilateral FTAs...<br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
While we should certainly compare WIPO and ACTA settings, and that
is a central intention of the proposed workshop, the above seem to me
to be letting off ACTA protagonists too easily, and simplisitically.
But you are of course entitled to your views, and these can be
discussed at the proposed workshop. <br>
<br>
It is my view that, what problems they face at WIPO have largely to do
with the fact that these protagonists are in a hurry to construct a
maximalist global IP architecture to ensure that it becomes the basis
for their continued global domination.<br>
<br>
But please do suggest changes to the workshop note, as may others. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
</font><br>
William Drake wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:8ECA140F-D309-47CC-BE4F-AB00B0612F69@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">Hi
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Parminder could you help me to understand the desired focus? To
me, trans-border enforcement connotes a government or other actor based
in one territorial unit unilaterally establishing/enforcing rules
applicable in other units, i.e. extraterritoriality. If memory serves
this was the focus of the IGC workshop we were on in Hyderabad. In
contrast, ACTA and the UNESCO treaty (which will be hard to 'enforce')
involve the negotiated harmonization of rules, with enforcement being
an undertaking each government commits to within its jurisdiction.
These are rather different architectures, no?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If the driving interest here is unilateral/extraterritorial, I'd
suggest picking cases in which that model's been followed and
comparing, generalizing. If instead it is the substantive policy
problem of IPR, maybe it'd be interesting to frame this as a
comparative assessment of different policy architectures for that?
After all, ACTA is a plurilateral response to the increasing
difficulties its protagonists have faced getting their way in
multilateral settings like WIPO, and to the perceived inadequacies and
costs of building an architecture through unilateral imposition and
bilateral FTAs...Just a suggestion.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>PS: Small quibble, paradigms and social orders are not the same
thing.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Apr 11, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Parminder wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000099"><font face="serif">Attempting
a quick </font><font face="serif">first </font><font face="serif">draft
for the proposed workshop. <br>
<br>
Proposed workshop title : </font><font face="serif">'</font>Transnational
(or trans-border) enforcement of a new information order – Issues of
rights and
democracy'<br>
<br>
Internet is shaping a new global information and knowledge paradigm or
order. In this respect, many technical issues interact with
institutional frameworks around information and knowledge - like IP,
but also FoE, cultural rights etc - to develop a unique and
unprecedented global system of information and knowledge flows and
controls. Trans-border institutional mechanism become a key issue in
this regards - and trans-border enforcement of IP laws is a strongly
contested subject right now. The pluri-lateral treaty
'Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Act', currently being negotiated has been in
the eye of the storm, both vis a vis local constituencies in the
countries which are a part of the negotiation, and developing countries
who fear that such treaties negotiated without their participation may
become the default global institutional framework, including through
bilateral FTAs . <br>
<br>
Apart from IP issues, trans-border enforcement on and through the
Internet also has implications for FoE and cultural rights regimes (For
instance the recent UNECSO treaty on cultural goods). <br>
<br>
The proposed workshop will address the above issues, specifically
employing the lenses of rights (right to knowledge, FoE, cultural
rights etc) and democracy (right to self determination and political
participation). <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>