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

[William Drake]

Hi Parminder

On Apr 15, 2010, at 11:34 AM, 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. 

It seems you are equating "paradigm" with a particular intellectual/ideologicial orientation you don't like, rather than its standard meaning from philosophy of science, but whatever, as I said, it's a quibble.  With the submission deadline passed, we should focus on the main issue at hand.

> 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. 

Understood, just noting that 'overall' is overly aggregated and there are significant differences between unilateral extraterritorial and negotiated plurilateral/multilateral enforcement systems, which would actually be interesting to explore.  
> 
> 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. 

Based on what's been circulated one could certainly make the case.
> 
> (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. 

Don't want you to think I'm a terminological stickler, but an embargo is a governmental measure, different from a company's decision not to operate in a given national market.
> 
> >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. 

I'm not letting them off easily, I'm of course opposed to ACTA and think it's atrocious, I'm just saying forum shopping was definitely a key part of the calculus.  If the proponents thought they could get what they wanted on a broad based multilateral scale, that's what they'd be trying to do.
> 
>  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. 

Just trying to help, but I can't draft as I'm not sure which is the guiding focus, trans-border enforcement as an architecture generally, trans-border vs other architectures, IPR, etc.  If you/others think the distinctions I'm drawing don't matter ok let's leave it as is and see if we can get quick consensus on a submission.

Cheers,

Bill
> 
> 
> 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). 
>>> 
>> 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100416/a7adc6ec/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