[Ecommerce] PCD DAY 1 NOTES are blogged - Re: [A2k] FromGeneva: Day 1 of WIPO PCDA meeting

[Gwen Hinze]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
The full notes from day one of the PCDA are now posted on EFF's blog at:

<http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004428.php#004428>

Many thanks to my co note-takers, Thiru Balasubramaniam (CP Tech) and
Teresa Hackett (eIFL)

Gwen Hinze

At 11:03 PM +0100 2/20/06, Thiru Balasubramaniam wrote:
>http://fromgeneva.blogspot.com/2006/02/day-1-of-wipo-pcda-meeting_20.html
>
>
>      Day 1 of WIPO PCDA meeting
>
>Monday, 20 February 2006
>Thiru Balasubramaniam
>
>The first meeting of the WIPO Provisional Committee for Proposals
>Related to a Development Agenda (PCDA) meets from 20 February to 24
>February. The morning session commenced at 12:43 PM and broke up at
>12:57 PM. The reason for the abbrievated morning session was intense
>pre-meeting negotiations on electing a Chair for the PCDA. One candidate
>favored by the Group B countries (mainly industrialized Members) was the
>Ambassador of Romania. The candidate favored by many developing
>countries was Ambassador Rigoberto Gauto Vielman. Finally, after much
>deliberation, the candidate from Romania withdrew from the race. When
>the morning session convened, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group
>formally nominated Ambassador Gauto (Paraguay) as Chair and the
>Ambassador of Kyrgyzstan as Vice-Chair. Thailand, on behalf of the Asian
>Group seconded the nominations; Ambassador Gauto and the Kyrgyz
>Ambassador were elected unanimously to their respective posts.
>Ambassador Gauto noted that he was
>"[c]ommitted to working in a very open-minded way" He noted that the
>PCDA would resume at 3PM with "presentation of new proposals put
>forward, then invite substantive discussion of proposals". The
>importance placed to the Development Agenda discussions was evidenced by
>the presence of several Ambassadors (Argentina, Chile Morocco, Nigeria
>and Paraguay to name a few).
>
>Most of the afternoon session was devoted to countries making general
>statements and introducing their respective proposals.
>
>Austria, on behalf of the European Communities and its 25 Member States
>and the acceding states of Bulgaria and Romania, asserted that it shared
>the premise that development related issues could be integrated into
>WIPO within existing the WIPO Convention and 1974 agreement with United
>Nations, recognizing WIPO's mandate to facilitate development.
>
>The Austrian delegate emphasized the need to make concrete proposals by
>concentrating on proposals that were "ripe for harvest". According to
>Austria, this would help engender trust and cooperation and would ensure
>that this resulted in an international IPR regime that increased
>encouragement for foreign direct investment, stimulates economic growth
>and provide benefits to all.
>
>Thailand, on behalf of the Asian Group noted the importance of public
>policy objectives in the Millennium Development Goals, e.g. public
>health, biodiversity, access to medicines, and access to educational
>material. Thailand stressed that WIPO needed to ensure that its
>norm-setting activities were consistent with public policy objectives
>recognized by group. It noted its support for the mainstreaming of the
>development agenda into WIPO norm-setting activities
>
>Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, presented its proposal for the
>Development Agenda. Ambassador Joseph U Ayalogu stated that "[t]echnical
>assistance should be development-oriented and demand driven. With
>respect to transfer of technology, the African Group echoed the
>conclusions of the Report of the UK Commission in Intellectual Property
>Rights which asserted that
>
>    the critical issue in respect of IP is not whether it promotes trade
>    or foreign investment, but how it helps or hinders developing
>    countries gain access to technologies that are required for their
>    development.
>
>
>
>Ambassador Ayalogu stressed that the African Group was not against IP
>protection per se. However, he noted that the Group was of the opinion
>that any meaningful discussions of IP and development take into account
>the following:
>
>
>
>    1. There must be a clear and consistent rational for IP protection
>
>    2. There must be an assessment of the costs and benefits of IP
>    protection.
>
>    3. IP protection must not be divorced from the aspirations not be
>    divorced from the aspirations of developing and least developed
>    countries for economic growth and development, the acquisition of
>    technological know how, etc.
>
>    5. Public interest concerns such as access to knowledge, health and
>    nutrition, agriculture and so forth must be protected.
>
>
>
>Pakistan made an intervention on behalf of the Group 77 (G-77) and
>China. Ambassador Massood Khan noted that the G-77 and China were of the
>view that the "Development Agenda discussions in WIPO form[ed] an in
>important milestone". He noted that WIPO, as part of the UN family, had
>an obligation to prioritize the mainstreaming of development dimension
>into the core of its program and operational activities. Ambassador Khan
>reiterated the Doha Declaration adopted at the Second South Summit in
>2005 which emphasized that
>
>    while developing countries are committed to undertaking their
>    international obligations, these undertakings may impose high costs,
>    and that given the differences in development and the ability of
>    countries to assume obligations, it is imperative that identical
>    obligations are not forced on unequal participants.
>
>
>
>Ambassador Khan highlighted the IIM discussions last year which cited
>the need to make the "affordability and accessibility of essential
>products like pharmaceuticals, text books and educational software" as
>"primary examples of areas where such flexibilities need to be either
>created or made operable, with regard to the IP system."
>
>Ambassador Dumont of Argentina made the intervention on behalf of the
>Friends of Development (FOD). As mentioned in the FOD proposal
><http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/pcda_1/pcda_1_5.pdf>, the FOD
>identified 6 common threads among the 50 specific proposals presented
>since 2004. The FOD proposal noted this 6 common themes as a means of
>producing tangible outcomes and recommendations to the General Assembly
>in 2006. Among the common threads identified was how to
>
>    "facilitate access to knowledge generally around the world and
>    specifically in developing countries for example by means of a Treaty
>    on Access to Knowledge" given the [g]rowing importance of access to
>    knowledge of protecting and promoting access to the cultural
>    heritage and need to maintain robust public domain through
>    exceptions and limitations.
>
>
>
>The Chilean Ambassador outlined his delegation's proposal
><http://fromgeneva.blogspot.com/2006/02/%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttp://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/pcda_1/pcda_1_2.pdf>.
>He stressed that a public domain was an important source of creativity
>and a key factor for growth. He cautioned that the public domain could
>be unnecessarily affected through technological protection measures
>(TPMs). He warned of a global trend towards increasing exclusive rights
>and restricting material in public domain. In his elaboration of the
>importance of complementary systems to and in intellectual property the
>Chilean Ambassador noted current discussions on an a2k treaty and a
>treaty on medical research and development
><http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB117/B117_R13-en.pdf> (being
>discussed at the WHO).
>
>The United States made an elaboration on its proposal for a WIPO
>Partnership Program.
>
>Please see Georg Greve's blog
><http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/%28tag%29/WIPO> for
>additional insights.
>
>Thanks to Gwen Hinze and Teresa Hackett for inputs
>_______________________________________________
>A2k mailing list
>A2k@lists.essential.org
>http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k