[Ecommerce] Blogging WIPOand the Development Agenda, Second IIM (Day 1)
Thiru Balasubramaniam
thiru@cptech.org
Tue Jun 21 11:21:14 2005
Blogging WIPOand the Development Agenda, Round 2
The Second IIM, June 20-22: Day 1
Notes by:
Ren Bucholz, ren at eff.org, Electronic Frontier Foundation [RB]
Thiru Balasubramaniam, thiru at cptech.org, Consumer Project on Technology
[TB]
[NOTE: This is not an official transcript. Any errors and ommissions are
regretted.]
-=-=-=-=-
Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law)
The person or persons who have associated their work with this document
(the "Dedicator") hereby dedicate the entire copyright in the work of
authorship identified below (the "Work") to the public domain.
Dedicator makes this dedication for the benefit of the public at large
and to the detriment of Dedicator's heirs and successors. Dedicator
intends this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in
perpetuity of all present and future rights under copyright law, whether
vested or contingent, in the Work. Dedicator understands that such
relinquishment of all rights includes the relinquishment of all rights
to enforce (by lawsuit or otherwise) those copyrights in the Work.
Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work
may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified,
built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial
or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not
yet been invented or conceived.
-=-=-=-=-
10:43 A.M.
~ Chair (Ambasssador of Paraguay): Highlights the presence of Deputy
Director General (Geoffory Yu) & members of the Secretariat. Good
weather here and in the rest of Europe gives us the opportunity to
ourselves be in a good mood. He would be greatful for a relaxed &
friendly environment in the room, and for the thoughtful attention and
cordial response to interventions.
Experience from our previous meeting about constant communication among
delegations & regional groups shows that both of those things are good
and useful.
These are very obvious objectives and at the same time they are very
complex. This is why we can't expect to find solutions to all of these
questions today. This is a long term process.
In the time that has elapsed since the first and second IIMs, two new
NGOs have applied for and been granted accreditiation.
He'd like to give the floor to the secretariat to tell us about the new
groups.
~ Secretariat: The two new organizations are the Business Software
Alliance from America and the (Missing word) Cultural Society (Turin, Italy)
~ Chair: I see no comments from the floor - therefore they are accepted.
Wishes to go over the draft agenda (IIM/2/1 Prov.) There are no
comments and the agenda is adopted.
Wishes to go over the adoption of the Report of the First Session of the
IIM (See IIM/1/6 Prov. 2).
* Proposes that we adopt a report from the chair on the 22nd, then a
full report during the July meeting. This would be made available on
the WIPO website on July 4, and comments would be due before the 11th.
Afterward, the report would be available to all governments for their
consideration before the next meeting.
We have already received comments on the draft report, but he would like
to open the floor to those wishing to comment now. However, if they are
just corrections, asks that we please just go to the secretariat.
~ Argentina: Argentina has a number of comments with regard to the
Spanish version of the report. Comments range from grammatical to
substantive. Argentina will submit them in writing.
~ Chair: Final item on agenda - the consideration of proposals from
member states. Two new proposals have been submitted to enrich our
debate. First is from Bahrain (IIM/2/2), which deals with IPR and
economic development. Also, the UK's new proposal looks more deeply at
elements of their initial proposal.
~ Bahrain: Wishes to genuinely thank WIPO for its role in supporitng
noble goals, especially those that correspond with the goals of the
kingdom. Wishes to emphasize that their proposal is supported by
Lebanon, Jordan, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, UAE, Syria, Lybia, and other Arab
states.
Proceeds to list main points of proposal, which can be found on <a
href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=7522"
target="_self">WIPO's website</a>.
~ UK: Reaffirms the UK's commitment to being an active contributor.
First off, it seems that everyone understands that development needs to
be woven into every aspect of WIPO. Where we differ is how to do this.
The heart of the proposal is recognition of two things: 1) given wide
ranging concerns, it is unlikely that consensus can be found in the next
two meetings and 2) incorporating development concerns cannot be a
one-step process - it will be ongoing.
UK has argued against changing WIPO's charter, and they oppose forming
new bodies and favor the reinvigoration of existing bodies. Ergo, they
believe that relocating this discussion to the PCIPD is the most
practical way to implement these changes.
"We do not seek to prejudice the scope, modalities, or outcomes of these
proceedings." Therefore, they are open on questions of work plans and
practical plans. Meeting frequency should be considered and evaluated
in light of funding concerns. Notes that DG can call meetings of PCIPD
at any time, and they ask him to instigate a meeting at his earliest
convenience. Open to discussing a broad range of topics in that committee.
They are not trying to make the PCIPD "stronger" than other committees.
