[Ecommerce] IP-Watch on WIPO accreditation fiasco

[Manon Ress]

23/2/2005
WIPO Asked To Explain NGO Accreditation Process
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D24&res=3D1024_ff&print=3D0

by William New @ 11:56 pm

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has come under fire
from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) fearing exclusion from key
meetings in April on WIPO=92s Development Agenda. But a spokeswoman from
the Geneva-based U.N. body on Wednesday said it is complying with its
mandate for meeting accreditations.

=93We are complying with the decision of the General Assembly, but we are
taking note of the requests that we have received to date,=94 the
spokeswoman told IP-Watch Wednesday. She said WIPO is following the
report of last autumn=92s annual assembly of its members, which stated:
=93The General Assembly decides to convene inter-sessional
intergovernmental meetings to examine the proposals contained in
document WO/GA/31/11 [the Development Agenda proposal]=85. WIPO-accredited
IGOs [inter-governmental organisations] and NGOs are invited to
participate as observers in the meetings.=94

But a posting to the Consumer Project on Technology (CP Tech) email
listserve Wednesday called the situation an =93accreditation fiasco=94 and
charged that WIPO =93appears to be severely limiting accreditation for
this meeting.=94

According to CP Tech, WIPO appears to be denying all requests for ad hoc
accreditation (for NGOs that are not already permanent WIPO NGO
observers); and has indicated that permanent accredited NGOs may be
limited to one- or two-member delegations, which CP Tech said would
=93greatly=94 skew participation in favour of right-owner NGOs as they
already far outnumber other accredited non-governmental groups.

In addition, CP Tech said, WIPO has rejected or ignored requests to
balance participation between right-owner and consumer-interest NGOs.

These points were accentuated in a letter to WIPO sent Tuesday by the
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

=93The WIPO Development Agenda proposal encompasses a range of issues and
substantive subject matters,=94 EFF said. =93Limiting participation in the
April meetings to currently-accredited NGOs will exclude many civil
society organizations with special expertise in the matters in the
Development Agenda proposal and is likely to render the discussions
unbalanced and unrepresentative of developing nations=92 interests.=94

At least one non-governmental organization representative who applied
for ad hoc status was told to file an application, despite reports that
no ad hoc accreditations would be offered. And EFF cited the absence of
accreditation for the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable
Development, which it called a =93recognized leading expert=94 in issues of
development and intellectual property.

CP Tech Director James Love urged NGOs to press WIPO and its member
nations to change the policy. In addition, he called for organisations
from across the intellectual property spectrum to quickly develop and
disseminate position papers on the development agenda. On the listserve,
Love made a number of suggestions for paper subjects.

=93The debate on the WIPO development agenda is a big, big event,=94 he
said. =93The right-owner community and the U.S., E.U. and other developed
countries are highly mobilized to undermine the [Development Agenda]
proposals, and to split developing countries.=94

=96

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. All of the news
articles and features on Intellectual Property Watch also are subject to
a Creative Commons License which makes them available for widescale,
free, non-commercial reproduction and translation.
  Permalink     E-mail alerts       print
Comments =BB

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php/24

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed,
HTML allowed: <a href=3D"" title=3D"" rel=3D""> <abbr title=3D""> <acronym
title=3D""> <b> <blockquote cite=3D""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Organisation

Name (required)

E-mail (required)

URI

Your Comment

Disclaimer

The views expressed in the comments to the blog and other non IP Watch
materials in this section do not necessarily reflect the views of IP
Watch. IP Watch reserves the right to review and screen all comments
posted on this weblog for decency and libel.
Categories



--
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC PO Box 19367,
Washington, DC 20036, USA Tel.:  +1.202.387.8030, fax: +1.202.234.5176

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des  Morillons, CP
2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology in London, 24 Highbury Crescent, London,
N5 1RX, UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax:
+44(0)207 354 0607