<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 09:18 PM,
Michael Gurstein wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:017a01d0924b$458ac830$d0a05890$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Wolfgang, I must say that I find your statement below exceedingly odd in
that you seem to have ignored the manner in which a number of the leading
"civil society" organizations have been working alongside their USG and UKG
(and other) allies to undermine and diminish the significance of the WSIS
+10 process.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Even more odd, Wolfgang, is that you sidestep the fact that Fadi,
the main architect and champion of the ICANN/ WEF's NetMundial
Initiative (of which you are the ambassador at large) has clearly
justified the NetMundial Initiative as a being necessary in
anticipation of what may otherwise happen in the WSIS plus 10
process. Am I mistaken in saying so.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:017a01d0924b$458ac830$d0a05890$@gmail.com"
type="cite"> </blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:017a01d0924b$458ac830$d0a05890$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
M
-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang"
Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; parminder; David Cake
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; BestBitsList; Forum@Justnetcoalition. Org
Subject: [governance] Why?
Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list
is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am
right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played
an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to
look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+
processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why
people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a
century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send,
be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the
CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?
The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have
overtaken the discussion.
My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of
younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of
real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and
energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a
multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise
between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership
(USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of
the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It
is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this
oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
Wolfgang
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Di 19.05.2015 14:50
An: David Cake
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; BestBitsList; Forum@Justnetcoalition. Org
Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
On Tuesday 19 May 2015 03:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">My first reaction is that this seems to be a category error. A multi
stakeholder perspective is a description of how a workshop should be
constructed, and public interest a description of its content.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
David
If you are still speaking of the same thing about which Peng Hwa and I were
arguing, you are simply 'factually' wrong. The call for proposals spoke of
'multistakeholder perspective' with regard to content and not structure....
The precise language was "We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main
workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive
manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective....."
I asked for "...incorporating a multistakeholder perspective" to be
replaced by "incorporating a public interest perspective". It was
always about the content of the workshop proposal and not the structure of
workshop.
I have been closely involved with the IGF, including its management
structures, and know well what is meant by a multistakeholder 'structure' of
a workshop.
But of course one can now get into philosophical discussions about a certain
sameness and continuity between structure and content. Please lets not do it
and stick to the specific context. (More below)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">One does not substitute for the other because they aren't the same
thing. Just as you couldn't claim a workshop was civil society only if
it was filled with commercial operators talking about their NGO
customers. Structure and composition of a workshop are different. And
frankly, Parminder, I'd be surprised if you couldn't put together a
multi-stakeholder workshop comprised entirely of sceptics of
multistakeholderism, which to my mind would incorporate a
'multistakeholder perspective'.
That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public interest' is
a problematic term.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
There is a whole world of difference between (1) claiming that 'public
interest is a problematic term' (especially when said at the same time as
claiming that multistakeholderism is not) and (2) saying that 'determination
of what is public interest in a given context is never easy, or even a
problematic thing'. If determination of what constitutes public interest in
a given context was not problematic we will not need politics and democracy.
The latter institutions exist almost entirely to obtain a good and fair
determination of what is pulbic interest, which they are still never able to
do to everyone's satisfaction. So please do not confuse between 'public
interest being a problematic term' and 'determination of what is public
interest in any given context being problematic'.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The IP lobby are just one example of a group who, with some skill and
apparent sincerity, will strongly argue that advancing the relative
power of their narrow set of interests is also in the public interest
(the public surely wants to combat the various evils strengthened by
counterfeiting, they say). Governments always justify calls for
increased censorship and surveillance on public interest grounds (the
public must be protected from terrorism, drug smuggling, and
immorality). And you'd probably be quite appalled if you saw the uses
to which the concept has been put within ICANN, such as 'Public
Interest Commitments' taken on by many new GTLDs that commit them to
lobbyist led expansion of the rights of large trademark holders.
Almost every serious lobby group can manage the necessary mental
gymnastics to argue that they act in the public interest, and claiming
to act in the public interest is the go to strategy if you want to
justify overruling a community or consensus policy to favour your
lobby group.
