[A2k] Informal notes from Day 2 of WIPO SCP

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

Here are some informal notes from day two of the WIPO Standing Committee
on the Law of Patents (SCP) which took place in Geneva last week. Please
read these notes in conjunction with document SCP/11/5 (Chair's
Summary). Most of the second day was devoted to reviewing the chair's
summary, which is a non-binding text. It would appear from the Chair's
Summary that the forward march approach advocated in Casablanca has been
forestalled for the moment. The Chair's Summary will be submitted to the
WIPO General Assemblies.

Thiru Balasubramaniam

-------

Some significant aspects of the Chair's Summary which reflected the
views of Member States include:

<SNIP>

"The Delegation of Argentina, speaking on behalf of the =93Friends of
Development,=94 introduced document SCP/11/4. The Delegation called for a
balanced and inclusive approach to discussions on the Substantive Patent
Law Treaty (SPLT). In this regard, it stressed the importance that
issues of interest to all parties to the discussions should be dealt
with on an equal footing. All delegations should be allowed to make
proposals on any matters of interest to them. The Delegation recalled,
in particular, that a balanced and inclusive SPLT should include, inter
alia, clauses on public interest flexibilities, transfer of technology,
curbing of anticompetitive practices and biodiversity (disclosure of
origin). Many delegations expressed reservations with respect to the
procedure and outcome of the informal consultations held in Casablanca.
Several developing country delegations, including the Delegations of
Chile, Colombia and India, opposed the approach of the Casablanca
consultations and supported the views set out in document SCP/11/4."


"The Delegation of Italy, speaking on behalf of Group B, stated that it
firmly believed that harmonization would benefit all stakeholders,
including civil society, right holders, and intellectual property
offices. Concerning the proposed work program contained in document
SCP/11/3, the Delegation thought that it represented an effective way of
structuring and progressing the work of this Committee and of the
Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic
Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC). It said that Group
B believed that that proposal represented a balanced work plan which
addressed the interests of all Member States. It further stated that
Group B looked forward to advancing this work program both in this
Committee and in the other relevant bodies of this Organization. The
Delegations of Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of the European Community
and its Member States, Morocco, the Republic of Korea and Sudan
supported the views expressed by the Delegation of Italy.


<SNIP>

"The Delegation of Pakistan proposed that, before embarking on any
negotiations in accordance with any of the previous paragraphs, a
comprehensive study be carried out jointly with UNCTAD to examine the
various implications of the draft SPLT for countries at different levels
of development with the view to taking an informed decision on the
negotiating approach to be pursued. Some delegations supported this
proposal while some other delegations opposed it".

<SNIP>

"The Delegation of Venezuela wished it to be stated expressly that there
was no consensus to progress with the SPLT negotiations".

------------------


http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/html.jsp?url=3Dhttp://www.wipo.int/edocs/md=
ocs/scp/en/scp_11/scp_11_5.doc


------------------


SCP Meeting at WIPO June 2 (Day 2)

Notes by Marina Kukso and Thiru Balasubramaniam

Chair: We will now go over Agenda Item 7, the Chair's Summary.

Argentina: We need equilibrium between paragraphs 8 and 11. Document
SCP/11/4 sets out a method of future work. Bring 11 forward. Flesh out
paragraph 11. NGO positions are not put in the summary but in the
report. We still don't have specific language for paragraph 11 because
we need more to time to equilibrate paragraph 11.

Secretariat: After paragraph 7, the Secretariat introduced document
SCP/11/3

Amendment to paragraph 11 to say Argentina, on behalf of GFOD,
introduced SCP/11/4.

In paragraph 8, remove the first sentence and delete "As far as the
specific work"

In paragraph 13 insert first former sentence of paragraph 8.

...

Paragraphs 1 and 2 approved.

...

Paragraph 3(4):

Argentina: Change "consensus" to "all delegations."

Chair: I seem to recall that previously you used the word consensus.

Secretariat: We have a recording so we can go back to the issue.

