[A2k] As a moderator,

Thu May 7 07:38:02 2009

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Hi

I know an A2K Treaty is somewhat ambitious if we want all our needs met, bu=
t could a draft not be submitted to WIPO with as many L & E's as we hope to=
 include, including those for the blind and deaf, instead of doing it in tw=
o parts over a much longer period?  There are enough WIPO studies and repor=
ts which record all the existing L & E's adopted in various countries. Ones=
 not addressed could be included.  The issue of DRMs, etc. could all be add=
ressed as well.

There are many issues that affect both the sighted and the blind, the heari=
ng and the deaf, and if they could all be addressed at the same time, that =
would be far better for all consumers of information. As mentioned, I am no=
t against a Treaty for the Blind but an A2 Treaty, including their needs as=
 well, would be far more beneficial to all users. The wheels at WIPO turn s=
o slowly. They will take some time deliberating on the WBU Treaty and then =
only address those needs, instead of looking at an A2K Treaty and taking a =
bit longer to deliberate but at least addressing all users' needs in the lo=
ng run.

Regards
Denise

________________________________

From: a2k-admin@lists.essential.org on behalf of James Love
Sent: Wed 06/05/2009 11:03
To: Denise Nicholson
Cc: bea@vialibre.org.ar; Paul Lehto; Manon Ress; a2k discuss list; Richard =
M Stallman
Subject: RE: [A2k] As a moderator,

On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 09:05 +0200, Denise Nicholson wrote:
> Just sending my question again as no one responded to it before. What hap=
pened to the A2K Treaty, which was being discussed a few years ago. A lot o=
f effort went into the first draft and it certainly had potential for a goo=
d Treaty for all users of information.  Surely this should be promoted at W=
iPO? The Treaty would have provisions for all users, including blind and de=
af persons? Would this not solve all these issues? Why is a separate Treaty=
 being considered for the Blind (I do not have anything against this though=
) when an A2K Treaty could be promoted at WIPO?
>
> Thanks
> Denise Nicholson

Dear Denise,

The situation with the A2K treaty is somewhat complicated, as the
ambitions of the proposal are quite broad, and there have been different
ideas about how to proceed.

You make reference to a 2005 draft treaty proposal that was the result
of a collaborative multi-stakeholder process, hosted in stages by
CPTech, TWN, IFLA and TACD.  This draft was an effort to elaborate
possible elements of such a treaty, following a proposal by Argentina
and Brazil in August 2004 to consider an A2K treaty at WIPO.

In its 2005 formulation, the a2k treaty proposal included a number of
elements that were almost modules, covering a wide range of topics,
including not only those relating to copyright, but also patents, and
issues not defined by patents or copyrights, such as certain measures to
support open  standards or public goods involving funding or
procurement.  Some of these modules have been refined and advanced
separately, such as for example elements of the 2005 proposal by Chile,
and the 2008 proposal by Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua and Uruguay, to work
on minimum limitations and exceptions to copyright, and some of the WIPO
SCP committee work on open standards and L&E in patent law.

The Library in Alexandria held a consultation on the a2k treaty, that
was quite useful, but also revealed some efforts by UNESCO to question
WIPO as a fora for such a treaty.  There is some talk of an EU directive
on a2k, or other regional efforts.

Strategically, there are some things one has to consider.  First, are
governments themselves prepared to propose concrete steps to advance a
negotiation, and if so, under what terms of reference?  Second, do
various constituencies, such as the education, library, or free software
communities, or the innovative services industries, believe that they
have the correct "ask" for a negotiation?  Third, what is the political
environment like?  Would a negotiation end us in a good result, or a bad
result?  Etc.

People are working on all of these issues right now.

--
James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International
http://www.keionline.org <http://www.keionline.org/>  | mailto:james.love a=
t keionline.org
Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva Mobile +41.76.413.=
6584

_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
A2k@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

<html><p><font face =3D "verdana" size =3D "0.8" color =3D "navy">This comm=
unication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you ha=
ve received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and d=
estroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communica=
tion without the permission of the University. Only authorized signatories =
are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and reci=
pients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally=
 binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions =
of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The Univ=
ersity of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the Unive=
rsity and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University =
agrees in writing to the contrary.</font></p></html>