[Ip-health] FromGeneva: WIPO General Assembly discussions on the Development Agenda

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

<SNIP>

Chair: Thanks everyone and says that 33 delegations took the floor,
which shows the development agenda's importance.

It is quite clear that all delegations favour a continuation of the
process. The only place where there were slight nuances were where to
continue and in what form.

I am not in any position to come up with a concrete solution at this
stage but there remain certain elements to be crafted with respect to
the appropriate forum, the mandate, tangible results.

I am quite heartened by the fact that many of these items were touched
upon by all delegations.

I propose suspending consideration in the plenary of this item.

At some time, perhaps as early as tomorrow, I'd like to have some
open-ended, informal discussions to see if we can put some kind of
agreed text forward. On that basis, let's see if we can come up with an
agreed text to address this issue.

Written proposals are welcome. I will not say yet how we will conduct
the informal meetings tomorrow. Some time tomorrow an announcement will
be made about open ended informal consultations.

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


http://fromgeneva.blogspot.com/2006/09/wipo-general-assembly-discussions-on.html


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


      WIPO General Assembly discussions on the Development Agenda

The majority of delegations indicated their support of a renewal of the
PCDA process but it remained to be seen how the modalities (eg. how the
solution should be structure) were implemented into a Decision. The
Chair is expected to announce a Decision this either today or tomorrow.

---

Day 2, 26 September 2006

Afternoon Session

---

Notes taken by:

Thiru Balasubramaniam, thiru at cptech dot org, Consumer Project on
Technology [TB]

Teresa Hackett, teresa.hackett at eifl dot net, Electronic Information
for Libraries [TH]

Ren Buchholz, ren at eff dot org, Electronic Frontier Foundation [RB]

[NOTE: This is not an official transcript. It's our best effort at
providing a faithful set of notes of the proceedings. Any errors and
omissions are unintentional and regretted.]

-=-=-=-=-
Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law)

Except where indicated in relation to specific text in the following
material, 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.


(WIPO-Sherif Saadallah):

Ambassador Rigoberto Gauto of Paraguay was elected chair.

The PCDA did not reach any consensus on a recommendation for
consideration to this General Assembly.

On September 26, 2006 there was a proposal made by Kyrgyzstan.

Chair: We are faced with a situation where the PCDA was unable to reach
a decision on how to proceed.

The fundamental issue is the basic one i.e. how can we proceed. I hope
that our interventions can focus on this particular point and refrain
from discussing the number of proposals on the table. Our task is not to
address the 111 proposals but how to proceed on this issue.

How should we carry forward our work on this matter. Member States have
the right to express their views on this subject.


Paraguay (Ambassador Rigoberto Gauto Vielman): Thank you to MS for
honouring me with the chairmanship of both PCDA sessions.

PCDA met on two occasions this year. Bearing in mind that no consensus
was able to be reached, a factual report was prepared.

I have held many consultations with delegations. My impression is that
significant progress has been made. I hope that the best decisions can
be made to adopt a DA programme.

Finally I would like to thank delegations who took part in the meeting
of the DA and the Secretariat and support staff given to me during my
chairmanship Muktar Jumaliyev (Ambassador of Kyrgyzstan) the Vice Chair.


India (Secretary Ajay Dua): This is one of the most important items for
us in this meeting.

The debate on the DA started about two years ago.

While these discussions have shed much light, unfortunately we have not
covered much ground.

We have two considerations:

1. The process to be adopted hereafter
2. The content thereof

1. There is no doubt that discussions must continue in a focussed and
streamlined manner. We need to set clear guidelines for tangible
results. We suggest that the GA decides on extending the mandate of the
PCDA for another one year within which we can have two to three sessions.

In the first session, plan of action with phased proposals. We
emphatically state that the Development Agenda should be accepted as a
package.

2. We are faced with considering 111 proposals. However, when we sift
through these proposals, we can combine proposals and eliminate
repetitive items.

We have already clustered the proposals. All we have to do is carry out
the above proposals for each cluster, coming up with about 25 proposals.
All the aspects of the proposals should be studied by external experts
in the field.

