Internet governance issues on which IP Justice engages include: Accountability of Internet Governance Institutions, Multi-Stakeholderism, the Role of Governments, Civil Society, Domain Name Policy, International Relations, Democracy, Justice, Transparency, Internet Freedom, Development, Human Rights, Whois Privacy Policy, Cross-Border Jurisdiction and the Limits of National Sovereignty in Cyberspace
Internet governance venues in which IP Justice participates include: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF), Net Mundial, ITU World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
IGF Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) Contribution for Rio Summit
DCOS was created at the Athens Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in November 2006. Our mission is to provide government policy makers and other stakeholders with useful tools to make informed decisions to preserve the current open architecture of the Internet and the World Wide Web, which together provide a knowledge ecosystems that has profoundly shaped the multiplier effect of global public goods and improved economic and social welfare. ...
‘Freedom of Expression Online’ Contribution to IGF 2007 Meeting Plans
"A broadly recognized right to freedom of expression and communication is guaranteed in many of the major international treaties dealing with civil liberties. Many of these treaties are legally binding on countries and many recognize the need for freedom of expression “in any mediumâ€, foreshadowing the battles of the digital environment. Freedom of expression rights should not be devalued on the Internet and individuals must retain their existing rights to communicate in the new online environment. ...
A2K@IGF Dynamic Coalition Written Contribution to IGF 2007 in Rio de Janeiro
Our coalition is particularly concerned about the impact that unbalanced intellectual property rights have on the Internet as a tool of free expression, innovation, education, and development. One focus of the coalition is setting methodologies or best practice norms for the implementation of laws dealing with Technological Protection Measures (TPM) and Digital Rights Management (DRM) restrictions, which have been shown to present serious impediments to access to knowledge and the free flow of information. Another focus is on coordinating participation and awareness of Access to Knowledge (A2K) activities at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), including proposals for a Development Agenda and an Access to Knowledge Treaty at WIPO. Another area of concern for our coalition is with increasing attempts to impose liability on third parties, particularly information providers, for the infringing activities of others. ...
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Summit in Rio de Janeiro 12-15 Nov 2007
Click on above title for info on the 12-15 November 2007 IGF meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
IGF Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) Meeting on 9-10 July 2007 in Geneva
The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) will meeting on 9-10 July 2007 in Geneva, Switzerland.
Global Information Society Watch – Launch of the 2007 Report
Click on above title for more info on book launch on 22 May 2007 in Geneva, Switzerland. The meeting is open to the public and is part of the WSIS cluster of events in Switzerland in late May 2007.
United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Advisory Group Meeting
Click on above title for more info on 24-25 May 2007 (non-public) meeting.
United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Open Consultations
Click on above title for more info on 23 May 2007 consultation in Geneva
Latin America Workshop: Challenges and Opportunities for Freedom of Expression in Networked Communications Environment
Click above title for more info on 8-10 May 2007 workshop in Buenos Aries, Argentina.
Slides on the Law of Search Engines @ Yale A2K2 Conference
By Robin Gross, IP Justice Executive Director - Yale Law School Information Society Project on Access to Knowledge
Table of USTR Special 301 Reports (2004 – 2006)
IP Justice prepared a table that summarizes USTR Special 301 Reports from 2004 - 2006
ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names
"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...."
Milton Mueller & Bruce Tonkin Discuss Censorship and New gTLD Policy
>>MILTON MUELLER: And I think that's tragic, that you are basically saying -- you are creating a political process of censorship. You're sort of abandoning 300 years of liberal ideology about freedom of expression and saying that we are going to decide what is allowed to be uttered at the top level based on an alleged universality that doesn't exist. And I would just remind you that one of the ways that we ended several centuries of religious warfare was not by deciding which religion was right; it was by the principle of tolerance, which allowed all the religions to exist and separated state power from expression and conscious and belief. And that's, I'd suggest, a direction we have to go. ....
ICANN Board Member Susan Crawford’s Remarks on Vote to Prevent .xxx Domain Name Space Application
Excellent comments on new gTLD process: "... I note as a side point that such a requirement in the U.S. would violate the first amendment to our Constitution. But this content-related censorship should not be ICANN's concern and ICANN should not allow itself to be used as a private lever for government chokepoint content control by making up reasons to avoid the creation of such a TLD in the first place. To the extent there are public policy concerns with this TLD, they can be dealt with through local laws. ... We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the basis of their technical and financial strength. We should avoid dealing with content concerns to the maximum extent possible. We should be opening up new TLDs. ..."