[governance] Reposting Workshop 3: Transnational enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy

Fri Apr 16 00:38:54 EDT 2010

A recent article on ACTA 'WIPO, WTO Requested To Advise On 
Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty' would be useful to refer to. see 
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/04/15/european-parliamentarians-call-on-wipo-wto-for-technical-advice-on-acta/ 
.

Also see a letter by some EU parliamentarians to WIPO on ACTA at 
http://www.erikjosefsson.eu/sites/default/files/WIPO-letter-from-Greens-EFA.html 

It is important to note that ACTA also envisages a new institution of IP 
enforcement, including over and through the Internet, , whose 
implications for IG is something worth pondering upon.

Parminder

Parminder wrote:
> Hi Bill
>
> Will first deal with the 'quibble' , because it sets up the rest of my 
> argument.
>
> >> Internet is shaping a new global information and knowledge paradigm 
> or order. (Parminder)
>
> > Small quibble, paradigms and social orders are not the same thing. 
> (Bill)
>
> '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.
>
> 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'.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> (The main term used in the workshop name is 'transnational 
> enforcement' and 'trans-border enforcement' is included as one part 
> within it).
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> >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...
>
> 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.
>
>  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.
>
> But please do suggest changes to the workshop note, as may others.
>
> Parminder
>
> William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> PS: Small quibble, paradigms and social orders are not the same thing.
>>
>>
>> On Apr 11, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Parminder wrote:
>>
>>> Attempting a  quick first draft for the proposed workshop.
>>>
>>> Proposed workshop title : 'Transnational (or trans-border) 
>>> enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy'
>>>
>>> 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 .
>>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100416/295d4cf0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t