...

Paragraphs 5 and 6 are approved.

...

Agenda item 6 (paragraphs 7-13)

ABAPI: ABAPI did not associate itself with the Casablanca program. We
are open to compromise and we are open to "balancing" the package by
including more issues of concern to developing countries.

Secretariat: We remove your name from the report.

Brazil: We would like to clarify: the Statement Received from Brazil on
behalf of the Group of Friends of Development. (Paragraph 7)

India: We are a little unsure of how we are proceeding like the previous
delegation. Paragraph 11 should be moved and renamed Paragraph 7bis.

Secretariat: New paragraph 7: Secretariat introduced SCP/11/3 and then
Argentina introduced SCP/11/4 (on behalf GFOD).

Paragraph 8 would begin =93the Delegation of Italy...=94

First sentence of paragraph 8 ("Many delegations emphasized the
importance") will be moved towards the end.

Argentina: No problem with 7, 7bis, 7tris etc.

India: We too have no difficulty (along with previous speaker). We
approve of changes in format and position as long as they are not in
substance.

Venezuela: In Spanish, "Many" in the first sentence of paragraph 8
doesn't mean anything.

...

India: The titles of the documents in the summary could mislead what the
substance of these documents are. One (Document SCP/11/4) seems almost
incidental to the issue.

Deputy DG: Let's delete the name of the documents from the summary.

Chair: Paragraph eight.

Argentina: Let's follow past practice. All NGOs should be reported, but
not supporting or disassociating themselves from a particular view.

India: I seem to recall that the practice of this committee is not to
mention which delegations support or oppose each issue.

Venezuela: I didn't agree to including =93many delegations=94 and I was tol=
d
that that was already approved. I don't agree to include =93many
delegations.=94 I would like to have the number of delegations who agree
or who spoke in favor of this listed. My delegation supports Argentina
in saying that we should not include the names of the NGOs in paragraph
eight.

Sudan: We would like to build a consensus. So at the end of paragraph
eight can we end with =93and, in this regard, building of a consensus
should be observed.=94

Deputy DG: With regards to India's statement, my recollection is that we
do specify names of NGOs and delegations. With regards to Sudan's
statement, since it reflects previous delegations, let's hear from them
about whether they want that sentence there.

Philippines: We support India's statement.

Italy: We do not have difficulties with the process of consensus, but we
do not see Sudan's idea reflected in the working of the B Group.

Iran: We do not have a precedent of naming all the NGOs.

India: We work on consensus and issues that divide the committee are
best not highlighted by specific mentions. There is a distinction
between member states and observers. They are there to guide us, but do
not have a say. It is therefore improper to include the listing of
observers who might have taken a particular decision because that would
blur the line between NGOs and member states.

(break)

Argentina: Let's delete mention of the NGO names and let's not mix
together observers and member states.

Deputy DG: We have checked the past record of the SCPs. In the past, we
did not name NGOs, but did include delegations and discussions of
various delegations.

Chair: When we were preparing this statement we tried to reflect the
situation and we believe that it is important to include civil society.

Deputy DG: Here is a suggestion: we would delete all NGOs from paragraph
eight. In paragraph eleven, the three NGOs would also be deleted. A new
paragraph after existing paragraph twelve would read: =93a number of NGOs
participated in the discussions, several endorsing the recommendations
of the informal consultations held in Casablanca and several supporting
the views set out in Document SCP/11/4. Their views are fully reflected
in the report.=94

Argentina: We have to look at the wording of the new phrase. Certainly
we have not set out only views, we are presenting a proposal.

Deputy DG: So let's change it to =93several supporting the proposal set
out in Document SCP/11/4.=94

India: We should have a separate paragraph for EPO and EAPO because they
are intergovernmental organizations.

Chair: If there are no other suggestions then we can accept that.

Italy: Looking at the number of NGOs expressing favor and those
expressing opposition, indicating that =93several=94 supported Casablanca
and =93several=94 opposed gives the sense of equality where there is none.

Deputy DG: We could say twice the amount...several and many, several and
few...six and three?

(laughter)

Chair: If we just said the number, that would be wrong.

Brazil: We don't think that we should indicate majorities and minorities
in summaries. Also the NGOs are crucial, but they don't have power to
make decisions.

Chair: If we depersonalize the whole process, we won't be right. We must
reflect the process.

Brazil: I think the positions of the NGOs will be reflected in the full
report and we are already breaking with tradition by naming them. We are
in favor of hearing positions from all observers, and we support
reflecting their positions in the full report.

Colombia: We support the approach laid out previously but there is a
practical way of moving forward and the various positions will be in the
report and not in the summary.

FICPI: I think that everyone sees that in the current spirit and
practice in the UN family, more and more is being done with civil
society and I would be grateful if WIPO would take a stance that's
compliant with that.

Chair: I think that we are following UN procedure. We try to express the
views of civil society, NGOs, IGOs, etc.

AIPPI: Those who don't want to name the NGOs or show the power balance
between them, let's just say that their opinions are in the report, one
sentence, and that's all.

Chair: I think we've agreed on this issue and I propose we move on.
Paragraph 9.

India: Let's not make summaries of what other delegations have said. We
have not contemplated an inclusion for a summary of what our delegation
has said. So what the ASEAN delegate said might be subsumed in a
paragraph where the relevant idea is expressed with a rider that they
did speak of the additional points regarding disclosure and genetic
resources. Our point is that the brief intervention by a single
delegation finds a disproportionate amount of space in a very short
document.

Singapore: We have no problems with how this paragraph has been laid
out. But this language reflects the intervention of nine delegations
here and I am not at the moment at liberty to make a decision that this
should be subsumed in one paragraph or another.

Chair: Paragraph 10.

China: We are concerned that simple language might cause confusion or
misunderstanding. We feel this question should not be discussed in the
IGC and from the beginning China has taken an active part in all IGC
activities. Our view is that within IGC, because IGC should have broad
discussions on genetic resources and traditional knowledge and folklore,
there is one specific question that is in the patent applications on how
to disclose the origins of the genetic resources. On this question, we
feel this has a lot to do with the requirements with the patent
applications. In order to avoid misunderstandings, I propose that this
paragraph be changed. The new text will read =93the delegation of China
stated...=94 After the amendment, I would like to know if our view
coincides with that of the Turkish delegation. If the Turkish
delegation's views are not exactly as our view, then we propose that in
the summary the Chairman will write two different paragraphs or use two
sentences within one paragraph.

Turkey: Indeed we think that there's been confusion on our position. We
would prefer there to be two separate paragraphs and we would like to
add a sentence showing that we have a great interest in the proposal
made by Switzerland.

Turkey: Turkey attaches importance to the issue of the origin of genetic
resources. But Turkey wouldn't wish to be associated with paragraph 12,
we feel it should be discussed in the SCP, but to make progress, perhaps
Switzerland's proposal enjoys greater consensus.

Chair: Let's clarify once again. Turkey: we remove the reference to
Turkey from paragraph 10 but that does not mean that we're not concerned
with Turkey. And also their concern for moving forward, their support
for Switzerland's proposal, and it will all be reflected in the report
and to remove this from the summary.

Turkey: Yes, that would be best so as not to delay proceedings.

Argentina: We propose to add this text: =93the delegation of Argentina
speaking on behalf of the Friends of Development called for a balanced
and inclusive approach to discussions on the SPLT. In this regard, they
stressed the importance that issues of interest to all parties in the
discussions should be dealt with on an equal footing. All delegations
should be allowed to make proposals on any matters of interest to them.
The delegation recalled, in particular, that a balanced and inclusive
SPLT should include, inter alia, clauses on public interest
flexibilities, transfer of technology, the curbing of anti-competitive
practices, and biodiversity [disclosure of origin]. Several developing
countries' delegations opposed the approach of the Casablanca
presentation and supported the views set out in Document SCP/11/4 and
expressed reservations with respect to the procedure and outcome of the
informal consultations held in Casablanca.=94

Chair: I understand that it's difficult to get this because a lot of
people were coughing, but let's discuss this.