However, PCIPD should not be and is not inferior to any other
committee. Their proposal is a "suitable vehicle" to take forward other
proposals in a practical way.
~ Brazil: Presents a document being circulated by the 14 Group of
Friends of Development. It is being handed out by the Secretariat.
It is a suggestion to this IIM as a way to organize the debate on the
several different issues that have been dealt with in the proposals
before us.
The first GFOD document was quite lengthy. It was submitted just before
the first IIM. As such, delegations did not have adequate time to
consider this document. Therefore, one of the decisions of the first
IIM was that we meet again to consider it in more depth.
Brazil suggest a checklist of the key ideas of the four proposals submitted:
1) Norm setting
2) Review of mandate and governance
3) Technical assistance and capacity building
4) Technoological development, technology transfer, access to knowledge,
and related matters
This is a suggestion to consider the debate on an item-by-item basis and
avoid diffuse comments.
~ Chair: Thanks Brazil. Initially, he thinks this doc is extremely
interesting. Hand to Pakistan.
~ Pakistan: Actually, their Ambassador wants to make statement and he'll
be here in a short while.
~ Czech Republic: WIPO has been expanding its development work through
IP education and capacity building. Believes that WIPO has the ability
to deepen its development work via permanent implementation of
development principles. They would like particularly to support UK
proposal.
~ Italy (On behalf of Group B): "As you may recall, Group B welcomed
the discussion of the relationship between IP and development at WIPO at
the first IIM." IP has been a tool for reaching economic, social and
cultural progress. As it has already been outlined in the Bahrain
proposal, WIPO has already devoted substantial human and financial
resources to IP and development.
Group B thinks that WIPO should devote substantial funding to these
issues.
We should examine and assess whether the technical assistance of WIPO
meet the needs of WIPO recipient countries. WIPO's activities should
also be coordinated with the work of other international organizations.
We note that flexibilites of international agreements should be taken
into account, including TRIPS flexibilities.
Asks for a report on [TRIPS flexibilities?] be made available to members.
Believes that a reinvigorated PCIPD is the place to consider the future
of WIPO and development.
~ Morocco: Asks to make the African Group statement later.
~ India: Plans to make a more substantive intervention later, but the
proposal by Brazil to better structure this debates is something we
should consider now.
Many delegations have many views, but they are often expressed in ways
that are difficult to act upon. In short, it would be good to structure
debate, and they would further offer a fifth area of discussion: which
committee or committees would be responsible for the various aspects
involved in the DA? For instance, tech transfer might be properly in
the PCIPD, but other pieces may be more appropriately discussed in other
forums. All these four or five themes should be dealt with before the
discussion of the Chair's summary.
~ Switzerland: We completely support the Group B statement made by
Italy. In the first IIM, we had the opportunity to have an exchange of
views on issues presented. This session will provide us an opportunity
to further discuss the original four proposals and the two new proposals
by Bahrain and the United Kingdom.
On the Mexican proposal: IP is tool for development, not an obstacle.
All the same, though most developing countries have acknowledged the
role of IP, many developing countries have concerns about food, water,
and health. These countries and NGOs may have misconceptions about the
role of IP to stimulate economic, cultural and social progress.
We would like to have more information on:
How would the assessment of national IP systems be carried out?
What are the budget implications of that assessment?
With respect to Bahrain's proposal, what are the financial implications
for WIPO, and how will it affect other initiatives of WIPO. We find the
the technical cooperation activities suggested for LDCs extremely useful.
We agree with the UK and Bahrain with respect to WIPO's mandate. The
WIPO mandate integrates development activities into WIPO's work. We
don't need to change WIPO's mandate. We agree with UK's position on
technological transfer activities; we do not need to create a new body
for this.
~ Pakistan: Full statement available here:<br>
<a href="pakistan_1of4.png" target="_self">Page 1</a> | <a
href="pakistan_2of4.png" target="_self">Page 2</a> | <a
href="pakistan_3of4.png" target="_self">Page 3</a> | <a
href="pakistan_4of4.png" target="_self">Page 4</a>
-=-=-=10 Minute Coffee Break=-=-=-
~ Chile: Thinks the proposal from Brazil is an excellent starting point
to structure our discussions.
~ South Africa: Wants to be called on later.
~ UK: Apologies for taking the floor a second time already. And also
apologies because they have apparently not been clear enough about how
their second proposal builds on their first. The UK's proposal does not
only relate to technical assistance and capacity building, but to all
aspects of WIPO's dev. work. Therefore, they do not feel that their
proposal should be cabined in one cluster of Brazil's proposed taxonomy.
