Programme for fellows for Day 1 – 3.12.2008

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Maureen Hilyard on December 3, 2008 at 10:21am

Hi Nikola
Just finishing off my earlier message which I interrupted to attend your briefing meeting...

Day 3
2.30pm Workshop 16 Digital content strategies
4pm Workshop 17 Emerging Cyberlaw issues

Day 4
9.30am Workshop 81 National multistakeholder processes
11am Best practice forum - Turkey - transforming to an Info Society
2pm Freedom of Expression and the Media

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Maureen Hilyard on December 3, 2008 at 10:44am

This is IJEOMA's proposed schedule of sessions...

Day 2
9.30am Workshop 20 - governance of gatekeepers
11.30am Workshop 2 - challenges facing internet operators
2.30pm Workshop 76 - driving investment in emerging economies
4pm Workshop 85 - the transbounday internet

Day 3
9am - Safety: Child Online
11.30am best practice: forum children online
2.30pm Workshop 16 - digitial content strategies
4.30pm Best practice forum - internet governance

Day 4
9am - Workshop 32 Dignity, security and privacy of children
11am Workshop 33 Global culture for cybersecurity

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Charity Gamboa-Embley on December 3, 2008 at 6:37pm

BEST PRACTICE FORUM: Child Online Protection

Here is a rundown of this session moderated by ITU.

A general overview of the session presented some observations that children are willing to share information in return for good services. This means that children are very gullible to child predators. Due to this pressing problem, there is a need to develop a coordinated global network for online safety. By protecting children online from abuse would build online confidence with regards to security.

In line with this, ITU reported that in June of this year, a new harmonized number 116 111 is the CHI or Child Hotline International (the speaker spoke of the hotline number quite so fast so I am not particularly sure if this is a 116 OR 111 number or the hotline number is the combination of both 3 digit number). Reports indicated that there are over 10 million calls in child hotlines that were received in a year. It was observed that sometimes children call hotlines because they were abused or just want to talk to somebody with regards to problems that would make them contemplate suicide. So having a single line will make the hotline more widely known.

ITU also reported that a few weeks back, they launched a child online safety project endorsed by 101 governments. It was noted that it was not an easy feat making governments agree all together so it was a great effort, thus, facilitating international cooperation. Plus, having a unified stand would help identify potential risk factors. Facilitating membership of 191 governments and 700 private entities would facilitate standardization, more development work – all these are great focal points for creating partnerships on a global basis. Furthermore, educational institutions are tapped to help minimize the risks by including in the curricula lesson plans about child online safety. It is encouraged to share our concerns and develop necessary procedure so children can definitely benefit from this technology.

eNASCO – European NGO Alliance for Child Safety Online – talked about the need to address this concern on child online safety in different angles and in different legislations applicable for each state. eNASCO also gave a report on how to block sites. They informed the audience that police database could contain 8000+ URLs containing illegal sites. Then the ISP’s are furnished with this URL list of illegal sites from the national police. When the user writes the URL, it is automatically blocked.

To conclude this report, “Child Helpline International” is a PHONE and outreach service for children. With 3 to 4 digit number being applied nationally for each country can ease access. Paragraph 2 of the WSIS Tunis Agenda would remind of this need.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Charity Gamboa-Embley on December 3, 2008 at 6:54pm

YOUTH AND INTERNET GOVERNANCE: Challenges for the Future

Let me just focus on this session on a particular panel discussion/report presented by Agnieska from Poland, a Diplo alumni, on cyberbullying. I had wanted to question her and share my actual experience dealing with cyberbullying but there wasn't much time.

Three years ago, we simply called it as online bullying - just another kind of bullying. Agnieska talked about what Poland has been campaigning with regards to cyber-bullying and she gave some suggestions as to how the sensitivity of children can be tapped to create awareness of such a problem. She talked about empathizing and I agree with her on this part. I would like to share my article that I wrote about this case three years ago. I got hold of this story as my students before were friends of the victim. My students approached me and asked me of my opinion because of what happened to their friend. I incorporated the situation in my lesson and instructed my students to form into smaller groups. They were asked to discuss their answers on a set of questions I gave each group and after, they were asked to report to class about their discussion. I feel that in this way it will help kids to be aware of the choices before them.

