[bestbits] [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015

Sat May 23 03:32:42 EDT 2015

On Tuesday 19 May 2015 11:43 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> I am writing against my better judgement, but here goes anyway.

Dear Anriette

Allow me to refocus on the real issues raised in my email that you
respond to.

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.

> 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.

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.

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?

> 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.

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.
> 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 -

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 Washington
Declaration on IP and Public Interest.
<http://infojustice.org/washington-declaration>.. 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.

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..

> 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.

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.

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 " Did the WHO just invite corporates to set health policy?
<http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/did-who-just-invite-corporates-set-health-policy>

Did the WHO just invite corporates to set health policy? - See more at:
http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/did-who-just-invite-corporates-set-health-policy#sthash.ISr8p1Cd.kYDf1NaM.dpufxxxxxxxxxx
Did the WHO just invite corporates to set health policy? - See more at:
http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/did-who-just-invite-corporates-set-health-policy#sthash.ISr8p1Cd.kYDf1NaM.dpuf
"

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. "

Such opposition to corporate invasion of policy spaces is taking place
in many other areas as well - climate change, agriculture, etc.....

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.)

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:
http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/did-who-just-invite-corporates-set-health-policy#sthash.ISr8p1Cd.kYDf1NaM.dpuf
> 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?

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.

Best regards , parminder
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 19/05/2015 18:51, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 19/05/2015 5:50 am, parminder wrote:
>>> Coming to the context of the series of congresses on 'Intellectual
>>> property and public interest', here is the list of participants
>>> <http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf>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.
>> 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
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>> 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:
>> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150523/31029960/attachment.htm>