[A2k] Choice excerpts from Openness transcript at Rio IGF

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-Openness-14NOV07.txt




-------------

RONALDO LEMOS:   Mr. Secretary, (no audio), distinguished discussants,
ladies
  and gentlemen, thank you very much.  It's an honor to be here
representing
  civil society.  I am a professor of law at the Funda=E7=E3o Getulio
Vargas Law
  School.  My remarks are short.  I won't keep the floor long.  I'd
like to make
  a few considerations about the issue of openness. The idea of
openness cuts
  across the main themes that have been discussed during the IGF, for
instance,
  the theme of diversity and also the theme of access. You cannot
discuss any of
  these themes without discussing the issue of openness. What I would
like to do
  first is to try to give you three dimensions of the theme of
openness.  And the
  first dimension is the legal dimension. One of the crucial issues
that are
  being discussed locally and globally today is the issue of
exceptions and
  limitations to copyright. If you think about the issue of openness,
if you
  think about collaborative production of culture, information, and
scientific
  knowledge, this is a crucial issue to be considered. The second
issue that I
  would like to call to your attention is the liability of Internet
service
  providers and the liability of online service providers which has to
be
  regulated locally, but the majority of countries actually have not yet
  regulated these issues. So these are two examples of the issue of
openness and
  how it's made concrete if you consider the legal realm. The second
dimension of
  the theme of openness is a political dimension.  In that sense,
openness has a
  very intrinsic relation with governments worldwide, some governments
actively
  supporting openness, actively creating policies towards openness.
And above
  all, there's another dimension to the political issue, which is the
cooperation
  between the IGF and the other United Nations bodies.  And I will
mention only
  two, which is the World Intellectual Property Organization, especially
  considering that the development agenda has been approved by the World
  Intellectual Property Organization, and also the UNESCO diversity
convention.
  Both issues are directly related to the issue of openness and should
be
  considered from the standpoint of the IGF. The third and last
dimension of
  openness is an economic dimension. In this dimension, we have seen
increasingly
  the effect that many businesses, many companies have included
openness as part
  of their respective business models.  Actually, in some cases, we
have been
  following in the recent years a sort of a race towards openness in
the sense
  that openness actually increases the value of companies and it
creates value in
  itself. And the second issue from the economic standpoint about
openness is
  related, for instance, to the role of developing countries in regard
to
  openness.  And in this case, developing countries cannot afford, for
instance,
  the cost of the lack of interoperability of the systems that the
governments
  worldwide contract. So the issue of openness is directly related
also to the
  issue of interoperability.  And this is a crucial and fundamental
issue for
  developing countries. The other dimension in the economic sense is
the issue of
  innovation. Openness lowers the barriers for new entrants in the
economic
  markets, and therefore it also provides innovation. I will finish my
short
  intervention by giving three examples of concrete issues that are
related to
  the openness question.  The first example is the case for open
standards.  And
  as I mentioned, many governments worldwide are increasingly
participating in
  the discussion about open standards.  A Brazilian example is the
ministry of
  planning, which has created recently the AEPINC initiative, which is a
  governmental body that is worried about interoperability and
standards. The
  second concrete example is open source software, which has in many
instances
  also found support by some governments.  One example about that is,
for
  instance, governments licensing the code that has been produced by the
  government itself so that it can be openly and sometimes freely
accessed for
  the citizens of that country or maybe the citizens worldwide,
depending on the
  license that is being used. And, finally, a very important issue
that I think
  the IGF ought also to consider, which is the issue of open access.
Open access
  refers to the broader access towards, for instance, scientific
knowledge, about
  knowledge in itself.  And this is a global discussion that takes
place right
  now.  One of the important documents about this issue is the
Budapest open
  access initiative that claims scholars worldwide and institutions
worldwide to
  make scientific knowledge available.  And in Brazil, we have the
Salvador
  Declaration on Open Access and the S=E3o Paulo Letter on Scientific
Knowledge
  also going in the same direction. Finally, about the issue of open
access,
  there is a role here for the so-called open licensing of scientific
materials
  and knowledge.  And in this sense, initiatives like the science
commons and the
  creative commons have a role to play that can be used as a model of
how to make
  this knowledge available for the most people possible. Finally, then I
  conclude, these are all questions for our panelists. As you know, this
  discussion is complex.  And I believe that the answer we give to these
  questions is directly related to the type of society that we want to
build
  either locally or globally. Thank you.


<SNIP>


<SNIP>

 >>HELOISA MAGALH=C3ES:   (No audio)....  Read the questions from the
audience.
  Okay?  Mr. Balasubramaniam.  Where is he?  Okay. He's from knowledge
ecology
  international.  He has a question for Mr. Ronaldo Lemos:  What is the
  development dimension, if any, of open standards and
interoperability? Where is
  Mr. Thiru Balasubramaniam? Do you want to add something for your
question?  No?

  >>THIRU BALASUBRAMANIAM:   No.  That's fine.

