[WSIS CS-Plenary] [not] Thinking about "intellectual property" is....[not thinking]

[Milton Mueller]

>>> Richard Stallman <rms at gnu.org> 9/15/2004 11:42:46 AM >>>
>Since on the issues of patents and copyrights there is no 
>opportunity for the WGIG to make things better, only worse, 

Wrong. (No offense, but I am continually amazed by the alacrity 
with which you make confident assertions that have no apparent
basis in factual knowledge.)

If you want a full explanation of why I think the WGIG
is the best place to improve the dialogue 
around these issues, please refer to the paper released
by the Internet Governance Project and in particular 
Table 2, where we identify areas where there are "regime 
conflicts" across different issue areas. 

http://dcc.syr.edu/Table2-final.pdf 
http://dcc.syr.edu/Table2-final.pdf (full report)

IPRs can conflict with freedom of expression, technology
development and even privacy rights in a variety of ways. 
Currently, the international system basically divides up policy 
responsibility into issue areas in ways that make it almost 
impossible for free expression and other concerns to be 
adequately represented when IPR-related treaties are 
formed. WIPO is dominated by IPR holders. Any treaty
in which WIPO is the arena is bound to give them stronger
representation than those advcocating moderating interests.

Likewise, ICANN is ruled by a somewhat unstable combination
of trademark and domain name registration business interests.
Its constituency structure is skewed against the registrants
of domain names and various victims of IPR overreaching,
such as the ongoing pillaging of personal contact data 
associated with domain name registrations by trademark
and copyright lawyers seeking to "serve process" on 
anyone they think might be an infringer. 

If you want to challenge that imbalance, it can't be
done very well within ICANN. Believe me, I know more
about that than you ever will.

The WGIG presents probably the ONLY available opprtunity
to alter the nature of the international dialogue about 
IPR. And yes, I am using the term IPR just to indicate
to you that this debate is not about the verbal labels applied
to this area of property law, but about the substantive
rights that are or could be upheld by the international
governance system. I really don't give a damn whether
we say PCT or IPR. 

Let me suggest to you one other reality check
on your opinion. If the International Chamber of
Commerce, WIPO, the US Department of Commerce
the MPAA, INTA and ICANN's management all agree
with YOU that the WGIG should leave IPR to existing
international organizations, and take issue with MY
position, will you, um, be just a wee bit motivated to
change your mind? 

--MM