In short, we should adopt a scientific approach. There is a lot at stake
and we have to succeed. We have to restore the balance where it it is
believed that it has been distorted.

If we are able to install a robust development agenda, we can restore
balance in the IP system.


Argentina (Ambassador Dumont): On behalf of GFOD, we have made
substantial comments so I will not rehash them here.

There is no doubt that this exercise was as fruitful as we expected.

To some extent, we are all rather disappointed at the outcome. However,
all delegations that took the floor yesterday highlighted the importance
of the issue. There has been a constant overlapping of procedure and
substance. I don't know if this has assisted us in the process.

In PCDA/2/2 we compiled the proposal in order to simplify analysis.

We understand Group B's request for clarity. We are open to
consultations to see how we can make progress here.


UK (Ambassador of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland):

We are well known to be development friendly. We are conscious of the
lack of progress in this area while trade and development has been
stalled in this town.

As mentioned by India and Argentina, we should endeavour to make a
serious effort to make a roadmap of the plethora of worthwhile proposals
submitted. I recall that some of us spent half the morning in a useful
seminar with DG of UNCTAD to adopt a more forward looking and
constructive approach with other organisations in this town.


Croatia (on behalf of central Europe and Baltic States): We agree that
WIPO's role in development should be re-considered.

We recognize that IP is only part of the solution.

Our countries appreciate the work of WIPO so far in order for IP to
become a tool for development, to promote research, technology transfer
and to stimulate innovation. Our group has been supportive of the
process, in a way that does not go beyond the mandate of WIPO. Some
achievements have been made but the process remains blocked. Good will
and readiness to compromise would have bridged our differences.

We support further discussions on the DA. We believe there are certain
proposals that are ready for an early harvest.

The rest of the proposals should be discussed during future meetings. We
believe that the chairman's proposals during the 2nd meeting are a basis
for our future work. NOTE: there were no chairman's proposals from this
meeting.

Our disappointment is amplified by a feeling that the solution is within
reach.


Kyrgyzstan: For us and for other members, matters for a DA is very
important and
topical for all countries regardless of their economic and social
development. It cannot be restricted to certain areas such as technical
assistance. We commend the activities of WIPO for assisting developing
countries.

We support a constructive step by step approach and unremitting in its
search for a solution.

Kyrgyzstan played an active part in the two PCDA's.

Kyrgyzstan endorses the work of the committee that was done under its
mandate.

There is a need to renew the DA.

Guiding principle to take into account all proposals that have been
made. We all wish to move forward on this. We have submitted a draft
decision of the WIPO GA in WO/GA/33/G9

Preamble

1st paragraph

We think technical assistance would also involve capacity building.

2nd paragraph.

We consider that all proposals must be carefully examined and disseminated.

Operative part

1st paragraph. This committee will replace the PCIPD during its existence.

2nd para: 2 sessions in 2007

3rd para: report to GA in 2007 with recommendations for a DA


Indonesia: I reiterate the importance of the DA. This is a significant
milestone to enable MS to implement IP that respects their stage of
development.

My delegation still sees a wide space for all MS to move forward despite
differences. Many delegations have expressed their willingness to
support the process.

The GA should provide the PCDA with clear guidance to enable substantive
discussion.

It is hoped that the PCDA would able to organize its work in a more
efficient fashion. All proposals identified in the previous PCDA
meetings should be included.

Streamlining the proposals should ensure that no proposals are excluded.

There should be an informal open ended consultation preceded before the
PCDAs involving all stakeholders to serve as a confidence building
measure. This would be followed by a formal meeting of the PCDA.


Nigeria (on behalf of the African Group):

We attach great importance to this particular agenda item.
All that needs to be said has been spelt out in previous meetings. What
matters now is to embark on a course of action. Many of our members have
introduced substantive proposals. The reasons are obvious and manifest.

We should agree on a targeting work programme on the DA.

The AG submitted an 8 point program for the GA. This was submitted in
the general statement predicated upon careful assessment and driven by
collective desire to make progress. It was devised following wide
ranging consultations with civil society and other stakeholders. All 111
proposals should be discussed objectively and comprehensively.

None of the proposals should be ignored. There should be a rational
approach to discussing the 111 proposals.

We have called for a renewal of the mandate of the PCDA.

We are gratified to hear such calls being reiterated by other MS in this
august assembly. We are strongly recommending that this renewal option
should be the only option to be considered by this assembly. We reserve
the right to return to this issue.


El Salvador:

This proposal is a matter for strategy for any organization. We are very
committed to the agenda for WIPO.

We are very committed to the idea of a DA for WIPO. We have a DA
ourselves within our own planning system. All countries have to shoulder
some responsibility for their own development, taking into account their
resources.

The PCDA mandate should be renewed to move forward.


Brazil:

We fully support what has been stated by the Ambassador of Argentina (on
behalf of the GFOD).

The DA was launched in the GA of 2004.

The DA is the most important agenda item in WIPO for the Brazilian govt.
We know there are frustrations that we were not able to arrive at an
agreement. We however have a positive view from listening to the general
statements.

We see that practically all the membership have taken ownership of the
DA and have expressed the desire to move forward.

The DA has already generated a change of culture in the attitude of
members and the response of the Secretariat to proposals. We have
identified a series of concerns in WIPO program and budget, and we have
already perceived changes in the air that we believe is a direct
consequence of discussions on a DA.

We would like to thank Amb. Gauto (Paraguay) for his efforts.

We would like to reiterate Amb Dumont (Argentina)'s comment that
PCDA/2/2 is a good basis to proceed. It was an effort by the GFOD to
streamline the 111 proposals.

However, we think it's important to refer to the broader documents
WO/GA/31/11, IIM, PCDA/1/5 and PCDA/2/2.

If we simply look at the list of 111 proposal, one would not understand
or comprehend the purpose or context.

We also refer to the many interventions at this GA on the DA e.g.
Indonesia that show a clear support for a renewal of the process. Also
interventions of developed countries such as the UK which indicates a
very development friendly attitude by a developed country and
willingness to accept the challenge of rethinking the attitude of the IP
system in how it can reflect different levels of development.

I would like to refer to a question often asked by the DG of WIPO when
he visits countries.

"What can I do for you"? We should move this DA forward. It's an all
encompassing initiative.

DG Idris: We shall certainly engage and push. I appeal to you to lift
the trust deficit with the Secretariat on this item. I am personally
committed to make this process a success. But we need consensus and a
mutual understanding of all delegations and constituencies.


Finland (behalf of the European Communities and Bulgaria and Romania):

WIPO has an integral role in incorporating development. We regret that
the PCDA could not agree on recommendations, although there was support
for the chairman's compromise proposals.

We look forward to the discussions of the DA and will engage in
constructive spirit.


Mexico:

Particular importance should be attached to the Kyrgyz proposal.

What is our opinion of the DA? Is this a program. This cannot be settled
over two years.

This is an issue that was dealt with in other agencies via a negotiating
process. This is work in progress that can be sorted out in two years or
reduced to a single document or programme. We are facing a global
economy which is knowledge based. This is why it is important that WIPO
deals with development issues. This is an issue that in our century
requires ongoing dialogue. Apart from para 3 of the Kyrgystans proposal,
it embodies the philosophy that we should be adopting. It cannot be seen
as the property of a given region, country or group.

Development has to be seen as a commitment entered to by all MS.

We do not want to create a committee that has endless discussions.

The PC should report back to the assembly.

Pakistan: The DA is an issue of importance to all countries regardless
of the level of development.

We believe that in this GA, we should agree on procedure rather than
going into minute details.

We need a clear direction.

Cuba: We support Argentina's statement (on behalf of GFOD). We want to
renew the mandate of the PCDA. Development should be part of the work
dimensions of this body.


China: We have noted the cooperative spirit of discussion on the DA. It
is an important topic of concern. Global economic integration is
becoming stronger. Trade, technology and investment have bound countries
together in an interdependent network.

At previous meetings the Chinese delegation has noted the insightful
views put forth by all MS. The Chinese delegation agrees with the
proposals of the Asia group and K.

