mail archive Mailing list of the WSIS Patents, Copyright, Trademark (PCT) Civil Society Working Group
wsis-pct.fsfeurope.org
(List home) (Recent threads) (47 other Free Software Foundation Europe lists)
Subscription Options
- RSS or Atom: Read-only subscription using a browser or aggregator. This is the recommended way if you don't need to send messages to the list. You can learn more about feed syndication and clients here.
- Conventional: All messages are delivered to your mail address, and you can reply. To subscribe, send an email to the list's subscribe address with "subscribe" in the subject line, or visit the list's homepage here.
- This list contains about 1,346 messages, beginning Sep 2003
- This list doesn't seem to be active
Report the Spam
This button sends a spam report to the moderator. Please use it sparingly. For other removal requests, read this.
Are you sure? yes no
WGIG comments
Ad
Hello Free Software supporters, This is the text that I just sent the WGIG. ( both pdf and sxw formats ) according to the spirit of my previous post. I hope that the late comments of Richard have been properly accounted in advance, and I made it clear that those comments are not the sign that we are bringing some legitimacy to the WGIG. All the best Francis ------------------------------------------------------------- Civil Society Working Group on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks http://www.wsis-pct.org Concise COMMENTS on the WGIG Papers It is highly regrettable that a member of the Patent & Copyrights Working Group could not be part of the WGIG, but we are pointing out that this is not due to the United Nation handling of the selection process that we salute both as open and inclusive, but it is seemingly the collateral damage of confusion within Civil Society. Therefore, and despite the best efforts of the WGIG secretariat and chair, the question of the representativity of the WGIG remains open. Nevertheless, we are kindly requesting the attention of the WGIG on the following issues : 1/ Interoperability should be included as one factor of appreciation and criteria within Internet Governance considerations and assessments. We suggest that the WGIG should adopt the following recommendations A/ Recommend that all internet-related software, whether proprietary, open source or free software, shall allow a full, free, and potential interoperability with every other internet-related software and hardware, without the burden of any financial or legal obligations, in order to permit the free flow of information within the Internet, as well as equitable and sustainable development. B/ Recommand all apparatuses, devices, media build for internet-related use shall allow a full, free, and potential interoperability with every other internet-related hardware and software, without the burden of any financial or legal obligations, in order to permit the free flow of information within the Internet, as well as equitable and sustainable development. C/ Interoperability certificates shall be delivered delivered to such potentially interoperable hardware and software by an international body. The PCT group has not determined yet which would be the best international body to deliver such certificates and the fees that would be collected for such a purpose, and might bring further information to the WGIG on this matter latter on. 2/ In the WGIG papers, in many occasions the lack of a proper legal basis is highlighted for current governance agreements. We would like to bring to the attention of the WGIG, the UNMSP proposal ( see http://www.unmsp.org ), under the high patronage of H.E Adama Samass?kou, that would allow the relatively easy creation of international Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships that would be equitable, transparent, inclusive and accountable before the United Nations. A UNMSP Multi-Stakeholder partnership might provide the efficient and inclusive framework that is needed for ICANN or for the ICANN/GAC combination where it is hoped that Free Software advocacy and developers groups can be considered as contributing partners. It is worth to mention that the Free Software Community is the creator of nearly all the software that allows the Internet networking infrastructure to be able to function so effectively. However, while being such a crucial contributor, the Free Software Community has been little consulted so far on Internet governance issues. Therefore we ask the WGIG to assess the possibilities offered by the UNMSP proposal to provide a way to create suitable legal frameworks for Internet governance that would be inclusive of all stake-holders, such as the Free Software community. 3/ Many PCT group members feel that there are many other issues that have not received the proper treatment in the WGIG papers, but since no PCT group member is a member of the WGIG group, the task of communicating about those delicate and complex issues has proven too difficult to handle in practice. 4/ We kindly request the WGIG secretariat to make it available those concise comments on the WGIG web site both in the pdf format ( proprietary but interoperable ) and the OpenOffice format ( free and interoperable ) and to cease to use, for display on the WGIG web site, proprietary and non-interoperable file formats. Paris, May 15, 2005 Francis Muguet, PCT-WG co-chair --
Il giorno lun, 16-05-2005 alle 01:48 +0200, Dr. Francis MUGUET ha scritto: > Hello Free Software supporters, > > This is the text that I just sent the WGIG.Just a couple of comments...> Nevertheless, we are kindly requesting the attention of the > WGIG on the following issues : > 1/ Interoperability should be included as one factor of > appreciation and criteria within Internet Governance considerations and > assessments. > We suggest that the WGIG should adopt the following recommendationsWhile I absolutely agree on the crucial importance of interoperability, please bear in mind that the WGIG is not meant to make recommendations on the substance of any matter. It is just meant to address governance of the matters. However, I think that there's no clear entity in charge of dealing with this kind of issues - in part they relate to technical standard bodies such as IETF and ITU, in part it's intellectual property and thus WIPO, in a good part it's commerce regulations and thus WTO. Personally, I think that this is one example of the kind of issues which would benefit the most from the creation of a multistakeholder "Internet group" that could span the entire agenda of Internet governance, and thus make (non binding) recommendations on these issues. (At the same time, many WGIG members are pushing for this or that substance recommendation to be included somewhere in the report, and in this case I will definitely push for the inclusion of some recommendation on interoperability, as well as on patentability of technical standards.)> 2/ In the WGIG papers, in many occasions the lack of a proper legal > basis is highlighted for current governance agreements. We would like to > bring to the attention of the WGIG, the UNMSP proposalActually, this is one of the hottest points at WGIG now. I'm not sure whether you read the "Internet Steering Group" document that I circulated on the governance caucus list some weeks ago - that's the kind of discussion that is going on.
Dear Vittorio Sorry for my belated answer. Catching up with old mail.>Il giorno lun, 16-05-2005 alle 01:48 +0200, Dr. Francis MUGUET ha >scritto: > > >>Hello Free Software supporters, >> >>This is the text that I just sent the WGIG. >> >> > >Just a couple of comments... > > > >> Nevertheless, we are kindly requesting the attention of the >>WGIG on the following issues : >> 1/ Interoperability should be included as one factor of >>appreciation and criteria within Internet Governance considerations and >>assessments. >> We suggest that the WGIG should adopt the following recommendations >> >> > >While I absolutely agree on the crucial importance of interoperability, >please bear in mind that the WGIG is not meant to make recommendations >on the substance of any matter. It is just meant to address governance >of the matters. > > >OK, this is playing with the words. The WGIG must deliver conclusions. The issue is whether intereoperability constitutes a criteria of good governance, in the sense following sense : A bad gouvernance scheme is a scheme that does not care for interoperability or even worse prevent interoperability. A good gouvernance scheme should allow and even better enforce interoperability between the components of the network of which the governance body is in charge.>However, I think that there's no clear entity in charge of dealing with >this kind of issues - in part they relate to technical standard bodies >such as IETF and ITU, in part it's intellectual property and thus WIPO, >in a good part it's commerce regulations and thus WTO. >Exactly, your analysis is correct, this questions of interoperability. supersedes and encompasses all those you mentionned : tech standards, patents & copyrights, commerce regulations, adding one more : telecommunication regulations. Therefore it is a question of overall governance.> Personally, I >think that this is one example of the kind of issues which would benefit >the most from the creation of a multistakeholder "Internet group" that >could span the entire agenda of Internet governance, and thus make (non >binding) recommendations on these issues. > >The WGIG could bring in its conclusions that such a Multi-Stakeholder body is requirement ( a requirement but not the solution ) to achieve good governance of public networks such as the internet.>(At the same time, many WGIG members are pushing for this or that >substance recommendation to be included somewhere in the report, and in >this case I will definitely push for the inclusion of some >recommendation on interoperability, as well as on patentability of >technical standards.) > > >meaning *against* the patentability of standards, of course...>> 2/ In the WGIG papers, in many occasions the lack of a proper legal >>basis is highlighted for current governance agreements. We would like to >>bring to the attention of the WGIG, the UNMSP proposal >> >> > >Actually, this is one of the hottest points at WGIG now. I'm not sure >whether you read the "Internet Steering Group" document that I >circulated on the governance caucus list some weeks ago - that's the >kind of discussion that is going on. > >I understand that besides the UNMSP proposal, there is Milton's treaty proposal, the clone of the the UN Framework Conventon on Climate Change, I believe that all those proposals that could provide an international public law framework should be closeky examined by the WGIG. The WGIG should focus on the legal merits of each proposal, their scope and flexibility, and not an assessement if a specific approach would take more or less time to be achieved.. Best regards Francis --