Hamilton StuartOrganizer Entity
Legal Frameworks and Cyber-crime (Spam, Cyber-security, etc.)Consise description
Many accept the multistakeholder model as being the appropriate framework through which Internet policy should be developed. Under this model, all stakeholders, whether from the private sector, government, academia, civil society or non-governmental organizations, participate in the policy development process.
It is well-settled that Internet-related Intellectual Property policy, which includes copyright, has become part and parcel of Internet policy. But, in contrast with Internet policy, copyright policy is not developed through multistakeholder processes. The multilateral fora of the World Intellectual Property Organisation and the World Trade Organisation, in addition to plurilateral and bilateral trade agreements, set the copyright norms that many countries are expected to follow.
As the Internet and digitization have collided with traditional copyright regimes, copyright’s ‘square peg’ - where uses of copyrighted works require permission - is increasingly unable to cope with the Internet ‘round hole’ - where replication of data is fundamental to the operation of the Internet. The question is who should participate in the process to deal with regulation that addresses this problem.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the FOR team is to support a 'yes' answer to the the proposition through well-reasoned arguments and supporting evidence. The objective of the AGAINST team is to refute the arguments of the FOR team and convince the audience of its position. PROCEDURE: (presuming 90 minutes, with time allocations TBC) MODERATOR (introduces the debate proposition and the speakers) MULTISTAKEHOLDER debater No. 1 (constructive speech) MULTILATERAL debater No. 1 (constructive speech) MULTISTAKEHOLDER debater No. 2 (constructive speech/rebuttal) MULTILATERAL debater No. 2 (constructive speech/rebuttal) 1st MULTISTAKEHOLDER reply (rebuttal) 1st MULTILATERAL reply (rebuttal) MODERATOR solicits comments from the HOUSE FLOOR MULTISTAKEHOLDER reply (rebuttal) MULTILATERAL reply (rebuttal) MODERATOR: Calls for vote Floor votes Discussion and Wrap upModerator
Susan Chalmers, Internet NZRemote Moderator
Have you organized workshops at previous IGFs?
The workshop discussed the advantages and disadvantages of multistakeholder and multilateral approaches to copyright frameworks. A panel of four experts made opening statements that touched upon the following themes and issues:
- · Recognition that the workshop was addressing a timely issue, in light of the attention on multistakeholderism at the IGF.
- · Some of the panelists and a number of participants stressed the importance of that debate also in light of the lack of stakeholder input into ongoing trade negotiations that include copyright such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
- · That the input of varied stakeholders was an important issue for WIPO and one that they have actively sought in the processes they have set up for the negotiation of two recent treaties. For WIPO, a successful method of developing copyright frameworks will include all stakeholder groups - civil society, the technical and academic communities and the private sector, supplementing the multilateral process. This is particularly true for the negotiation of frameworks concerning digital works.
- · That the beneficiaries of multilateral approaches are often interested parties rather than end users, and that the results are often political compromises. The global nature of the Internet, and the interests of diverse end users, does not necessarily balance with the direction of nation states.
- · One of the advantages of multilateralism is that it facilitates a level playing field for participants – large and small participants are treated equally. One of the risks in multistakeholder negotiation is that the smaller, participants could be overwhelmed by larger bodies or Member States. As an example, in the European Broadcasting Union the Slovenian member is treated as equally important as the BBC.
Following these initial interventions the moderator posed follow-up questions designed to get the panelists to take a clearer position on which approach to copyright their sector favoured. The panelists responded:
Following this the discussion was opened up to the floor for the remainder of the workshop. The floor discussion covered the following areas:
- · The need for a radical rethinking of processes designed to produce copyright frameworks – lessons could be learned from the corporate sector where innovative approaches are being employed to link up disparate business sectors.
- · Whether or not fundamental human rights can be adequately respected in emerging copyright frameworks.
- · The deficiencies in the negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) that have sidelined on the civil society and academic and technical community stakeholder groups, while responding to private sector concerns. Lack of transparency regarding the IP Chapter dismayed several commenters in the audience.
- · The possibility of moving to a global governance model that would benefit all nations equally, as opposed to prioritizing some bigger nations over others.
Conclusions drawn from the workshop and further comments
The workshop drew the following conclusions:
Stuart HamiltonEstimate the overall number of women participants present at the session
About half of the participants were womenTo what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?
Discussion affecting gender equality and women's empowerment
It was not seen as related to the session theme and was not raised
|Number of FEMALE participants||Number of MALE participants||Number of Young participants||Number of Developing Countries Participants||Number of Developed Countries Participants||Number of LDCs participants||Number of TOTAL Participants|