[governance] IT for Change's background paper for the IGF Rio - 2007

[yehudakatz at mailinator.com]

Vivek & Parminder,

> (lend us your sense of direction)
>Subject: [governance] IT for Change's background paper for the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) Rio - 2007

Ok, I think it’s a great choice (direction). 
We need to work on it some by building support argument(s).

- Constructive Criticisms - 

Re:
Sec. 1: Development Agenda in Internet Governance
I felt this was well written and embodies your advocacy, of which you wish to
present.

In my opinion, you could be more ‘direct’ in challenges regarding the WTO &
WIPO. Don’t shy away from what you really want to put out there.

In reference to the WIPO issues, I think that gathering opinion from US Patent
Attorneys would aid your knowledge/scope of the arena. 
>From discussions that I have had regarding the issue(s), They (Int-Prop.
Attorneys) reduce the specific issue (infringement) down to jurisdiction and
enforceability. As the Madrid protocol is the applicable extension of the WIPO.
Wherein They consider, what can & what can-not be done.

Personally, at this point in time, I think expanding the authority of the WIPO
beyond the current jurisdictions of Nation-States, is a dangerous thing. 


Sec. 2: Public Domain and the Internet
This is a good start, the WIPO encompassing its body over ‘Open-Source’
resources, Be it .pd as you suggest or broader (Open-Source/Public Domain as
applied to .com .net etc…), is something I could endorse.
Again the argument(s) need to be built to support Public Domain advocacy.


Sec. 3: Governance of Critical Internet Resources
Be more direct in, what your asking for. 
It appears you omitted mention of Nation-States and their roles in this area.
Build some support between: User-Independence and the Governance Framework for
Critical Internet Resources.

Sec. 4: Role of IGF
I think your pulling the Tigers tail here.
The Secretary General has already stated that outcomes of the WSIS processes,
will be implemented by the United Nations Group on the Information Society
(UNGIS).
[ http://www.itu.int/newsarchive/press_releases/2006/NP05.html ]

Your best bet is to illustrate the weaknesses of the ITU (historical &
present), in terms of the reality on the ground. Then build arguments for the
IGF as a conduit (e.g.: the IGF as the completing element necessary for
feedback to the ITU).

The ITU Diplos’ are way to vested to overthrow. But you could make them appear
as the Old Soviet Guard they are.

(Ask yourself: Why are things the way they are now? If ‘They’ were doing their
job.)

-

Vivek, 
Tweak it and we'll progress from there.

-
End
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance