Digital Rights + Internet Governance + Innovation Policy

Statements & Publications2021-07-11T17:22:22+00:00

IP Justice Publications

IP Justice Joins Letter to USTR Supporting Developing Countries’ Request for Time to Transition to TRIPS

June 25, 2021 Ambassador Katherine Tai United States Trade Representative 600 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20508 Re: Supporting LDCs’ Request for Transition Period Dear Ambassador Tai: We urge the United States to support the request of Least Developed Countries (“LDCs”) to the TRIPS Council of the World Trade Organization (IP/C/W/668) for a transition period from implementing the TRIPS Agreement for as long as they remain LDCs. The current transition period is due to expire on July 1, 2021. The preamble of the TRIPS Agreement recognizes the “special needs” of LDCs and their need for “maximum flexibility in the domestic implementation of laws and regulations in order to enable them to create a sound and viable technological base.” Accordingly, Art. 66.1 grants LDCs an automatic right to transition period following a duly motivated request by LDCs. The LDCs’ request comes at a time of global unprecedented crisis, with the most vulnerable bearing the worst impact. LDCs represent the most vulnerable segment of the international community. Although LDCs only make up 14 percent of the global population, they account for 50 percent of the world’s extremely poor (i.e., those living on less than $1.90 a day). Their constraints include the very limited availability of skilled labor, productive capacities, access to secondary education, electricity, and internet access. Consequently, LDCs do not have [...]

June 25th, 2021|

IP JUSTICE JOURNAL: The Internet in China by Konstantinos Komaitis

The Internet in China: A New Normal? by Konstantinos Komaitis - September 1, 2015 Full Article as .PDF The Great Wall of China is not just an amazing structure; its role and purpose are equally fascinating. Built over two centuries, the main purpose of the Great Wall was to protect China from its enemies and invaders, especially the Mongols. Although always maintained as a military defense, over the years, the Wall evolved other uses. Aside from being a transportation corridor, it was also used to regulate trade, such as collecting duties on goods transported along the Silk Road. It was also used to restrict both immigration and emigration. Today, the Great Wall represents China’s history and is one of the New Seven Wonders of the World. But, its legacy and rationale continue to persist through the Internet. The “Great Firewall” is what is currently used to refer to China’s Internet: an Internet that seeks to defend, regulate, restrict, and, ultimately, protect China from the undue influence of the West. In 1997, Wired magazine ran a story about the Great Firewall of China, which set the tone of what would later become the norm of Chinese Internet politics and policies. The article introduced the challenges and threats Chinese authorities saw with the introduction of the Internet back in 1990s and how [...]

September 1st, 2015|

IP JUSTICE JOURNAL: Internet Architecture as Proxy for State Power by Laura DeNardis

Internet Architecture as Proxy for State Power By Laura DeNardis, Ph.D. - August 15, 2015 Full Article as .PDF Internet Freedom in the Age of Internet Control The Internet is no longer just a communication system. It is also a control system in which more objects than people are connected to the network. Society is moving from a world in which content is digitally mediated to one in which all of life is digitally mediated. Beneath content, the Internet’s physical and logical infrastructure is the technical scaffolding holding up basic systems of finance, commerce, transportation, industrial control systems, and surveillance technologies, as well as social interactions and access to knowledge. Already measured in billions, there will soon be 50 billion objects online ranging from wireless heart monitors, home alarm systems, weather sensors, surveillance monitors, cars, energy system sensors, and drones.[1] In cyberspace, the Internet of Things is rapidly morphing into the Internet of Self, aggregating not only cyber physical systems but everything from communications to commercial transactions to biometric identifiers. What are the prospects for Internet freedom in this context? Internet freedom is no longer merely about content. Fundamental human rights depend upon an underlying system of technological infrastructure that creates the conditions for innovation and civil liberties online. These conditions are not preordained but have to be deliberatively designed [...]

August 15th, 2015|

IP JUSTICE JOURNAL: Internet Infrastructure and IP Censorship by David Post

Internet Infrastructure & IP Censorship By David G. Post - August 1, 2015 Full Article as .PDF Many scholars and other observers of developments in Internet governance, law, and policy have commented upon an unusual and important phenomenon that has become more widespread in recent years: using control over access to critical portions of the Internet’s technical infrastructure – the system comprising the underlying protocols for routing, naming, and addressing, along with related technical standards and the agreements, formal and informal, through which they are implemented across the Internet, what Laura DeNardis calls “Critical Internet Resources” (CIRs)[2] - to enforce private and public law. Three examples illustrate the nature of this new phenomenon. 1. The UDRP In the realm of private law and the enforcement of private rights, the paradigmatic illustration is ICANN’s[3] Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP).[4] The UDRP is an ICANN-operated mandatory arbitration process that deals with “cyber-squatting,” i.e., the practice of registering domain names that mirror (or closely resemble) existing trademarks, for the purpose of re-selling the domain name to the trademark owner. The UDRP allows a trademark holder to submit a cyber-squatting complaint to an ICANN-accredited arbitrator, who is charged with applying ICANN’s substantive rules[5] for determining whether the cyber-squatting offense has been committed. Decisions by the UDRP arbitrators are enforced solely through control over a [...]

August 1st, 2015|

IP JUSTICE JOURNAL: ICANN Accountability Deficits Revealed in .AFRICA Panel Ruling

ICANN Accountability Deficits Revealed in .AFRICA Panel Ruling By Robin D. Gross - 16 July 2015 Full Article as .PDF “Fortress ICANN” No Longer Able to Shield Itself from Accountability In an important test of ICANN’s primary accountability mechanism, its Independent Review Process (IRP), the organization has been handed a stinging blow over its mishandling of the bid for the new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) .AFRICA. At the crux of the issue are two competing applications for the .AFRICA new gTLD and the decision by ICANN’s Board to abdicate its responsibility to ensure that ICANN’s evaluation and subsequent rewarding of the domain was carried out fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the organization’s Bylaws, Articles of Organization, and established policies. The unanimous IRP Panel of 3 distinguished adjudicators declared that both the actions and inactions of ICANN’s Board with respect to the application of DotConnect Africa Trust for the .AFRICA gTLD were inconsistent with ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. The Panel found that both ICANN’s Board, and its constituent body, the GAC, breached their obligations to act transparently and in conformity with procedures that ensured fairness. As a result, the Panel recommended that ICANN continue to refrain from delegating the .AFRICA gTLD and permit DCA Trust’s application to proceed through the remainder of the new gTLD application process. Although [...]

July 16th, 2015|
Go to Top