Would anyone believe me that three years ago, I knew this problem will surface more if we do not incorporate this in our lesson plans. My coordinator in our department ignored me when I was pushing for online bullying awareness to be taught in the lower levels. You see, Internet classes were only taught in Sophomore year in high school in the institution where I used to work. I had envisioned for the entire high school curriculum to have Internet classes at all levels to be included in the curriculum. Sad to say, the revised basic education curriculum in the Philippines cut the number of units for technology classes. Plus, IT classes were included in the T.H.E (Technology and Home Economics) department so there was limited class hours per week.

Anyhow, here is the link:
http://www.takingitglobal.org/express/panorama/article.html?Content...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rasha on December 3, 2008 at 7:22pm

hi everyone , since i didnt sleep more than 5 hrs for the last three days , here is my short breif on my first day , i promise to make it longer tomorrow :)

9:30 Pannel session : realizing Multi Lingual Internet

an interesting discussion about the ICT development progress in countries like india , egypt sharing experiences in domain names issues and allowing contries to use thier native language as an urgent growing need and ways to support that process ..


11:00-12:30 Workshop :youth and internet governance ;chalenges for the future

projects to give a wider involvement for youth with internet goverrnance process like in egypt which concerns in involving youth in programs and activities presented by Mrs.Niven Tawfik - and another presentation by Prof. Weinhachter (aarhus University ) discussing the benefits of summer schools and what they can add to the participants and the plans of making 2 summer schools instead of one (south and north summer) and the impression about the previous summer schools and the plans of making an arab hub to run summer schools in the region

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Charity Gamboa-Embley on December 3, 2008 at 7:42pm

KNOWLEDGE AS A GLOBAL PUBLIC GOOD: How Fair use, Open Source and ICT Standards

A bit of introduction was presented on copyright issues. The speaker talked about fair use and discussed about special limitations of resources. The emphasis here was how such copyright laws can be made flexible depending on how content can be used. In other words, we all wish we can access information without so much restriction.

The speaker from Yale Information Society presented interesting points with regards to the link between global standards and flow of information. This can be explained in the three implications of open standards:

[1] issue of open standards and distributive justice;
[2] issue of open standards and political freedom;
[3] issue of open standards and issue of development

The speaker pointed out that “standards” are not software but these exist more as an abstract – something that is hidden, like blue prints to develop technology. She further explained that technical standards are not design decision standards and that such standards make political decisions.

With regards to the issue of open standards and distributive justice, the speaker pointed out that resources should be made finite, how these can be developed and be distributed. Well, there are others who prioritize flow of information. She mentioned asymmetric use of broadband, about IP as scarce resources and how any exchange use this unique numbers, and how similar it works like how postal address can locate physical location. The speaker mentioned about the transition of the IPv4 (using 32 bits) tp IPv6, expanding the number to 128 bits which is similar to 340 n-dillion number of addresses. But she observed how the switch to IPv6 was not that extensive. In addition, the speaker made mention about how standards are distributed or if they are distributed at all. This then points to access and wealth itself.

As for the issue of open standards and political freedom, the speaker simply talked about a more direct political implication – making policies towards civil liberties. These values will dissipate if restrictions are implemented. There is a need for the balance towards the need for security. Other implications include the need for privacy, the need for protecting innovation while protecting copyright for digital education, and how access of public documents present transparency and creates balance.

As for the issue of open standards and issue of development – the issue at hand is about economic development. The speaker pointed out the diffusion of information and how ICT standards can impede development. She specifically emphasized about the lack of interoperability and the lack of intellectual properties that would reflect the lack of policies on other countries.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mwende Njiraini on December 4, 2008 at 6:04am

0930-1100 hrs Workshop 43: Legal aspects of governance critical internet Policy issues of public relevance
1st presentation
The issues on that have legal implications include:
• internet security intellectual property rights, infringement, privacy and protection mechanisms
• IP domain name protection, conflicts arising out of data and content ownership privacy therefore increasing role of P2P in growth of internet 2
• Consumer status and rights in relation to e-commerce cross border and domestic online trade
• Telecom issue viz backbone deployment and interconnection costs
• Freedom of expression – the extent of censorship and control on online content

There is need for capacity building to create meaningful participation of individual and SMEs as well as increasing connectivity through building IXPs and local content development

The question was raised as to whether there a need of alternative institutional mechanism.
The salient features of the MOU between ICANN and the department of commerce (DoC) include:
- The affirmation of the role of private sector leadership
- The role of DoC in ensuring transparency and accountability and effective GAC participation
- Ensure accountability and publish by-laws and strategic and operational plans
- Agreement can be terminated in 120 days

The MOU has been criticized because of the following reasons:
- US governmental control on root server administration
- Inconsistent with WSIS principle where no single government should have a pre-eminent role
- Domain name allocation policies need better development
- IPv4 address allocation have been imbalanced need to ensure IPv6 address allocation does not suffer the same effects -This assertion was however refuted as IP addresses allocation based on need. The need for prudent management and keeping barriers low for the transition to IPv6 was emphasised.

