SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • David, thank you for the note. It appears there is... »
  • The link to the US proposal seems to be broken, an... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Path Forward For UN-Led Internet Governance Forum Discussed

    Published on 26 February 2009 @ 11:55 am

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    That there will be a future for the international Internet Governance Forum seems likely, though the form its future incarnation will take is not. Delegates to an open consultation on internet governance this week began to sort out some base modalities on how to evaluate the progress of the United Nations-led discussion venue, as a deadline approaches to decide whether and how the group will continue.

    The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a multistakeholder dialogue that grew out of the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis, Tunisia in 2005. The group is tasked with discussion of public policy issues related to the internet, and particularly those issues for which there is no other intergovernmental body with the scope to address them. It is also meant to help find solutions “to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the internet,” according to the Tunis mandate.

    The original mandate of the IGF called for an evaluation process within five years, at the end of which it was understood that a decision on the future of the IGF would be taken. As this five-year mark approaches in 2010, the 23-24 February consultation was intended in part to help hash out ways to conduct the review process. The secretary general of the United Nations, who has final say in the matter, is meant to make his recommendations before the member states next year at this time.

    This open consultation process decided to focus on modalities for review, rather than substantive review, of the IGF.

    It also focussed on evaluations of the last and suggestions for the next internet governance forum, which are passed along to the Multistakeholder Advisory Group, tasked with helping to plan the forums. The advisory group is meeting on 25-26 February. The last IGF was in Hyderabad, India, in December. The next meeting will be 15-18 November 2009 in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt.

    Way Toward The Review

    The meeting ended with IGF Executive Coordinator Markus Kummer issuing a call for contributions, comments, and even academic analyses – welcoming external input – with the intent to publish a summary paper of received comments in May.

    One of the discussions during the meeting had been whether a review of the IGF should be internal or external. Ian Peter from the Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation that represents civil society in internet governance, said that an external evaluation before internal evaluation was done might not be the most helpful but that external analysis could help bring in information the IGF secretariat does not have, according to the event transcript.

    Meeting Chair Nitin Desai, who is special adviser to the UN secretary-general for internet governance, said that ultimately objectivity of the data being analysed was perhaps the central issue.

    Key issues to be addressed include future funding for the IGF meetings, and funding for possible outside evaluations of the process if they are deemed necessary, Kummer said. “In order to be taken seriously we have also to make some proposals that not may be the same as before, but we have to say where matters could be improved,” he said, according to the unedited official transcript of the event.

    “One element in the evaluation of the value of the IGF has to be some understanding, not just that we had a nice meeting… [but also] some assessment of what difference did that make at the ground level,” Desai said, also according to the transcript.

    Evaluating Hyderabad, Looking Toward Sharm El Sheikh

    Human rights, sustainability, the participation of young people, and the new top level domain names at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers were talked about as possible new trends to be discussed at the next IGF in Egypt this year.

    Also coming up was a debate as to how the secretariat should manage workshops run by outside entities. Whether they should be run concurrently, rather than simultaneously, their length, and the number of languages in which to translate was discussed. Several delegations mentioned the possibility of translation into more than just the six official UN languages, but this was ultimately discarded as not practical.

    A delegate from Switzerland mentioned that cross-cutting discussions – in particular one on security and openness – were more helpful than isolated issue discussions, as they got closer to real-life situations and challenges.

    On security and safety, ways to combat child pornography – a perennial issue at the IGF, in part because there is no controversy about the need to fight the problem and no international forum for addressing it from a policy perspective – also came up.

    The human rights concept stresses the importance of openness and universal access, said Peter. The dynamic coalition on gender said during the open consultation that access to an open internet is “critical for women” to “facilitate the full realisation of their rights” and that this approach was the “only safeguard” for women to fully participate in the internet. Desai suggested the creation of a directory of policymakers in the area, so that it would be clear who to contact.

    Also a critical access issue is ensuring that “young people” are active in “both knowing how to use the technology and knowing how to explain the technology, its challenges, and its benefits to their parents and to their caregivers,” said Marilyn Cade, who chairs the Global Public Policy Committee at Information Technology Association for America, which supports the interest of the US innovation industry.

    With regards to the internet “we have more to learn from young people than young people have to learn from us,” said a delegate from El Salvador.

    Heather Creech with the International Institute for Sustainable Development discussed the “responsibility for managing the environmental footprint of the internet.” New trends in this vein include trying “to get data centres to use renewable energy and also reduce their emissions,” she explained.

    During the discussion on the environmental impact of computing, it was revealed that two Google searches is roughly equivalent to boiling a kettle for tea.

    Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.

     


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.