[Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Expresses Concern over Impact of IPR Provisions in TPP Agreement Draft

Tue Nov 19 06:01:01 PST 2013

Dear Alejandro,

You are right of course - some of our Chapters are engaged already with
their respective governments and of course we remember the important role
the Mexican Chapter has played in blocking ACTA.  The "first step" refers
to the new phase we are entering, now the complete IPR Chapter has been
leaked.

As we don't have in house capacities for carrying out translation, we
definitely would not be able to compete with you - any community support
is helpful! If not mistaken, we should cover the entire TPP area with
English and Spanish.

Best regards
Markus

On 11/19/13 2:54 PM, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" <apisan at unam.mx> wrote:

>Markus,
>
>quite happy with the statement but:
>
>1. we cannot use it "as a first step in [engagement] with policy makers
>in the countries concerned" because, what do you know, it is not our
>first step; we've been interacting with thte government, the academic,
>technical and professional community, and industry, for quite a while, on
>the issue of TPP. Since we were able to get the Senate to block ACTA,
>people actually count on ISOC Mexico to provide a voice, some reasoning
>and analysis, and parts of a strategy to deal with TPP as well. We'd be
>glad to share with you when you find it fit.
>
>2. when do you plan to release the statement in the languages of "the
>countries concerned"? We can use that far more than the English-language
>statement. We may have a translation of our own by this evening if any
>session at ICANN becomes a bit boring.
>
>Yours,
>
>Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>Facultad de Química UNAM
>Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>
>
>
>+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>
>+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
>Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
>LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
>Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
>http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
>---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
>.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>
>________________________________________
>Desde: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org
>[chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] en nombre de Markus Kummer
>[kummer at isoc.org]
>Enviado el: martes, 19 de noviembre de 2013 07:01
>Hasta: Elver Loho; Evan Leibovitch
>CC: ISOC Chapter Delegates
>Asunto: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Expresses Concern over
>Impact of IPR Provisions in TPP Agreement Draft
>
>Dear Elver, all,
>
>Thanks for the support. Indeed, you are right in thinking that time was of
>essence. We wanted to issue the statement while the news was still fresh.
>As we indicate in the statement, the leaked IPR Chapter of the TPP is a
>complex document that requires some time to analyse and absorb. We are
>aware that this is not the final text and it contains all the proposals
>and counterproposals. Having said that, some of these proposals caused our
>concern, in particular those relating to intermediaries and their overall
>impact on the Internet.
>
>We of course hope that all the Chapters in the concerned countries use the
>statement as a first step in their engagement with policy makers in the
>countries concerned. In order to facilitate their engagement strategies we
>hope to be able to translate the statement into Spanish.
>
>Of course we are happy to engage in policy discussions with you all. When
>we are speaking on public policy issues, we are looking at them from a
>global perspective and how they relate to the Internet. Given the highly
>territorial nature of IPR and the apparent differences between national
>laws and approaches, we are keen to hear from you and learn how these
>issues affect your respective countries.
>
>Best regards
>Markus
>
>On 11/19/13 8:35 AM, "Elver Loho" <elver.loho at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In defense of ISOC HQ (I bet nobody thought I'd every say that), I can
>>sort of understand how they don't consult with chapters or members
>>about upcoming press releases. This is a big circle of people and a
>>public mailing list, after all. Press releases tend to have more
>>impact when they are timely and when they have something brand new to
>>say. Both of which are harder to do when you have to consult with a
>>lot of people beforehand.
>>
>>What I would like to see is ISOC staff, who are working on TPP,
>>engaging in discussion with us about this topic on this mailing list.
>>And about other things as well. We hardly ever see staff here for some
>>reason.
>>
>>Best,
>>Elver
>>.ee
>>
>>elver.loho at gmail.com
>>+372 5661 6933
>>skype: elver.loho
>>
>>
>>On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>>> Of course, there is more to the Internet references in the TPP and it's
>>>a
>>> shame that the ISOC analysis was not more complete.
>>>
>>> There also is end-user-POSITIVE text in the leaked TPP, specifically in
>>>the
>>> proposed requirement that member states' country code top level domains
>>> (ccTLDs)  rules more closely follow the same standards as ICANN sets
>>>for
>>> generic TLDs.
>>>
>>> There are other clauses that, to me, are not only unobjectionable but
>>>in
>>> fact might be welcomed.
>>> (https://wikileaks.org/tpp/#QQC12)
>>>
>>> One of ICANN's dirty little secrets is that generic TLDs have a
>>>completely
>>> different regulatory framework from ccTLDs, even though many cc's are
>>> marketed as generics (.tv .co .me etc). Creating an equitable playing
>>>field
>>> in this regard at very least reduces end user confusion, but also
>>> potentially offers more true and fair competition between TLDs.
>>>
>>> - Evan
>>>
>>> PS: I'm obviously new to this game, but is it customary for ISOC HQ to
>>>make
>>> press releases on global policy positions before alerting - let alone
>>> consulting - chapters?
>>>
>>> If chapters are expected to support / advance / defend such statements
>>>at
>>> the national or local level, getting advance buy-in would seem only
>>> reasonable. At least, enable an advance briefing with ISOC policy
>>>developers
>>> so that chapter advocates are not caught off-guard should local media
>>>or
>>> policy makers take an interest.
>>>
>>> I'm also not saying that the TPP, or the process which created it, are
>>>on
>>> the balance Good Things. Just that it is just as important to encourage
>>>the
>>> good parts as to reject the bad.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>>_______________________________________________
>>As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>>to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>>Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>
>