Colombia: We would like to have the text. In principle we would have no
problem, but we should mention the delegations which stated their
position with respect to this approach. We should identify the names of
delegations and their positions. We would like our delegation's name to
be included at the end instead of saying various delegations.

Italy: We fear that we are entering into a detailed explanation and we
would ask to come back to paragraph 8 where the position of the B Group
was just one line and if Argentina wants six lines for their position,
we'd need more space.

India: How much longer will we be continuing? It does appear to be
getting close to lunchtime.

UK: I support Italy. We have decided that there would not be inclusion
of positions of individual delegations. The point was made in general
that if we say the position of various people and refer to the report,
that would be good. This is beginning to make little sense.

Argentina: We have no objection to Group B adding more description of
their position.

Chair: Using my rights as Chair and for justice, we are not decreeing
anything. What we were saying was that if we were going to have a
balance, then we need to balance everything. But let's have lunch. Let's
have Italy provide a brief but somewhat detailed description.

(break)

Argentina: We have a suggestion regarding this paragraph. We think this
qualification (and in the report ) should be factual. The other
amendment that we would like to put in is in the sentence =93under which
all six issues=94 and here we would like =93all=94 to be replaced by =93onl=
y=94
six issues. =93All six issues=94 does not represent all the topics that
Switzerland might have been talking about. Our third amendment refers to
the last sentence. We would like =93several delegations=94 to become =93som=
e
delegations.=94 Our fourth amendment is the request to add a new sentence
to this paragraph which would read =93the delegation of Brazil stressed
that the comprehensive proposal from the Friends of Development took on
board the positions of all countries while being open to discussing a
work plan that would seek to organize all issues of the draft SPLT as a
whole into a manageable and effective program.=94

USA: We are concerned about this new sentence. We made an explicit
reference to the unmanageable, unworkable proposal in terms of a work
plan for the SCP that would come out of the adoption of Document SCP 11-
4. so at least in our perspective, we would take issue with whether or
not the delegation of Brazil is characterizing the views of other
delegations in an appropriate manner. I would say that our proposal was
not taken on board and we feel that Document SCP/11/4 would not take on
the work in an efficient manner.

Switzerland: Regarding the proposed amendments. We do not agree with the
first amendment because the spirit of trying to find a solution would
bring the issues together. Next, in the spirit of compromise, we cannot
agree to replace =93all=94 by =93only,=94 but in a spirit of compromise we =
could
replace =93all=94 by the adjective =93the.=94 We would like to come back to
several of the amendments, but I don't think it would be constructive to
play this game, and here again we follow the US. Argentina already
proposed to extend paragraph 11, and if we start putting in all the
views in the summary, then why have a report?

Chair: I appeal to all delegates to be serious and respect each other
and to stop asking to cut things out. We're discussing this and we're
trying to respect each other. I call on everyone to be accurate with
your words so that you don't upset anyone.

Pakistan: We have a separate proposal but we can propose it later.

Brazil: We have been respectful and actually we're dealing with a text
presented by the Chair, we're not here just to endorse whatever text is
presented, but we're in a process by which countries make their comments
on the texts. We would like to see that Brazil's position from yesterday
is reflected in the summary. And the last sentence is important to
contain in the same way that there is a declaration by Switzerland. In
both cases we have proposals that were put forth by countries
individually, countries that expressed their views through wider groups.
I see no reason why Switzerland may be individualized in a separate
paragraph while Brazil cannot be. We think this is balance of the
meeting. As far as we're concerned, Switzerland is not a bridge between
two positions. We believe there is a possibility of working towards a
program that will make negotiations manageable and effective.