It would provide a permanent forum for all parties to search for an
approach to solve the development issue. As the specialised agency of
the UN, WIPO has the ability to explore paths that can be adopted by
developing countries. We welcome the views and undertakes to actively
participate in discussions.


Chair: We have one hour and 10 speakers so I would please urge speakers
to be brief.


Ecuador:

We would like to endorse the FOD statement. We agree that we should
renew the mandate of the PCDA. Discussion should include all proposals
submitted. Document PCDA/2/2 would be a good basis for discussion.


Japan: We have been promoting IP in a development oriented and pragmatic
manner.

For example, Japan provides $ 2.5 million in assistance to developing
countries. We have invited IP head offices from developing countries and
hosted empirical research for IP and economic development


Tanzania (Khamis Suedi, former employee of WIPO): We extend our
congratulations and sympathies to the Ambassador of Paraguay for
chairing the two meetings of the DA. It is becoming clear that during
the two sessions there was no consensus possible. We have witnessed a
plethora of individual proposals. Without doubt, development is critical
to peoples. We cannot be questioned on our commitment to development,
but we need to be realistic about what we want to pursue. The greatest
success is the fact that there has been dialogue. We

The greatest success has been dialogue.

The mandate of the committee should be extended. All the proposals
should be given consideration

I am from a developing country, an LDC, so no-one can question my
credentials I would like to raise a word of caution. If I understood the
Ambassador of the UK, UNCTAD is looking at its role with regard to
development. Development is mandate of UNCTAD but when I see what is
happening at UNCTAD, we must be careful in what we ask for.

We should all cry for development but we need to be guided by the
historical realities of what we have entered. This organisation was
involved in the revision of the Paris Convention but in the end it went
elsewhere.

We should be careful of politicizing this issue.

Chair: There are now 12 countries on my list. I know it is an important
item and everyone wants to speak. Please be concise in your statements.
Unless you really have to, please take the floor.


Honduras:
1. Clear course of action.
2. Methodology must be agreed by the majority of members to preserve the
inclusiveness of the proposals.

We should focus on how to proceed. We recognize as other MS have stated,
that this could be a difficult exercise but we don't really have another
option.

This is a huge task but nothing is compared if we want to put into
practice inclusiveness and transparency.


Bolivia:

We need to recognize the efforts made by Amb. Gauto. We believe that
development is *the* main challenge of this century in order to achieve
the Millennium Development Goals. We are so pleased to see that WIPO has
taken up this challenge.

All members are committed to directing the work of WIPO on a result
oriented basis. As regards development, we need to give it pride of
place in our work.

Development concerns can't be whittled down to a mere document. PCDA/2/2.
A true DA needs to target structural aspects.

We fully support the statement of the Republic of Argentina.


Morocco: I would like to endorse statement by African Group.
We have not yet managed to achieve anything on this issue. We have to
face up to our collective responsibility.

We *need* flexibility.

I believe that those who participated in the trademark treaty
negotiations will know that we were only successful because we were
flexible. Let me congratulate Amb. Gafoor for his adept chairing and
hosting the conference.

The negotiations that have gone on for two years have made certain
things clear, that all delegations attach paramount importance to this
topic.

We support renewing the mandate of the PCDA.

We must take a realistic inclusive approach.

Development is the touchstone of our Kingdom's polices.


Kenya:

We would like WIPO to integrate the Development Agenda. We do have LDCs,
small island economies and more advanced developing countries. We
identify with the statement of the African Group. We can make
incremental and measurable progress. We must show results.


South Africa:

We align ourselves with Argentina, Nigeria and all the positions that MS
have made to further the work of the development agenda.

SA would like to make clear that we want to see a balanced approach and
we would like to extend the PCDA for 3-4 more sessions. TA is not the
only thing related to the DA. Norm setting must be taken into account.


Iran:

I associate myself with the statement of Argentina. International
cooperation for development has been recognized more than ever. It has
had positive achievements in WIPO. We need a structured framework for
continuation of the debate.

The extension oft he PCDA can provide a space for the discussion of
substantive and procedural concerns.


Venezuala:

We support Argentina.

Simplification and streamlining should be handled for care.

Development is not just a need, it is a demand from the FOD countries.