  >>HELOISA MAGALH=C3ES:   Okay.

  >>RONALDO LEMOS:   Really quickly, basically, open standards is
directly
  connected to many aspects of development.  One of the important
things I have
  already mentioned in my initial presentation in which I mentioned
that the open
  standards promote lowering barriers for new entrants.  So anyone is
free to
  build upon those standards, and especially for a developing country,
in which
  access to knowledge and access to (inaudible) forms that can be
studied and
  improved are crucial to the building of capacity.  This is a crucial
issue that
  is connected to open standards in technology and in the Internet.

<SNIP>

 >HELOISA MAGALH=C3ES:   Okay. Now we have a question from David Fares
from News
  Corporation. A microphone, please, for Mr. Fares.

  >> DAVID FARES:  Thank you very much.  It's an interesting follow-on
to what
  professor guise was just saying.  And actually, I think it's
important for us
  all to remember the -- one of the founding principles of
intellectual property
  protection is that is the inextricable link between intellectual
property
  protection and the incentives for the dissemination of information and
  knowledge. And intellectual property protection also helps
facilitate cultural
  diversity by ensuring that people who can protect their works can
make their
  works available, because they can ensure that they will get some
sort of
  remuneration if they choose to get remuneration. Their clues
exclusive rights
  can always be exercised by allowing that information to be made freely
  available without compensation. So with that fundamental principle of
  intellectual property protection I would welcome input from the
panelists on
  how we can utilize the IGF as a forum to highlight the urgent need
to combat
  counterfeiting and piracy so we can all pursue our shared goal of
facilitating
  the information and knowledge. Thank you.

  >>HELOISA MAGALH=C3ES:   Okay.  Now again with the discussants, Mr.
Beno=EEt
  M=FCller. It's Beno=EEt?  It's a French name?

  >>BENO=CET M=DCLLER:   That's right, yes. Thank you. I would like to
address Mr.
  Chairman Lemos' points about open source software and open
standards. By way of
  background, I represent the Business Software Alliance, which is a
trade
  association representing most of the leading software companies and
their
  hardware partners developing and licensing software on their
proprietary, open
  source and increasingly mixed models. On open source software, I
think we all
  witnessed that open source has really gained -- open source is not
new.  It's
  been around since the inception of the Internet.  But what has
really happened
  over the recent years is that open source has really become much more
  mainstream, and has made its way into the commercial marketplace. As I
  mentioned, increasingly BSA members work on both models and a lot of
products
  we all use have incorporated both open source as well as proprietary
  components. So I think in terms of the policies that address these
issues, what
  is very important to remember and to note is that both or any type
of software
  licensing development and licensing model is really based and
facilitated by
  intellectual property.  And it is really, then, a choice for
developers,
  innovators to compete to innovate both on the technical side but
also on the
  business model side.  And that's what really we have witnessed over
the recent
  years. So in terms, again, of public policy, with again I think
intellectual
  policy pro tech is really what is available to enable all of these
development
  models to flourish and to compete as opposed to preferences.  Because
  preferring one over the other limits choice, limits competition, and
ultimately
  for the user, including the government user, reduces the opportunity
to get
  best value for money. Because also of this increasing trend to see
mixed
  solutions, and the way the marketplace has evolved where customers,
including
  government customers use products on the different models and from an
  increasingly wide range of suppliers, interoperability clear is
becoming more
  and more important.  And open standards are one of the ways to achieve
  interoperability. So it is absolutely true that open standards have
gained
  significant interest among policymakers as well as in the
marketplace.  BSA
  members are responsible for the development of the open standards,
all the
  technology standards, that exist today, and it is very, very
important to BSA
  members to continue, obviously, to collaborate on standardization
and compete
  on implementations. What is important, again, here is
interoperability is the
  goal, and actually the ultimate goal is efficient IFT infrastructure
with the
  right level of interoperability.  But these are very complex and
market
  sensitive issues where different interests, such as also
reliability, security,
  value for money have to be balanced. So it is mostly a marketplace
issue. Now,
  turning to Chairman Lemos' point about government roles on open
standards, I
  think, again here governments can enable the environment, facilitate
the
  industry to innovate, including in the area of intellectual property
-- sorry
  of interoperability by recognizing the value of intellectual
property also in
  standards.  Mandating standards is very risky because particularly
in areas
  where mandating a standard would ultimately result in mandating a
particular
  product. So what I would contend is the goal for government, and
particularly
  when government acts as purchaser of software, should be an
efficient I.T., a
  part of which is the right level of interoperability and open
standards are one
  of the means to achieve this end.

  >>HELOISA MAGALH=C3ES:   Okay. Thank you, Mr. Muller.

