International Forum on Knowledge Rights
6 April 2003

During the Duke conference on International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized IP Regime, Michael Blakeney and Peter Drahos proposed the formation of a "web of influence" that would link northern and southern activists and academics together for purposes of more fully informing governments, treaty organizations, NGOs and each other on issues relating to rights in knowledge.

Approximately 40 participants met at the conclusion of the conference to discuss the proposal. There was significant concern about adopting an advocacy profile however the concept of a network for the exchange of scholarship is a very attractive one. A more concrete proposal is eagerly anticipated.

Further comments are as follows.

1. Objectives

Connect academics in north and south with the goal of making scholarship more useful in the real world.


2. Concerns

2.1. The objectives of this enterprise and the role of the participants need to be clear.

2.2. Should the enterprise undertake an advocacy/activist role? Should NGO personnel be included?

Advantages:

  • Academic scholarship is badly needed to prevent adoption of policies that are ill-suited to stated goals and capture of platforms by special interests
  • Private interests are well able to represent their interests; civil society/consumers less ability to present their needs before regulatory agencies
  • Provides practical experience for scholars
  • Many academics are already acting as policy advisors

    Disadvantages:

  • Advocacy role would conflict with existing personal obligations many academics have as objective consultants
  • Risk of losing objectivity (true and perceived)
  • Negative effect on credibility as independent, unbiased analysts
  • Surfeit of activist NGOs already exists

    Suggestions:

  • Begin on a limited basis by restricting activity to the exchange of information, the sharing of resources, and the provision of informed and reasoned analysis. Forum can make itself known to NGOs who can solicit the enterprise as needed.
  • Commitments would be made on an individual basis.

2.3. Given the existing demands on personnel, how much commitment from individuals will be required in order for the Forum to perform in a respectable and effective way?


3. Possible Models

National Academy of Science system - appoint balanced panel for in-depth study to inform and alert Congress.

Social Science Research Network (SSRN) - circulation of applied working papers/research/advocacy documents.

Chilling Effects - participating institutions each take responsibility for content in different topic area on shared website


4. Organizational Values

  • Make a particular effort to connect with southern colleagues
  • Avoid patronization
  • Interdisciplinary, international nature
  • Recognition of common goal
  • Ensure spontaneity; avoid boxes
  • Prevent overwhelming amounts of traffic
  • Offer resources not currently available elsewhere
  • Provide constant revision and updating of content
  • Outreach to other networks
  • Freedom to exchange and discuss scholarly proposals in advance of publication


5. Features

Discussion list(s)

  • Topical working groups
  • Real time communication/chat room option
  • Usable/searchable archive of discussion
  • Early notification of regulatory activity

Website compiling resources for teaching and research

  • Identification of institutions and personnel by area of expertise at both academic and policy levels
  • Research clearing house
  • Exchange and discussion of paper topics, works in progress
  • Access to/continuous update of relevant databases of congressional reports, treaty drafts, etc
  • Access to congressional reports, treaty drafts, hearing schedules, comment calls, amicus solicitations, conference announcements, commission appointments, etc.


6. Benefits

  • Access to students and clinical programs for research support
  • Access to broader expertise (social scientists, economists, political economists, etc.)
  • Exchange of crucial information, especially in the policy arena
  • Identification of key individuals and organizations
  • Early warning system allowing for timely preparation of comment
  • Diversification of nomenclature
  • Provide opportunities for collaboration
  • Share resources
  • Satisfies need for public interest focus not met by existing discussion forums
  • Provides reach expertise not currently accessible
  • Allows academics isolated in their institutions to discuss ideas with expert colleagues
  • Helps identify gaps in knowledge


7. Sample projects

Need for serious background papers/amicus/practical advice for

  • WIPO copyright treaty will be on the table for 10 years; long-term issues need long-term attention but NGOs have dropped out since signature.
  • Non-industry review of issues at international organization level is badly needed (as was organized for the database directive)
  • Patent harmonization at draft treaty stage-must present issues to nations with less bargaining power so they can organize effective responses
  • Free Trade of Americas negotiations could totally revise IP systems of western hemisphere.
  • Ongoing bilateral negotiations are non-transparent
  • TRIPS Art. 27(3)(b) negotiations


8. Action Items

  • Identify project leader(s)
  • Identify host(s), institutional affiliation(s)
  • Identify site/list/working group managers
  • Develop more specific proposal for distribution by e-mail
  • Select a suitable name
  • Conduct outreach among colleagues and existing networks

 

Notes drafted by Diane Cabell with apologies for errors.