[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: IPR :I don't agree with Milton -> Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Strategic priorities for WGIG

[Vittorio Bertola]

Il giorno gio, 27-01-2005 alle 23:18 +0100, Hervé Le Crosnier ha
scritto:
> 	So I maintain : IPR is not top on the agenda of the WGIG,
> 	because it was not top on the whole WSIS (for best and worse)
> 	and because there are other mouvements actually trying to
> 	find new and innovative ways to deal with IPR in information
> 	societies. I refer to the Geneva declaration for change on
> 	the OMPI, and the actually discussed Treaty on medicines
> 	to be proposed to WHO by civil society coordinators.

There still is something that escapes me. My line of reasoning is:

1) For the first (and maybe the last) time, we have a UN
multistakeholder group that is tasked to review the inner mechanisms of
international governance organizations that affect the Internet (and
it's unclear to me how you can say that IP governance does not affect
the Internet).

2) We also have a strong civil society movement that asks for changes in
the IP regimes.

3) As a consequence, we should get WGIG to support the idea that the IP
governance systems needs review. (WGIG would not do reforms - just make
proposals, in this case, for example, that a broadly inclusive reform
process is started).

4) As a counter-consequence, if WGIG decides not to review IP
governance, opponents to a reform will be able to say "we had a group
tasked with this kind of evaluations and it determined that the IP
regime is fine, so that's a proof that there's no need to reform it".

Moreover, I don't understand how you can talk about "other movements",
and how the fact that some people already call for reforms should
prevent anyone else from doing the same. I think that all of us share
the same objective, and all of us should help each other to reach it. If
we continue to divide, we will never get to anything.

I must also add that we now have a formal request from a WGIG member
from the private sector to prevent the WGIG paper on intellectual rights
from being published, because "we risk a serious and negative reaction
from certain members of the business community".

So now I am in front of a strange (and certainly unwanted!) alliance
between some people from the PCT caucus and the IP owners
representatives, both asking WGIG not to discuss possible changes in the
IP regime.

As I am sure that this is not your intention, I think you should
reconsider your position - perhaps after reading the draft WGIG paper on
the matter, which could be published in three days from now (or could
not, depending on what happens now inside the group).

Of course, if the plenary instead really thinks that there is no need to
raise the issue of reforms in the IP governance regimes, then I would
accept that.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...