~ Thailand (Speaking on behalf of ASEAN): ASEAN and WIPO cooperation
has been underpinned by a strong development focus. The DA offers a
role to further WIPO's work in this area. WIPO-ASEAN cooperation is
multifaceted and robust.
~ Bahrain: Agrees with Italy's comment on funding.
~ Morocco: Plugs <a href="http://www.nepad.org/"
target="_self">NEPAD</a>. Quotes Doha Declaration on promoting access
to knowledge for all.
The approach suggested by Brazil provides concrete guidelines in which
to structre discussion. It is an ambitious proposal. The African Group
supports this proposal which is comprehensive and not limited solely to
technical assistance. The US proposal only deals with the technical
assistance aspects.
They need more time to consider the Bahrain and UK proposals.
~ China: Suggests that they agree with Brazil, India, Pakistan on the
proposed way forward.
~ Benin (on behalf of LDCs): Pleasure to take the floor on behalf of
LDCs. Their number has risen to 50, most of which are in Africa. 44
are WIPO members. As a global forum, WIPO has assisted LDCs to set a
debate on the role of IP and development and dialogues with civil society.
WIPO organized a conference for LDCs in the Republic of Korea on the
role of IP in development. They chose Korea as the venue because it has
enjoyed an explosion of economic growth in recent years thanks to IP.
Korea was essentially an LDC in the 1950s.
~ Secretariat (Sherif Saadallah): WIPO's role has not been to increase
IP at any cost. It should be stressed that any member state is free to
ignore the secretariat's advice.
WIPO's legal advice is confidential. A number of WIPO Member States
involved in bilateral or regional free trade agreement negotiations have
sought WIPO's advice which includes guidance on copyright exceptions,
test data provisions and dealing with the backlog of foreign patent
applications.
All of WIPO's norms are deployed within international law, and any
country is free to decline implementation if a norm is seen to compete
with national interest. There is no one size fits all model of IP for
developing countries. WIPO works with countries to tailor IP laws to
suit ther national needs. WIPO conducts workshops and seminars in
countries expressedly at the countries' request.
With respect to NGOs, it should be noted that no group is excluded as an
observer. The procedure for accepting NGO is "simple, transparent, and
subject to the ratification of member states."
* WIPO's policy will be to increasingly engage NGOs to harvest their
knowledge, and intend to hold an interactive forum with NGOS later this
year.
Cooperation and assistance are only initiated at the request of [WIPO]
Member States.
<em>[RB: The Secretariat's speech is intended to respond to a number of
claims about WIPO: that WIPO is a one-way ratchet for increasing IP
around the world, that it obstructs participation by NGOs, etc. This is
a tad defenseive and extremely rare.]</em>
~ Colombia: Needs more time to consider the new proposals.
~ South Africa: We associate ourselves fully with Brazil's statement
and Morocco's statement (speaking on behalf of the African Group). We
do not agree that the development dimension should be consigned to the
PCIPD because the development dimension is cross-cutting and all WIPO
bodies should contribute to the realization of the development dimension.
Would like to urge WIPO Member States to ask how we must implement the
development dimension into all facets of WIPO's work.
~ Luxembourg (speaking on behalf of EU): For a more comperhensive EU
perspective, they refer to their statement from the first IIM. They
advocate building on PCIPD to address developing countries' needs.
~ Korea: Delegation is convinced that IP will be come increasingly
important in development. Korea has set up a a group to provide
technical assistance for other nations, with the help of WIPO.
Essentially endorses US proposal to help put DC & LDCs in contact.
Endorses Bahrain proposal.
~ Iran: Associates delegation with Brazil & GFoD with respect future
debate. We reserve the right to comment on the Bahrain and UK proposals
when we have more time to consider these proposals.
~ Egypt [entire statement available <a
href="http://homes.eff.org/~renbucholz/wipo/egypt_statement.txt">here</a>]:
We attach ourselves to the African Group statement made by Morocco. As
highlighted by the African Group, the G-77 made a statement on their
concerns on the implications of IP on development in Doha, Qatar (June
16, 2005). The group of over 130 countries - the majority of the
world's countries - explicty called upon WIPO to incorporate the
Development Dimension into the core of its activities. In the reform of
the UN, WIPO is not and should not be an exception. It is imperative
for this session to have a more focused approach to guide these
discussions. The GFOD proposal for this 2nd IIM to structure these
discussions is a good starting point.
Preliminary comments on Bahrain's proposal:
Appreciate Bahrain's contribution and are happy that the Secretariat has
helped Bahrain so much.
Development cannot be the sole responsibility of WIPO which is
reaffirmed in this document.
