<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 03:35 PM, David
Cake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div><span></span></div>
<div>
<div>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. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">David<br>
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....<br>
<br>
The precise language was "</font><span
style="font-size:14px;line-height:19px"><font face="Helvetica,
Arial, sans-serif">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....."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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)<br>
</font><br>
</span><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>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'.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public
interest' is a problematic term.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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'. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au"
type="cite">
<div>
<div> 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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Coming to the context of the series of congresses on 'Intellectual
property and public interest', here is the <a
href="http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf">list
of participants </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.<br>
<i><b><br>
</b></i><i><b>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.</b></i><br>
<br>
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...<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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). <br>
<br>
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.....<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>David<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPad
<div><br>
On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Interesting theme of this series of global congresses:
'Intellectual Property and the Public Interest' !<br>
<br>
Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the
multistakeholder Interest' ?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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!<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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'.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this
very importanr congress.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">PFA the call for participation for
the Global Congress on Intellectual<br>
Property and Public Interest.<br>
<br>
Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to
anyone you think<br>
might be interested.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Geetha.<br>
<br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: Swaraj Barooah<br>
Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM<br>
Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on
Intellectual<br>
Property and the Public Interest, 2015<br>
<br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
We are pleased to announce the call for participation
for the fourth<br>
edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property
and the Public<br>
Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s
Congress will be<br>
“Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We
are now inviting<br>
applications to participate in the Congress, including
session<br>
participation and presentations. We are also welcoming
proposals for<br>
panels and workshops.<br>
<br>
The application form is available now at<br>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973">http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973</a>?]
Please note that this<br>
form is for application purposes, and does not amount to
confirmation of<br>
participation. The registrations for the plenary
sessions, which are<br>
open to the public, will open closer to the date of the
Global Congress.<br>
<br>
Deadlines<br>
<br>
August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications-
Applicants will be<br>
considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by
August 1st<br>
being given first consideration. Applications after
August 1st to<br>
receive travel assistance will be considered only under
exceptional<br>
circumstances (these details will be collected in a
subsequent form).<br>
<br>
November 1st: All applications for session participation
and paper<br>
submissions will close on November 1st.<br>
<br>
Application Information<br>
<br>
For applications to participate/host: Applications to
present or host<br>
workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to
be submitted in<br>
the form.<br>
<br>
For applications to attend sessions:Applications to
attend sessions as<br>
discussants will be considered based on the statement of
purpose and/or<br>
any other relevant information provided by the
applicant.<br>
<br>
Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or
travel to the<br>
Congress will be available, with priority to those from
developing<br>
countries.<br>
<br>
Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes<br>
<br>
The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the
Public Interest is<br>
the most significant event on the calendar for scholars
and policy<br>
advocates working on intellectual property from a public
interest<br>
perspective. By sharing their research and strategies,
the network of<br>
experts and activists supported by the Global Congress
are empowered to<br>
put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The
Global Congress<br>
began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de
Janeiro in 2012, and<br>
was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global
Congress will now be<br>
held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be
the largest<br>
convening of public interest-oriented intellectual
property<br>
practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in
the world's most<br>
populous region to these global debates around how
intellectual property<br>
policy can best serve the public interest.<br>
<br>
The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings
research, civil<br>
society, industry and regulatory and policy-making
communities together<br>
for active, intense engagement on key public-interest
intellectual<br>
property issues. Opportunities for these groups to
interact are rare but<br>
valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful
policy outcomes.<br>
The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in
December, 2015 in<br>
New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.<br>
<br>
The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of
Openness; Two<br>
Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for
reflection, revision, and<br>
further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress
seeks to produce<br>
three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing
scholarly research<br>
directly into the hands of civil society advocates,
business leaders and<br>
policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and
practices;<br>
second,the collaborative identification of urgent,
global and local<br>
research priorities and generation of a joint
research/advocacy agenda;<br>
and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary,
cross-sector and<br>
global networked community of experts focused on public
interest aspects<br>
of IP policy and practice.<br>
<br>
Participation Opportunities<br>
<br>
Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out
in the form of<br>
plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions,
and the room of<br>
scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic
track sessions,<br>
cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.<br>
<br>
The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1)
Openness, 2) Access<br>
to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.<br>
<br>
Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts
across tracks in<br>
order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes
of mutual<br>
interest.<br>
<br>
The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of
research outputs such<br>
as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly
within the<br>
thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the
Global Congress<br>
.<br>
<br>
Participation could be in the form of presenting /
discussing conference<br>
papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops
where they may share<br>
their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during
the<br>
aforementioned sessions.<br>
<br>
The application form for participation is available now<br>
athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?.
Please forward this<br>
invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more
information or<br>
questions, you may contact <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:globalcongress2015@gmail.com">globalcongress2015@gmail.com</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:globalcongress2015@gmail.com"><mailto:globalcongress2015@gmail.com></a>.<br>
<br>
Organisation<br>
<br>
The Centre for Internet and Society <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://cis-india.org/"><http://cis-india.org/></a>serves
as the<br>
convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual
Property and<br>
Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational
Law University,<br>
Delhi <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/"><http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/></a>.<br>
<br>
The implementing partners arethe <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://www.openair.org.za/"><http://www.openair.org.za/></a>American<br>
Assembly <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://americanassembly.org/"><http://americanassembly.org/></a>at
Columbia University in New<br>
York,Open A.I.R <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://www.openair.org.za/"><http://www.openair.org.za/></a>.,
and theProgram on<br>
Information Justice and Intellectual Property <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://www.pijip.org/"><http://www.pijip.org/></a>at<br>
American University Washington College of Law in
Washington DC.<br>
<br>
<br>
On behalf of the organizing committee,<br>
<br>
Swaraj Barooah<br>
<br>
Swaraj Paul Barooah<br>
Project Manager, "Global Congress"<br>
(Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)<br>
<br>
Editor-in-Chief, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://SpicyIP.com">SpicyIP.com</a> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://SpicyIP.com"><http://SpicyIP.com></a><br>
Founder, Know-GAP<br>
Twitter: @swarajpb<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<span style="white-space: pre;">><br>
><br>
>
____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
><br>
> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter,
see:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
><br>
> Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br>
<span>You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.</span><br>
<span>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>