Canada:

There have been many practical suggestions on this file. We should
concentrate our efforts on the pragmatic areas where progress can be
achieved.


Ukraine:


Russian Federation:

We are having an effective discussion here and taking a consensus approach.

References detailed statement of yesterday's statement on DA and offers
support for the statement of Kyrgyzstan the leader of their regional group.


Uruguay:

We endorse what was said by Argentina. The mandate of the PCDA should be
renewed.

Bearing in mind the MDGs, development issues must be incorporated into
WIPO's program.


Chile:

We restate what was said yesterday. We need to renew the mandate of the
PCDA to continue discussing the 111 proposals. We will closely
scrutinise the K proposal.

We are also keen to hear the African Group.

Ethiopia:

We recognise that the PCDA process has been encouraging. It is a mistake
if we contemplate on whether to continue the process or not. It would be
a wrong signal if this house does not provide a forum to allow the
process to work.

We therefore support in full the statement of Nigeria, which was put
forward on behalf of the African group.

Dominican Republic:

We restate our commitment to these proposals. The documents submitted
are very valuable as is the experience we have accumulated in this and
previous forums (i.e. IIM). This is in following with the goal of
main-streaming development issues when it comes to IP.

It is important that the GA can adopt recommendations on the scope of
the DA. We support the renewal of the PCDA's mandate and the statement
of Argentina this afternoon.

United States (Joyce Winchel NAMDE, State Department):

We, like many other delegations, are disappointed that MS have been
unable to reach consensus on concrete results.

At the 2nd PCDA, all 111 proposals were discussed and remain on the table.

We welcomed doc PCD 2-3 as it offered a possible way forward and had
gained substantial support.

The US remains committed to identifying proposals that will focus WIPO's
work on IP and development We agree with Croatia that a forced agenda
for WIPO will not work.

The proposal put forward by Kyrgystan may offer the most promising
short-term path towards result. We believe an orderly procedure is
required if we are to reach an outcome.

Those proposals that do not presently enjoy consensus may in time garner
support. But we do not see the latter possibility as a reason not to
achieve results in the short term.

We support Indonesia's suggestion to have an informal pre-PCDA meeting
before each assembly in order to facilitate more progress.

Without agreement and simply extending the mandate of the PCDA may lead
to the same result as the previous PCDAs.

Chair: Thanks everyone and says that 33 delegations took the floor,
which shows the development agenda's importance.

It is quite clear that all delegations favour a continuation of the
process. The only place where there were slight nuances were where to
continue and in what form.

I am not in any position to come up with a concrete solution at this
stage but there remain certain elements to be crafted with respect to
the appropriate forum, the mandate, tangible results.

I am quite heartened by the fact that many of these items were touched
upon by all delegations.

I propose suspending consideration in the plenary of this item.

At some time, perhaps as early as tomorrow, I'd like to have some
open-ended, informal discussions to see if we can put some kind of
agreed text forward. On that basis, let's see if we can come up with an
agreed text to address this issue.

Written proposals are welcome. I will not say yet how we will conduct
the informal meetings tomorrow. Some time tomorrow an announcement will
be made about open ended informal consultations.


Mexico:

A point of clarification. Is the document submitted by Kyrgyzstan the
basis for these open ended discussion?

Chair: I've been approached by other countries as well, so I'm not sure
what the path for progress will be. If I get many proposals, I will
perhaps combine some common elements and these may form the basis of
discussions.

I now suspend consideration of this item in plenary.

I request Switzerland to report back on their consultations for the
rewording of the decision of Agenda item 6.


Switzerland:

This can be seen in paragraph C

Note: reference revised text circulated for adoption.

Para b) "engage with Member States and the Audit Committee"...

Chair: I would like to put the revised text before the GA for adoption.

Indonesia:

We need further clarification with our group before proceeding further.

Chair: Of course, and I hope that you can report after that that you agree.

We will hold this text in abeyance.

Good news: We will have a night session at 7:45 PM.

Switzerland: Group B at 8.30

Nigeria: African Group at 9.00

Kyrgystan: group meeting at 9.30

Chair: meeting adjourned at 17.55