USA: We suggest the inclusion of another sentence included after the
Argentine proposal on behalf of a statement on Brazil: =93the US stated
that the previous model of discussion, as suggested in the communication
SCP 11-4, of discussing the previous entire draft treaty documents with
additional proposals is unmanageable, inefficient and unworkable and
does not provide a viable manner in which to proceed.=94

India: Starting a sentence with =93to bridge existing differences=94 would
convey a misleading impression that the committee agrees that
Switzerland's proposal indeed does bridge the differences.

Chair: Let's propose that Switzerland's claim is not their proposal as
such, but made as a general contribution to move forward. So it was my
proposal to have a general statement with a view to bridging the
existing divergences and then to have the proposal made by Switzerland
and then the proposal by Argentina and Brazil, but this seems to be in
conflict with the proposal by the USA in this context.

USA: We do not believe that our additional sentence is in conflict with
the flow of the paragraph. Obviously there could be some difference in
opinion, but we feel that our sentence would fit well...

Switzerland: It is clear that each delegation can explain their views
and why they made their statements. It seems to me that paragraph 12
says that it is with a view to bridging existing divergences, this is
why we proposed it. With that in mind it's quite right to leave it as it
is. Argentina's proposal suits us and so does the statement of the US.

Deputy DG: Let's not have a qualifier then.

Argentina: Since Switzerland wants to keep a qualifier, let's include
that Switzerland believes that it bridges the gap.

Chair: Am I understanding you correctly in saying that everyone is
trying to bridge the gap but in different ways?

Argentina: We have no problems with bridging the differences. But we,
with India, believe that if they think that they are reducing the
divergences that is something that each delegation thinks it does during
the debate. It's not that the Swiss proposal necessarily reduces the
existing divergences. And then regarding the proposal of USA, it is not
very clear how the proposal is going to work in the context of a
paragraph that refers to a proposal that tries to hammer out the
differences. The paragraph shows that there are more and more
differences which is why we were saying that there's no problem if
Switzerland insists on including this concept, and if Brazil has a
suggestion on its paragraph and the paragraph referring to Brazil. But
what we should make clear is that we are not talking about proposals
that all members agreed on, agreed that they would reduce the
differences. This is not something the committee reached a view on.

Deputy DG: Paragraph 12 will commence: =93the delegation of Switzerland
suggested, with a view to bridging the existing divergences, an approach
to which six issues....Brazil...US....=94

Brazil: We think this paragraph should be balanced and so the belief
that the proposal bridges the divergence. And so we'd like to see that
statement about our proposal because we believe that we keep the balance
and try to bridge the divergence too.

Deputy DG: paragraph 12: several proposals were made with a view to
bridging the existing divergences....Brazil...US=94

Switzerland: The first version proposed by the secretariat was the one
we liked, but we also liked the second one.

Brazil: We like the proposal and it would help if you read the whole new
thing out loud.

Deputy DG: [re-reads the whole thing.]

Brazil: Can you please include: =93several other delegations opposed it.=94

USA: Everything sounds very good except we would like to include in the
US part: =93and unworkable.=94

India: It's not clear what's parallel.

Deputy DG: Six issues [list the issues] in parallel in the SCP [list
first four issues] and the IGC [list remaining two issues].

Chair: Paragraph 13.

Pakistan: Let's include language on a comprehensive study. It can be
before paragraph 13, but we would like to include an acknowledgment that
this proposal was brought up: =93The delegation of Pakistan proposed a
comprehensive study, to be carried out jointly with UNCTAD, to examine
the varying implications of draft SPLT for countries at different levels
of development with a view to taking an informed decision on the
negotiating approach to be pursued.=94

Brazil: In reality, I would like a clarification regarding the total
amount of paragraphs we're looking at.

Chile: We would like to consult with you on the state of the drafting of
the article on seven. What was raised by Argentina originally and the
clarification requested by Colombia concerning the developing countries
who supported or who disagreed with the Casablanca proposal. What is the
final reaction with respect to this number?