To overcome this WGIG proposed 4 models:
- Global policy council
- Intenational internet council with leading government role to fulfil the ICANN/IANA functions
- GAC to be strengthened with enhanced coordination function
- Replace US govt role by general internet council or with world ICANN (in lieu of GAC)

The common features of these models were the overwhelming government lead and the presupposition of the possibility of international treaties. During the discussion the viability of these models was questioned given that speed is of essence in the management of internet resources. It normally takes a long time to negotiate international agreements; including treaties instead a set of principles should be endorsed.

The speaker recommended on the management of critical internet infrastructure should take into consideration the following
• Treatment of technical resources of the internet and global economic, social and legal aspects arising out the internet should be at par
• The development and implementation of polices and standards and solutions to various internet issues should be done in a coordinated manner for example telecommunication standard development is done in a hierarchical and predictable way.
• New structure would be a supreme authority over internet

In conclusion the speaker asked: Does the internet as we know it need to be altered radically? Should the status quo be maintained? Should a Red Cross model of recognition by international community states be given to an international entity like ITU, INTELSAT. However fundamental change is not necessary as failure has not been identified.

My comment: this presentation was descriptive and despite the fact that an alternative model was proposed the principles, mechanisms that would need to be put in place in order to make it work were not discussed

2nd presentation
The next speaker spoke about the ccTLDs in latin Amercia which are broadly organised into two main groups: non-governmental and governmental organisations. A contribution from the floor however clarified that the Brazilian ccTLD is a multi-stakeholder – coordinated by government – but on a day by day basis operates as a non-governmental organisation. The Indian ccTLD is managed by government and private sector – sovereign interest taken care of through government representation.

The rules and regulations under which the institutions that manage the ccTLDs are managed determinate legal framework under which they operate. Consequently ccTLDs are regulated under national law while ICANN regulates gTLDs – The possibility of self regulation is based on the assumption that private sector would act in the public interest.

In the discussions some felt that there was need for increased attention of government in the management of ccTLDs – as it was critical infrastructure while on the other hand other felt that there was the risk of excessive regulation with increased involvement of government.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mwende Njiraini on December 4, 2008 at 6:12am

1130 -1200 hrs Workshop 36: Strategies to prevent and fight child pornography in developing countries
Child pornography in Brazil has grown out of the popularity of social networking. However the main challenge has been issues related to jurisdiction as content is resident in ISP based in the USA and trans-national ISPs like Yahoo, Microsoft and Google which have branches in strategic markets and have tailored the services for these markets in terms of language and content.

Brazil was therefore unable to deal with serious offences related to content – specifically child pornography - committed by Brazilians using Brazilian IP addresses. The government has been able to sign an agreement with Google to fight child pornography on Google's orkut social network.

The following are consideration taken in drawing up the agreement
1. Which criteria should be used to define the ability of a particular country to legislate over and sanction conducts committed on the internet?
- Where the data is located?
- International law principles (territoriality or nationality) shall be used to define the sovereignty of a state regarding – cyber space – which is a network of networks
- Define some reasonable standard – for example managed by Brazilians and is local content and local language
- Access points in Brazil, harmful conduct felt in the country – taken obligation under international law to take offence – country of origin approach would force thousands of users to unfamiliar rules and travel – offence under human rights therefore apply local legislation

2. It is legitimate to enforce the conduct of local office –as it impracticable to send legal request to the US.


New tools have been implement that have reduced number of images uploaded and increase in number of reported cases- subject to investigation. It was inspiring to listen to parliamentarian talk about the need to have legislators engaged in the process as they ultimately pass the laws. I appreciated the fact that in there is great cooperation between the parliament, government, police, civil society and private sector.

