[WSIS CS-Plenary] IPR : Strategic priorities for WGIG

[Jonathan Cave]

I endorse the position of Vittorio and Milton Mueller regarding IPR.

For one thing, domain names are IP - they are encloseable or ownable bits 
of intangible property of substantial commercial (and other) value.

Beyond this, material to which the Internet provides access - and material 
its use creates (e.g. electronic documents and writings) are also IP and 
also - in many cases - protected or protectable. This protection and its 
enforcement determine the size and distribution of benefits and incentives 
shaping future use.

Third, the software and business and other methods that enable the Internet 
are also IP. This might not matter were it not for interoperability 
considerations. But we have already seen on these groups how technical and 
legal 'barriers to entry' affect the geometry of interconnection.

In my view, an IG group that did not consider IP would be like a traffic 
authority that ignored land ownership.

Cheers,

Jonathan

At 22:43 27/01/2005, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >>> herve at info.unicaen.fr 1/27/2005 5:18:59 PM >>>
>>IPR is really another domain, which concern many other things as 
>>medicines, indigenous knowledge, cultural domination through economy, 
>>spreading of scientific knowledge, the nature of software industry, equal 
>>repartition between North and South of the benefit of globalisation of 
>>trade, farmers and GM crops, the future of biotech industries, the 
>>libraries, ... and so, and so...
>
>Yes, the term "IPR" encompasses many issues that are not connected to 
>Internet governance. But _some_ IPR issues, particularly those dealing 
>with copyright and trademark, and perhaps software patents, are central to 
>Internet governance. The creation of ICANN was prompted largely by the 
>desire to protect trademarks in the domain name space. The WIPO Internet 
>treaties (which is what WIPO calls them, not me) are about copyright 
>protection on the....Internet. etc., etc.
>
>It seems you have made a very basic logical error. You say: Because not 
>all IPR issues fall within the domain of Internet governance, therefore an 
>Internet governance WG should not touch IPR at all. It is a logical fallacy.
>
>In advocating that WGIG deal with IPR, I am not suggesting a review and 
>reform of _ALL_ global IPR regimes on the planet; I am saying that those 
>aspects of IPR that affect Internet governance must be dealt with. The 
>sets intersect, and we should deal with the intersection. Not the
>union.

[Nice phrase:-)]

>>Who in the WGIG is conceiving the problem of crop licensing for poor 
>>farmers in the South ?
>
>Out of scope, obviously, has nothing to do with Internet governance. Until 
>and unless crop seeds are transmitted via TCP/IP. ;-)
>
>--MM
>
>Dr. Milton Mueller
>Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>http://www.digital-convergence.org
>http://www.internetgovernance.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050128/2ea1f5c8/attachment.htm