[WSIS CS-Plenary] IPR : building consensus

[Federico Heinz]

For the first time in so many years I can perceive a deep coincidence of
views with Daniel, I think I shall express it :-)

I think we agree in essence, the difference is in a superficial
misunderstanding.

On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 11:59 -0500, Daniel Pimienta wrote:
> The issues we are discussing under the name of  "Information Society"
> [...] is not the "Internet society", it is really the
> transformation of our societies into networked societies [...]
> 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.

I fully agree with you that patents, copyright, trademarks, crime and
such things are important for "Information Society Governance" (whatever
"Information Society" may mean at this time of day). This certainly
means that WSIS should look at each of these issues long and deep, for
they affect the shape of society.

However, WGIG is the working group on *internet* governance, not
"information society" governance. It's not the WGISG, but the WGIG,
which must find ways to make this awesome tool, the internet, available
and useful for people to build around it the information societies they
want, not one designed centrally by a group of experts with no mandate
to do so.

If WGIG is to say anything about such issues, it ought to be something
along the lines of "these issues that are outside the scope of internet
governance, and fall under the authority of local governments."

> >IPR [...] was not top on the whole WSIS (for best and worse)
> For bad.

I agree again. I don't think anybody is arguing against that. The
question here is not whether issue X should be on WSIS' agenda, but
whether it ought to be in the WGIG's necessarily much narrower agenda
(if it weren't supposed to be much narrower... why would we want other
caucuses at all?).

> As for SPAM, it is an important issue and should be included

Would you care to tell us why you think it should be included, as Avri
asked?

While we're at it, wouldn't it be a great idea to ask not just for a
list of issues for WGIG to address, but also for each item's
justification for being there in the first place?

	Fede
-- 
GnuPG Public Key: gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net --recv-key BD02C6E0
Key Fingerprint: 04F4 08C5 14B7 2C3D DB21  ACF8 6CF5 0B0C BD02 C6E0
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050129/2166878b/attachment.pgp