One part of this document mentions that WIPO's development aims should
be integrated.
This seems to be the understanding from the Doha conference, where his
Majesty, King of Bahrain participated, his Majesty the Crown Prince of
Qatar and his excellency the President of Lebanon, and that explicit
plan of action from the G-77 statement from June 16, 2005 (Doha, Qatar)
seems to disagree with the current Bahranian proposal. In the spirit of
Arab solidarity, we will refrain from making further comments on this
proposal right now.
~ USA: The US believes that IP is critical for development and to foster
economic, social and cultural progress. IP is part of the solution.
Yet IP is only one part of the solution, and other structures must be
put in place, including IP protection. They do not believe that the UN
needs another specialized agency. The exisitng agencies are the best
palce to handle these tasks.
With regard to Brazil's porposal, they welcome any attempt to structure
the debate. However, they wish to express that many crosscutting issues
will be lost in this proposal. The US expresses its concerns that its
proposal is charaterized as limited to technical assistance. Instead,
the US proposal includes "protections & flexibilities." The US has
reservations to the approaches suggested by Brazil and Pakistan.
~ Japan: Supports Italian statement on behalf of Group B. Endorses US
database plan. Remarks that it is important to avoid duplication of
programs, therefore EU & Bahrain proposals are desirable. Supports UK's
proposal. Makes several references to WIPO's current budget constraints.
~ Jordan: They have endorsed the Bahrain proposal. This support
emanates from our conviction that IP is crucial for development. We
should foster an IP culture.
~ Russia: Support UK proposal.
~ Bahrain: Requests the Egyptian delegate to present to him in writing
the statement made by the delegate of Bahrain at the G-77 meeting in
Doha, Qatar.
~ India: Would like to reiterate that IP should not be an end in itself,
but instead should support the goals of society. Several proposals on
the best way forward were presented in the morning. In particular, the
standing committee on Patents could address growing concerns on patent
quality, article 4 of Doha, and article 40 of the TRIPS Agreement on the
control of anti-competitive practices.
Support the idea of a WIPO evaluation & research office to work
independently of the WIPO secretariat. Propose a wall of employment
between the two bodies. IP assessment should look at indirect and
secondary effects of IP in LDCs. Supports a dedicated work group for IT
transfer. We would like to see an elaboration of a Treaty on Access to
Knowledge and Technology.
~ Argentina: Today, we have had many general statements. In all of
them, they have expressed great interest in continuing to talk about
DA. We should use our time to pursue the structure presented by Brazil.
They don't think that there is a problem with Brazil's 4-part taxonomy.
~ Canada: Supports statement of Group B. Believes that IP has an
important role to play in society. WIPO should reflect the needs of all
its Members. We need a coherence. We also need structure for these
discussions. We note the Brazilian proposal. We would like to
highlight our own proposal, which we made at the PCIPD in April.
Want to emphasise these points in a general way, with specific items below:
1. Innovation, creativity & economic growth
2. IP, development & capacity building
3. Role of WIPO, its bodies, & the Secretariat in the DA
~ Brazil: The structure we have proposed is operational. We must have
a structured discussion. We believe that there is a lack of development
attention in the history of this organization.
~ Mexico: We welcome the Bahrain and UK proposal. However, we don't
have a lot of time to consider them in depth. These proposals contain
globally positive elements in addition to the previous proposals. We
welcome a thematic discussion proposed by Brazil (on behalf of Group of
Friends). In principle, we agree with the list of proposals. We don't
agree with every item but we can add other items later. Despite some
differences in the documents, they all have positive elements. Perhaps
the IB could propose a thematic discussion as a starting point for
future work.
<em>
[RB: The following is an incomplete but chronologically sound list of
the remaining speakers. At this point the Chairs unexpectedly announced
that NGOs would have an opportunity to comment on these procedural
matters, so we all broke to write something quickly.]
Egypt
Australia
CSC
EDRI
filmmakers' association
TACD
IFPI
EFF
IFA
Innovation Policy Network
IPI
FSFE
</em>
~ India: Wants to clarify that tomorrow's informal discussion is
nonetheless sctructured.
~ Italy: Group B will meet tomorrow morning.
~Argentina: Reiterates concern of India, expressing a wish for
transparency, notice, and a more formal structure for the coming discussion.
~ Chair: Thanks both India & Argentina. Is very flexible, but wishes to
move forward. Whether formal or informal doesn't really matter, the
issue is to agree. Wants to give delegations the ability to speak
frankly & freely & be able to take risks by exchanging views. Will
think on it tonight and propose a method of moving forward tomorrow.