The main challenges are:
• Lack of awareness and participation by parliamentarians who are critical in the formulation of legislation
• how to obligate ISPs to provide information without infringing on freedom of expression and privacy,
• what criteria should be used to deal with these offences
• the creation of awareness of ISPs in developing countries of the need for judicial cooperation as well as social initiatives to deal with cyber crime.
• Insufficient infrastructure to deal with this issue – law enforcement does not have the human resources and technology
• Material produced to fight child pornography are not evaluated – they should be inline with the demand

My comment: I would have like to know if initiatives have reduced offences, what is the success rate registered in prosecution, ability of the law enforcement and judicial system to deal with offences. There was no mention of where initiatives had been launched to fight child pornography on the financial front.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mwende Njiraini on December 4, 2008 at 6:23am

1530 - 1700 hrs Workshop 45: Opening to diversity and competition of the DNS system
There were 3 presentations in this session:
- 1st presentation - alternate DNS system provided - used in library systems
- 2nd presentation - implementation of security in the Handle system
- 3rd presentation
Net4D- provides the technical solution to the political concern on the control of root servers. Net4D networks enable the following:
• Empower the second generation of the web: the semantic web.
• Multistakeholder governance of DNS
• Net4D classes should be open and interoperable

DNS 1.0 – was a monopoly of ICANN web 1.0 html with USA parentage and English only while DNS 2.0 is open allowing for competition including inter alia:
• Net4D semantic web
• Open coherent approach to linguistic diversity
• Allow technological innovation with value added services

Concern was however raised on the:
• Investment/implementation cost required to implementation of different DNS systems depending on the BIND implemented and root servers enabled
• relinquishing of the political control of root servers
• value to end users
• awareness and understanding of the issues by different stakeholders

My comment: the session was technical – I hope to understand issues discussed with time:)!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Emmanuel Edet on December 4, 2008 at 7:21am

Dear All
I attended two different workshops today. The first was

“Legal Aspects of Managing Critical Internet Resources (CIR)
The first speaker was Amitabh Singhal from the Indian Telecommunications Regulator. His presentation put forward policy issue areas regarding the Internet. Issues such as Internet Security, Intellectual Property Rights, Privacy, Consumer Rights, Telecoms issues relating to deployment and cost as well as Freedom of Expression and Capacity Building were mentioned.

According to the speaker, the current CIR Management has come under a lot of criticism mainly because of the US Government control over root server administration, its general inconsistency with WSIS Principles, lack of uniformed domain name allocation policies and the fact that IP Address Policies have been imbalanced in terms of distribution

The speaker mentioned some alternative developed by the WGIG. However all models proposed by the WGIG have been criticized as it proposes an overwhelming government led management with advisory role by the private sector.

He concluded by stating that there may a need to revisit the current CIR Management.

The second presentation was by Eric Erate. He described the models of the management of country code top level domains (cctlds). He described the fact that most of the cctlds were controlled and managed by NGOs the legal relationships were strictly contractual while administrative procedure was applied to those managed by government. In Brazil domain names are free because a law says that service provided by the Foreign Service shall be free, a law of 50 years. He also said that free trade agreement says cctlds must adopt UDRP but since some NGOS manage cctld this cannot it be enforced.

He concluded by saying that these issues need to be looked into.

The Second workshop was entitled Youth and Internet Governance: Challenges for the future. I listened to three presentations and had to interrupt my attendance while communicating with Rose. However I listened to Marilla describe Youth Access through Internet hubs and Dr. Wolfgang described the summer school on Internet governance and plans to take the school to the Arab region and the Asian continent. Christina also described the dangers to privacy to the youth especially in the use of online social networks such as face book.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Deirdre Williams on December 5, 2008 at 4:49am

At last! ;-)

Day 1

Dec 3rd 9.30-11.00 and 15.30 – 18.00
Realizing a Multilingual Internet
Chair: Ajit Balakrishnan, Chief Executive Officer, Rediff.Com
Moderator: Miriam Nisbet, Director, Information Society Division, UNESCO
Panelists:
• Alex Corenthin, NIC SN (Senegal), Manal Ismail, GAC member, Egypt
• Hiroshi Kawamura, President of Daisy consortium
• Viola Krebs, MAAYA, ICTV
• Tulika Pandey, Heads up IDN development efforts in the Indian Govt.
• S. Ramakrishnan, CEO of C-DAC (Centre for Development of Advanced Computing India)
The Chair commented in his introduction on the continuing need for English language content in India. This has subsequently come up several times and makes an interesting foil, in a country of many languages, to the general “flow” away from English towards local languages.