Pakistan: A proposal was made to solve the deadlock and we thought it
was important to take some time out and have a comprehensive study that
would subsequently help us take a decision on how to approach the
situation. And this has been adequately captured in the language we have
proposed. We feel that it is adequate but we are willing to discuss it
if there is a problem with it.

India: Please add at the end: =93before embarking on any negotiations in
respect of the previous paragraph.=94

Zambia: On this particular paragraph, we would like to suggest that if
we agree on the assessment, we would also like to include the South
Centre as part of the assessment.

Deputy DG: We cannot add South Centre because this document is just a
summary of events from yesterday.

Venezuela: The negotiations get complicated in that we do not have the
text in writing. And only some negotiators were able to follow all of
this and this is why. We are not very expert in negotiation and we are a
bit lost with respect to the order of the proposals. We support the
Friends of Development and if there's any doubt about my intervention, I
want to keep as close as possible to our true feelings, but in the name
of our people we want to show that we are maintaining patents as a
social contract which is established between the state and the inventor.
The inventor gives the society knowledge and for that he is given
temporary exclusivity. All of this is on the basis of a general
framework that assumes morality, religion, etc. SPLT talks about this
organization which means setting criteria and granting these rights,
that means that there should be one law for everybody. The law of
Venezuela refers to the rights of IP in at least three articles. One of
them says that the genome of a living being cannot be patented and that
flies in the face of our morals. ....We are grateful for the concern for
us for duplicating the work in patent offices, but actually seeking and
examining patents gives us a possibility of following technology and
getting documentation, but we are concerned about the possibility that
our state would no longer be giving patent rights and this is an
infringement of national sovereignty. We haven't found a consensus on
how to proceed on the treaty...


Chair: I had to stop you because we were moving forward on consensus and
this kind of statement was taking us into a dead end. I apologize, but I
was breaking off an intervention that had nothing to do with the item at
hand.

US: Can we add at the end of Pakistan's language: =93there was no
agreement on that proposal.=94

Pakistan: Please proceed the US statement by the language: =93some
delegations and NGOs supported the proposal=94 followed by =93there was no
agreement...=94

Brazil: There was no agreement on anything, so why add that there was no
agreement on that particular point? If people have disagreements, they
should speak on their own behalf.

[...Various discussion about whether this would be a separate paragraph.]

Chair: paragraph 13.

Argentina: In the first sentence let's simplify the wording and make it
clearer. =93It was noted that the summary of the chair which was agreed by
all member states and that the official record would be contained in the
report of the session.=94 Second proposal on this paragraph is where it
says the report reflects relevant interventions. The word =93relevant=94
would have to be deleted to say the report will reflect all interventions.

Switzerland: I hope it will be accepted by all states...it will be
accepted by consensus...i think we should mention that.

Chair: We promise to come back to this and then everything will become
clear.

Deputy DG: In paragraph 8, what used to be the first sentence, =93many
delegations emphasized the importance... and on the need to achieve a
balanced package.=94 That would be a new paragraph which would be the
penultimate paragraph.

Brazil: Can we use this wording instead?: =93delegations recognized the
importance of the work of the SCP and emphasized that work on patent law
harmonization should be progressed in a balanced manner.=94

USA: In terms of trying to capture the original first sentence, to
replace that we would make a comment to suggest a slight deletion from
the delegation of Brazil's proposal that we feel would better capture
all the views that had been expressed. We suggest the deletion of =93in a
balanced manner.=94 We think the term =93balance=94 has been used in a numb=
er
of different contexts and so we would prefer to end the statement after
=93progressed.=94

Brazil: The proposal that we put forth used wording from the original
text provided by the chair which mentioned a balanced package. In the
statement of the Friend of Development, there was a recognition of the
work of the SCP. The SCP does not limit itself to patent
harmonization...it has a broader mandate. The aspect of harmonization
should move forward but definitely in a balanced manner. It applies to
the work on harmonization and it has been stressed in all the
interventions by Friends of Development and other countries.

