The Electronic Frontier Foundation's "Deep Links" weblog  refers us to WIPO's recent action to adopt a "Development Agenda" which advocates that WIPO take what I would characterize as a more considerate position vis a vis intellectual property regulation in developing nations. There are several important passages in this agenda, notably;

"...the impact of intellectual property has been widely debated in past years. Intellectual property protection is intended as an instrument to promote technological innovation, as well as the transfer and dissemination of technology. Intellectual property protection cannot be seen as an end in itself, nor can the harmonization of intellectual property laws leading to higher protection standards in all countries, irrespective of their levels of development.

The role of intellectual property and its impact on development must be carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis. IP protection is a policy instrument the operation of which may, in actual practice, produce benefits as well as costs, which may vary in accordance with a country’s level of development. Action is therefore needed to ensure, in all countries, that the costs do not outweigh the benefits of IP protection."

WIPO must hear that this doctrine is applicable not only to developing countries, but also to the internet. The intellectual property lobby must be made to understand that the consequences of their chosen path undermines technological innovation and hinders economic development at almost all levels.

"...While access to information and knowledge sharing are regarded as essential elements in fostering innovation and creativity in the information economy, adding new layers of intellectual property protection to the digital environment would obstruct the free flow of information and scuttle efforts to set up new arrangements for promoting innovation and creativity, through initiatives such as the Creative Commons’. The ongoing controversy surrounding the use of technological protection measures in the digital environment is also of great concern."

I run up against the intellectual property lobby on a regular basis within ICANN. Quite a few recent policies were adopted as the result of the actions of the IP lobby. Most, if not all, of the current policy development initiatives, are being spearheaded by the IP lobby. The benefits of all of the proposals and policies accrue strictly to the IP community. Registrants gain nothing from having to certify the accuracy of their whois data annually. Registrars gain nothing from sending data confirmation requests to 30+ million registrants ever year (yes, we're required to spam our customers to further the IP agenda). There are no benefits to the community in any of these policies and proposals, yet the IP juggernaut continues to march on. Failing satisfactory negotiations, they resort to repeating past proposals in an attempt to wear out the other participants in the process.

WIPO seems to be admitting that IP reform is needed. I obviously can't make a contribution on the same level as nation-states in the UN can, but it seems to me that we can recover some ground and bring rationality back to the process within ICANN.

The time has come for the TCP/IP community to reconsider the role that the IP community has assumed within our processes.