Corenthin commented on the difficulties of languages without an orthography or using a script which is not yet “computer usable”, the need to establish motivation to produce content in local languages, the official versus the national languages, and the need for political will, the need for traditional literacy. He identified his main concerns as “tools, content, infrastructure”.

Krebs first concern was about the need for search engines to expand their indexing abilities in other languages to encourage linguistic diversity. She was also concerned about scripts – UTF8 is useful but its development is slow. She reminded us of the need to remember that there are other ways of communicating – audio and video/images. Blogs are an important source of local language content.

Hiroshi pointed to the need to ease access for disabilities like dyslexia, and to accommodate users with special requirements. He insisted on the creation of a context of free and prior informed consent.

Other speakers pointed to the need for collaboration and co-existence (another common theme); the loss of tacit knowledge that goes with the loss of languages; the needs of indigenous peoples; the fact that Arabic IDNs will need to use short names; the need for a common terminology and a shared model for the adoption of scripts and languages; that people do things that are convenient for them; and that the future reality may be a voice based internet.

The Open Dialogue in the afternoon began at 15.30.

At the beginning of the afternoon session the moderator summarised the issues (from the morning) as being:
• content
• that there is no common defined terminology to use for discussions
• availability of tools - search engines etc.
• internationalised domain names - languages and scripts
• that digital material exists also in unwritten forms

There was a healthy discussion, including the following suggestions:
Liberalise VoIP in layers; use harnessed rather than free market liberalisation (allows for Universal Access Fund);
Convergance - mobile providers and ISPs should get together;
”Internet” still needs to be defined as a commercial mechanism in some places;
Tiered service could be used (slower in the country - last mile).
Create an enabling environment for children
”Next billion” versus “last billion” need for clear distinction/definitions
Use local exchange points. Would this encourage creation of local content by making it quicker/easier/local to do it?
Does open-ness help encourage local content?
A participant from Denmark explained the Danes very successful broadband provision - market driven with a minimal regulatory framework.
Are the "next billion" seen as consumers or participants? – my own question about the possible implications/effects of multilingualism.

I had to leave before the session was quite finished.


Dec 3rd, Session 2
11:30 - 13:00 Workshop 12. Internet accessibility for people with disabilities

I attended this session for personal reasons.
The general theme was information accessibility to provide equal access and equal opportunity to people with disabilities. A presenter from China outlined China’s efforts for people with disabilities and stated very clearly China’s wish to collaborate. Cynthia Waddell reviewed the progress towards standards for accessible technology and Shadi Abou-Zahra outlined the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) work on standards for the web through the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) standards for the web, leading to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (W3C WCAG). The speakers pointed out that the standards are not only relevant for people with disabilities but provide easier access and a better quality of life for everyone else. I asked a question about access to information on assistive technologies and received several offers of assistance, some of which have been followed up already, and a pressing invitation to attend the follow-up session on Day 2.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Maureen Hilyard on December 6, 2008 at 4:49am

11.30am Overcoming Obstacles of Effective Digital Education

(My notes - I apologise but I missed the names of those on the panel, except for Diplo's Ginger)

Convenor - WHAT DO WE MEAN BY DIGITAL ED?

Framework – four main opps – bridging distance and time –
1.DE input allows content for students who cannot attend a normal classroom – one of its most basic features
2. DE can expand access to digital materials – for those who cant afford resources for schools
3. DE can support new methods of teaching – provides more forms of interaction – computers can provide more mediation, offers students to be more active – administrative work is taken up by computers so that
4. DE can expand edn beyond the classroom – it can bring edn opps to places never imagined before – eg news networks can provide educational lessons as text messages to mobile phones – eg helpdesk for student concerns that students may have when moving to a new school

ROADBLOCKS

1. economic – high starter cost to establishing internet techniques - computers or cellphones – piggyback on existing networks
2. cultural – de and opps offered look differently from standard edn – people need to recognize the value of the new edn opp – policy people need to know how to use de effectively
3. technical – similar to economic – need to have tech to make de possible – need the skills to maintain and develop the technology – long term challenge
4. institutional – training needs relating to using the internet as a resource needs to apply not only to the community but also to inside the classroom – it is a tool but if teachers don’t know how to use the technology then it isn’t going to add value to the learning of students.
5. legal – the law can be constructed to support or to constrain it. Schools can use digital techniques to offer low cost edn, but intellectual property laws need to not only protect content producers but also allow teachers to access content that will enhance learning opps for their students.
6. SCOPE – what do we mean by Digital edn? Edn is changing so rapidly that DE of yesterday is not the same today – it looks really different. If we don’t have the right scope it can change the meaning of what we are trying to develop for today. What is appropriate for today?
Eg copyright issue – some copyright laws state that material can be used for teachers in classrooms… but what is the classroom? What about mobile phones which enable students to be learning outside of the classroom. Policymakers need to change the way they visualize education. What constitutes education and what doesn’t?