This isn't to say that a prolonged look at the issue of the public
interest - some serious examination of what relatively object ways we
have to determine it, or what processes lead to a relatively consensus
understanding of we determine public interest, wouldn't be very
valuable. A global process that looked at this idea would be great. I
think the current situation, where the concept is used to justify all
sorts of policies but is defined loosely or informally, is very
problematic. In this respect I agree with Parminder that it merits
much deeper discussion.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<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-freetext" href="http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf">http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf</a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">of
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
/*
*//*So, the question is why when we are considering policy issues or
public interest in the Intellectual Property space, we rely on an
assemblage *only* and *exclusively* of what can clearly be seen as
public interest actors, and specifically exclude vested interests,
(called stakeholders in the MS terminology), determination of policies
or of public interest in the Internet governance space requires an equal
participation of big business? Maybe you or any other MSist here will
like to answer this key question.*/
As I said in my last email , I await putting forward of some Internet
exceptional-ism arguments, about how IG is more expertise intensive
(more than Intellectual Property or IP ??), or more private sector based
(more than IP ??) or is more bottom up....... They clearly do not hold,
but maybe some of you may want to flog them...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
But thinking of public interest as in some way opposed to, or distinct
from, multistakeholderism is a misguided position that is only going
to lead to a shallow and disappointing discussion.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
David, here you are turning the issue on its head , let me say, in
somewhat disingenuous way. In arguing with APrIGF, it is not that I
proposed 'dont use the MS word but use only public interest'. No, it
were they who said, we wont use the pulbic interest word because it is
not clear or is problematic. And of course youd remember in the recent
UNESCO meeting; we did not say, pull out the MS word, we just said, also
use the 'democratic' word: 'they' said, no 'democratic' cannot be used
because it has baggage, while the MS word will stay (which they did not
see as carrying any baggage).
The problem is not about promoting multi-stakeholder participation. The
problem is promoting a certain kind of MSism while at the same time
decrying 'public interest (as an 'unclear problematic term'), democracy
(as carrying baggage) and so on.....
Now if you still do not see here a deliberate and strongly-invested
process of building a post-democratic (and anti-democratic) vocabulary,
theory and practice, then you just refuse to see it, about which I cant
do much.
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Regards
David
Sent from my iPad
On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><mailto:parminder@itforchange.net></a>> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
Property and the Public Interest' !
Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
Interest' ?
You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion
was not accepted. So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved
with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a
problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective'
or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
are either a silent or active accomplices.
Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
and therefore its governance has to be different.... Well, lets
admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent
to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more
bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and
property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic
fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as
well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that
are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil
society will have to answer to history.
Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
importanr congress.
In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
who may be interested.
parminder
On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
Property and Public Interest.
Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
might be interested.
Best,
Geetha.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Swaraj Barooah
Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
Property and the Public Interest, 2015
Dear all,
We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
Interest ("Global Congress"). The theme for this year's Congress will be
"Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS." We are now inviting
applications to participate in the Congress, including session
participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
panels and workshops.
The application form is available now at
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973">http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973</a>?] Please note that this
form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
Deadlines
August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
submissions will close on November 1st.
Application Information
For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
the form.
For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
countries.
Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
policy can best serve the public interest.
The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
of IP policy and practice.
Participation Opportunities
Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
interest.
The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
.
Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
aforementioned sessions.
The application form for participation is available now
athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
questions, you may contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:globalcongress2015@gmail.com">globalcongress2015@gmail.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:globalcongress2015@gmail.com"><mailto:globalcongress2015@gmail.com></a>.
Organisation
The Centre for Internet and Society <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://cis-india.org/"><http://cis-india.org/></a>serves as the
convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
Delhi <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/"><http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/></a>.
The implementing partners arethe <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.openair.org.za/"><http://www.openair.org.za/></a>American
Assembly <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://americanassembly.org/"><http://americanassembly.org/></a>at Columbia University in New
York,Open A.I.R <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.openair.org.za/"><http://www.openair.org.za/></a>., and theProgram on
Information Justice and Intellectual Property <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pijip.org/"><http://www.pijip.org/></a>at
American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
On behalf of the organizing committee,
Swaraj Barooah
Swaraj Paul Barooah
Project Manager, "Global Congress"
(Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://SpicyIP.com"><http://SpicyIP.com></a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://SpicyIP.com"><http://SpicyIP.com></a>
Founder, Know-GAP
Twitter: @swarajpb
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<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> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"><mailto: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>
<pre wrap="">
</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:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>