United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Open Consultations
Click on above title for more info on 23 May 2007 consultation in Geneva
Click on above title for more info on 23 May 2007 consultation in Geneva
Click above title for more info on 8-10 May 2007 workshop in Buenos Aries, Argentina.
The Bush Administration’s Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) issued its much anticipated annual report of foreign countries targeted by the US for insufficiently protecting the interests of US intellectual property owners abroad. Under “Section 301†countries face crippling trade sanctions in retaliation from the US. A total of 43 countries were placed on the USTR's Section 301 Report in 2007. According to the annual review, US monopolies on producing medicine, CDs, and DVDs continue to be the main focus of US IPR foreign policy. China and Russia received a special lashing from the Bush Administration and were placed on the more serious "Priority Watch List" - as expected.
IP Justice prepared a table that summarizes the USTR Special 301 Reports from 2004-2006
By Robin Gross, IP Justice Executive Director - Yale Law School Information Society Project on Access to Knowledge
click on above title for more info on the event
IP Justice prepared a table that summarizes USTR Special 301 Reports from 2004 - 2006
IP Justice has prepared a summary of reports in anticipation of this week's release from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) of its annual "Special 301 Report" (a report-card on how well foreign countries protect the interests of large US intellectual property holders). The IP Justice table includes the last three years of USTR Special 301 Reports (2004 - 2006).
A Southern Lens on the Information Society. The Information Society Watch (ISW) captures information society issues in the context of development needs of the South. It is intended for developing learning and knowledge-sharing platforms to help build perspectives for analysis, advocacy and action.
"While Friday's vote was specific to the application for a .XXX domain name space, the Board Members' vote signals their position as to whether they are comfortable with ICANN expanding its mission to become a regulator of online human behavior. By voting to turn down the .XXX application for public policy reasons, the Board indicated it will go beyond its technical mission of DNS coordination and seek to decide what ideas are allowed to be given a voice in the new domain name space. Unfortunately, it looks like it will be impossible for any idea that is politically or culturally controversial to be permitted a new domain name space by ICANN. ICANN is setting itself up as an institution of censorship and subordination to the conflicting goals of governments...."