  >>RONALDO LEMOS:   I ask your permission once again to take the
floor.  I will
  be very brief in my comment. First, there is no contradiction
between open
  source and intellectual property. This is a common mistake, in which
people
  oppose intellectual property to open source and free software.  And
actually,
  open source is just a modality of licensing. So the creator, the
legitimate
  owner of the software uses these exclusive rights in order to
license the
  software by means of a license that allows the free distribution, free
  modification, free changes of the license.  So there is no
contradiction
  between that. The second thing is intellectual property is, indeed,
a very
  important incentive for the creation for the promotion of culture,
for the
  dissemination of culture. But it's one incentive.  There are other
incentives
  that should be taken into account. Nowadays, there has been large
academic and
  business discussion about other incentives that are not related.
They are
  called nonmarket incentives.  Other people call it commons-based pier
  production.  Others call it simply collaborative culture, and that
should also
  be taken into account. Especially because these incentives are not
primarily
  linked to intellectual property as their main goal or as their main
incentive
  for being generated. And, finally, regarding the governmental role,
it has to
  be taken into account that different constitutions, for instance,
for different
  countries have principles that actually embed the adoption of open
standards.
  That is, for instance, the case for the Brazilian constitution, in
which many
  of the principles and the rules of the Brazilian constitution
mandate the
  adoption of open standards, diversity, transparency. So that's it.
Thank you.

<SNIP>

MARKUS KUMMER:   Thank you, madam chairman. (no audio). Concluding
remarks,
  I will just give a Secretariat's reading of what I heard. And not as
ambitious
  to call it a summary, as that would be very difficult to summarize
such a rich
  discussion.

<SNIP>

It clearly appeared that openness is a multifaceted and
  multi-dimensional issue.  It's a cross-cutting issue with linkages
to the other
  IGF themes:  diversity, access, and security.  And it has legal,
political and
  economic dimensions. Several speakers pointed out that there are
questions of
  balance. There is a balance between the two I.P.s, as several
speakers referred
  to.  The I.P. for Internet protocol and the I.P. for intellectual
property.

<SNIP>

There is also a discussion on open standards and free and open source
software.  It was pointed out that they may lower the barriers of
entry and promote innovation.  Again, they were seen as  important for
developing countries.  But there was -- was not seen as a
  contradiction between free and open source software and intellectual
property.
  And it was recalled that in WSIS declaration of principle and Geneva
  declaration and the Tunis Agenda, that both models were seen as
equally
  valuable and both models have their merit. I think I will try to
abridge
  somewhat as we are running out of time. There was also a discussion
on what
  kind of regulation we want, should we have laws or should we have
  self-regulation.  And my reading was that there was general favor
for a mixed
  solution between hard and soft law instruments. With regard to the
economic
  dimension, there was a discussion on market dominance and virtual
monopolies
  and their relationship to openness and freedom of expression.  And
it was also
  pointed out that the discussion we had in the IGF had a relationship
to
  discussions held in the World Intellectual Property Organization,
such as the
  development agenda and also in UNESCO, and there, the conventional
cultural
  diversity again was mentioned. The discussion just towards the end
actually
  recalled very much the discussion we had in Athens last year, that the
  legislation needs to be adapted to cyberspace.  And again it was
pointed out
  that legislation is not something that is taking place outside
society, but it
  needs to reflect the wishes of society and be adapted to what
society really
  wants. I think the chairman in his opening remarks said it is
ultimately a
  political choice of what society we want. And with that, I hand back
to the
  chair, who will make his personal concluding remarks. Thank you.

  >>RONALDO LEMOS:   Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. All my
remarks should be
  deemed as personal.  I'm not trying to summarize or synthesize
what's been said
  during this panel. Basically, it's clear that the openness topic is
a pervasive
  topic in Internet governance, and with significant developments and
questions
  related to access, diversity, and security. In its economic and
regulatory
  dimension, the debate has made a point that different regimes of
intellectual
  property or different licensing regimes in intellectual property,
either for
  software or for other components of the network, as well as the
dissemination
  of open standards, might generate in the economic sphere distinctive
  opportunities for innovation and for the autonomous insertion of
developing
  countries. The debate also pointed out that the new possibilities and
  challenges brought by the Internet must be considered in the debates
about
  intellectual property and must also be contemplated in -- vis-=E0-vis
issues like
  privacy rights, right to information, and the fight against
criminality. Also,
  the theme of openness is an essential requisite for the freedom of
expression,
  which is recognized as a human right and must be ensured on a global
  perspective. The free circulation of information and content on a
diversified
  basis is also intrinsically connected by the openness issue. The
Internet is a
  particularly well-adapted means to accommodate pluralism and
cultural diversity
  and is essential, too, for both to be preserved and enhanced. The
maintenance
  of the opening characteristics -- the open characteristics of the
Internet,
  which was the original Internet conception, is an essential
requisite for the
  fulfillment of the Internet potential in all these aforementioned
aspects.
  Accordingly, the variety of aspects that have been introduced by the
  distinguished panelists and the distinguished discussants and by the
audience
  as a whole demonstrate that the theme of openness must be --
continue to
  receive full attention and priority attention in the future
discussions about
  Internet governance. Thank you very much. [ Applause ]