USA: Brazil said that they were open to other views and they should
embrace the fact that the work of the SCP should be progressed and we do
not need to include the last clause.

Brazil: We are open, but for all reasons explained previously, we think
balance is crucial. We would not want to continue the work in an
unbalanced fashion.

Argentina: We don't understand where the problem is in including the
concept of balance. The word balance exists in lots of places and has
been repeated again and again.

Australia: One of the major issues we have not agreed on is how to go
forward. To introduce =93balance=94 now in such a late stage is not helpful=
.

Chair: Actually, =93balance=94 was used several times and the terminology
was quite clear. So I understand the concern of the USA. Let us rework
=93balance=94 to take into account the interests of all states.

Argentina: Perhaps one way to overcome this would be to read: stop
taking into account the interests of all parties.

USA: Would that solution meet with your agreement?

USA: We would prefer to delete the entire passage. There hasn't been
much work within the SCP of late, so instead of including language with
multiple meanings, I don't think this is a necessary sentence or paragraph.

India: But the phrase that Argentina has proposed would be one that no
delegation can take objection to. Who argues that SCP should continue
without taking into account the interest of all parties?

Australia: I agree with India. And the USA might want to rethink its
position.

USA: We still think that taking interests of all parties into account
may seem innocuous, but with fatigue setting in, we can accept language
that would read: =93work on patent law should be progressed taking into
account the interests of all parties.=94

Chair: I think that we've made progress and have used common sense here.
Paragraph 4.

Argentina: In paragraph 4, our ambassador said that the summary will be
agreed by all, not that it will be adopted by consensus.

Chair: What should we do? Because we have established from the
recordings, there is a slight difference there. In the final count, we
accepted the summary should be adopted on basis of consensus. And that
was done using the words of the delegate from Argentina, not =93consensus=
=94
but =93approved by everyone=94...now we can discuss the difference. Or we
don't really have to dwell on these discussions and come back to this
proposal using the words =93approved by everybody.=94

Argentina: No one opposed the proposal of Argentina and there was no
discussion.

[Discussion of whether to use =93consensus=94 or =93everyone will agree.=94=
]

India: We used =93everyone will agree=94 because =93consensus=94 has been
corrupted so that =93consensus=94 does not mean that =93everyone has agreed=
.=94

Chair: I don't get how consensus can be corrupted. In Russian, consensus
means that everybody has agreed. So let's leave in =93agreed by all.=94

Australia: Can we include both?

Brazil: Let's do it Argentina's way.

Chair: I did agree with that wording. =93Agreed by all.=94

USA: To avoid rewriting history, we agree with Australia.

[Discussion of what to do about =93consensus=94 vs =93agreed by all.=94]

Canada: So there will be no second sentence?

[Brazil and India request a clean text to evaluate and would like it to
be ready before they leave.]

France: The amendments create a lack of clarity. We would be in favor of
work on this report taking place tomorrow.

Chair: To make a final text in three languages, the secretariat promises
to work all night and at 10:00AM another meeting will start. We can ask
them to hold their meeting 30-40 minutes later so we can meet at
10:00AM. We would have the text of the summary and we would have 30
minutes to discuss that. Does that suit everyone? Either way, both will
be posted on the internet because not everyone can stay until tomorrow.

Chile: We can reserve time tomorrow or work until later. But we asked
about article 7-bis. How will we come back to this? We support
Colombia's request for ours and Colombia's name to be in the text. All
paragraphs should be consistent and we see that paragraph 8 mentions
certain delegations supporting a certain position whereas 7-bis has only
a few countries. Last phrase should read: =93several developing country
delegations, including Chile and Colombia, oppose the approach of
the....=94 ... =93SCP-4. Some of them express reservations with respect to
the procedure.=94

Chile: Can we switch the last and second to last sentence in 7-bis?

[This last request is approved.]