FIRST SPEAKER - WIPO - IP offers greater opp for access to DE.
- we need to take into account the challenges due to the greater power of the internet.
- Digital environment poses risk to creative community – possibly worse

1. how do we deal with this matter ? local, national, exceptions – new international standards?
Eg Berne Convention – opps offered by certain treaties to let each country’s national legislation deal with the their own social circumstances - decide their educational issues within their own situations
A basic national rule decides on how to best deliver these opportunities (eg use of copyrighted material by teachers)

2. perhaps an international standard is the answer to address these challenges in DE ? But one size doesn’t fit all. There are different types of exceptions to limitations, but there is the possibility to open access to protected material eg through WIPO policies, relating to disabled, libraries/archives, educational institutions. (national exceptions to copyright laws)

3. importance of teaching students, teachers, researchers respect for intellectual property and value of creative works – eg legal downloading of music, film, software – this is an urgent need. But an important rule is that although teachers need to respect copyright they also can be flexible.

SECOND SPEAKER
- copyright can be a roadblock to access to education – therefore it is important that countries create a copyright policy that is easy to understand
- eg in China – a partic text book is used in all Chinese schools to teach English – one person made a courseware to teach the course using this text electronically – a real time transcript has been made of the text in the book – teacher reading and read-along. The courseware was sold in the Chinese market – however, the copyright owner sued the courseware producer
- normal use of teaching material on multimedia platform does not infringe use of edn material
- the court allowed the right of reproduction ie it recognized screen use of text book as reproduction but still permissible – court allowed this multimedia use of the text book
- It is possible for each nation to draft a copyright law that fits their needs (WIPO speaker mentioned this) so that they can’t be sued by other countries

DIPLO
- see Ginger’s presentation online?
- Focused mainly on dynamic movement of traditional teaching model. Students become as active as teacher in the learning process in a digital education mode. Information is available but the way in which is it used in real time is the value added feature of digital learning.
- Teachers still has a role as a motivator and instigator of learning. Students online still need a relationship with teachers. They still need the motivation – it is more important cos there is no body language.
- As teachers we can’t relegate learning to the computer – it doesn’t mean we don’t care or interact with students
- Digital interaction means that the teachers role is not minimized – they still have to be active
- Multi-stakeholder group is working on digital edn and its challenges – need groups of people working in this area to optimize the opportunities

FINAL SPEAKER – session summary
- one topic of issue among speakers is copyright is about law
- Berne Convention initially looked at copyright for the purpose of learning. Social good often discussed but not written down. So many opps have arisen about how edn takes place – all foundations on so many levels that have taken place and the way in which learning takes place are a lot more complicated than the publication of a book.
- Exceptions to copyright – there are some aspects of the learning environment that doesn’t require copyright and not all aspects of learning have to run through publishers. Social mobility has opened up and so have the internet opps.
- Important to understand what type of policy making we are trying to create. WIPO has taken the lead in discussing these issues. Educational uses are on its programme. Also studies taking place at APEC to look at limitations and trying to help different stakeholders especially for education.
- There are lots of different perspectives on DE – cos it is so pervasive that its representative groups are hard to identify. It is a job in itself to identify stakeholders.
- Subject of exceptions to limitations – when looking at the social good of a piece of copyrightable work, there is a need to evaluate its uses that don’t require copyright. Copyright (re education) is driven primarily by the social good rather than economic incentives
- Sometimes exceptions to limitations can drive innovation. So there is something is usually done to overcome the need to get access to copyright. But to achieve this, there needs to be leadership in this area like WIPO who are envisioning the notion of a treaty with regards to exceptions to limitations in the context of education
- Education traverses across borders and the uncertainty that exists in trans-border transactions needs international leadership – for that reason WIPO is hoping to generate the platforms / standards that support the potential of innovative tools without the barrier of ‘exclusive rights’ that can prevent innovation within education.

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page