[governance] Why?

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Tue May 19 12:44:02 EDT 2015 


On Tuesday 19 May 2015 09:18 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Wolfgang, I must say that I find your statement below exceedingly odd in
> that you seem to have ignored the manner in which a number of the leading
> "civil society" organizations have been working alongside their USG and UKG
> (and other) allies to undermine and diminish the significance of the WSIS
> +10 process.


Even more odd, Wolfgang, is that you sidestep the fact that Fadi, the
main architect and champion of the ICANN/ WEF's NetMundial Initiative
(of which you are the ambassador at large) has clearly justified the
NetMundial Initiative as a being necessary in anticipation of what may
otherwise happen in the WSIS plus 10 process. Am I mistaken in saying so.

parminder

>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
> Wolfgang"
> Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; David Cake
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
> Subject: [governance] Why?
>
> Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list
> is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am
> right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played
> an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to
> look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+
> processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why
> people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a
> century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send,
> be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the
> CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003? 
>
> The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have
> overtaken the discussion. 
>
> My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of
> younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of
> real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and
> energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a
> multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise
> between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership
> (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of
> the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It
> is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this
> oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>  
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
> Gesendet: Di 19.05.2015 14:50
> An: David Cake
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
> on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>  
>
>
> On Tuesday 19 May 2015 03:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
>> 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.
> David
> 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....
>
> The precise language was "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....."
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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)
>
>
>> 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'.
>>
>> That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public interest' is 
>> a problematic term.
> 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'.
>
>
>> 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. 
>>
>> 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.
> 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.
> /*
> *//*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.*/
>
> 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...
>> 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.
> 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).
>
> 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.....
>
> 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.
>
> parminder
>
>> Regards 
>>
>> David
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
>>> Property and the Public Interest' !
>>>
>>> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
>>> Interest' ?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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!
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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'.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>>> importanr congress.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>>>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>>>> Property and Public Interest.
>>>>
>>>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>>>> might be interested.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Geetha.
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>>>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>>>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>>>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>>>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>>>> Interest ("Global Congress"). The theme for this year's Congress will be
>>>> "Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS." We are now inviting
>>>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>>>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>>>> panels and workshops.
>>>>
>>>> The application form is available now at
>>>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>>>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>>>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>>>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>>>>
>>>> Deadlines
>>>>
>>>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>>>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>>>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>>>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>>>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>>>
>>>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>>>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>>>>
>>>> Application Information
>>>>
>>>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>>>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>>>> the form.
>>>>
>>>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>>>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>>>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>>>
>>>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>>>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>>>> countries.
>>>>
>>>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>>>
>>>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>>>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>>>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>>>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>>>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>>>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>>>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>>>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>>>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>>>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>>>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>>>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>>>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>>>>
>>>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>>>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>>>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>>>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>>>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>>>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>>>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>>>
>>>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>>>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>>>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>>>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>>>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>>>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>>>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>>>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>>>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>>>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>>>> of IP policy and practice.
>>>>
>>>> Participation Opportunities
>>>>
>>>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>>>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>>>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>>>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>>>
>>>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>>>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>>>
>>>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>>>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>>>> interest.
>>>>
>>>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>>>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>>>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>>>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>>>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>>>> aforementioned sessions.
>>>>
>>>> The application form for participation is available now
>>>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>>>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>>>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>>>
>>>> Organisation
>>>>
>>>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>>>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>>>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>>>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>>>
>>>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>>>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>>>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>>>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>>>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>>>
>>>> Swaraj Barooah
>>>>
>>>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>>>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>>>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>>>
>>>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>>> Founder, Know-GAP
>>>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150519/01eb1366/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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

More information about the Governance mailing list