[WSIS CS-Plenary] IPR : building consensus

[Daniel Pimienta]

For the first time in so many years I can perceive a deep difference
of views with Hervé, I think I shall express it :-), and still
more because it is related, in my opinion, to one of the deepest issue
in relation to the transformation of our societies: the questions of the
public domain of knowledge, the time protection and scope of patents,
the management of "droit d'auteur" (e.g. if they should survive the
author),... many connex issues usually named by simplicity (and
confusion making) under "IPR".

Hervé, I suspect that our difference maybe more tactical than strategical,
but I need to know.

>         - to integrate IPR in our conception of the governance
>           of the "internet-society" (not all society...
I am extremely reluctant to make that dichotomy between "Internet-society"
and "society". This is not only reductionist but prone to come back
to a pure technological view of the issues wereas they are essentially 
"societal".

The issues we are discussing under the name of  "Information Society"
(another buzzword which covers complex realities for which other words
could be preferred) is not the "Internet society", it is really the
transformation of our societies into networked societies and how ICT
facilitates and influences this transformation, and what provisions we
should make to channel the transformation into the direction we aim
(more democratic, participative, just, respectful of rights,
reflecting of the cultural diversity, etc).

In more specific words, if Internet governance issues may related directly
to the management of Internet resources, this does need to be considered
within the frame of the society we aim to shape, not as a technological
question abstracted from the societal context.

>IPR is not top on the agenda of the WGIG, because it was not top on the
>whole WSIS (for best and worse)
For bad.
Civil society must work to make it a top issues in spite of the
obvious conservative force which try to prevent it. One way could be to avoid
all or nothing approaches in pro of a "negociate parameters" approximation.

As for SPAM, it is an important issue and should be included, which does not
mean that there is no room for bottom-up approaches for its handling 
(interesting
thoughts Michael, indeed).