[Ip-health] IP-Watch: WIPO Director General Candidates Answer 5 Questions On IP Policy
Thiru Balasubramaniam
thiru@keionline.org
Mon Mar 31 06:13:06 2008
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=3D955
30 March 2008
WIPO Director General Candidates Answer 5 Questions On IP Policy
Posted by William New @ 9:10 pm
Link This Article Leave a Comment Print
Intellectual Property Watch posed five questions on IP policy to the
15 candidates to be the next director general of the World
Intellectual Property Organization.
1. What actions are needed in the international IP systems, such
as those that govern patents, trademarks and copyrights?
2. One year after you take office, what do you expect to have
changed in WIPO=E2=80=99s management, staffing and procedures?
3. How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?
4. What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its
goals and potential, and how will you engage with members and other
stakeholders?
5. How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates
and work with other global institutions?
Here are the 15 candidates by alphabetical order, click on the names
to read their answers:
* Alicia Adamczak (Poland)
* Toufiq Ali (Bangladesh)
* Jorge Amigo Casta=C3=B1eda (Mexico)
* Jos=C3=A9 Gra=C3=A7a Aranha (Brazil)
* Gjorgji Filipov (Macedonia)
* Francis Gurry (Australia)
* Masood Khan (Pakistan)
* Enrique Manalo (Philippines)
* Mauro Masi (Italy)
* James Otieno Odek (Kenya)
* Philippe Petit (France)
* Bojan Pretnar (Slovenia)
* Boris Simonov (Russia)
* Yoshiyuki Takagi (Japan)
* Jos=C3=A9 Delmer Urbizo (Honduras)
Alicia Adamczak
Alicia Adamczak (Poland), President of the Patent Office of the
Republic of Poland (2002-present); member, Administrative Council of
the European Patent Organization (2006-present); IP attorney
Did not answer.
Toufiq Ali
Toufiq Ali (Bangladesh), former ambassador to the WTO and UN in Geneva
(2001-2007), participated in WIPO General Assemblies (2001-2006);
negotiated the Least Developed Country segment on TRIPS and public
health on behalf of the LDCs (2001), Coordinator of the Asian Group
for negotiations in WIPO (2007)
Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the
international IP systems, such as those that govern patents,
trademarks and copyrights?
TOUFIQ ALI: WIPO, as an organisation, is at an inflexion point.
Conceived as a body to administer the Paris and Berne Conventions, it
now covers 24 agreements/ treaties/conventions. The introduction of
TRIPS in 1995 changed the domain of intellectual property.
New forms of knowledge are emerging, or existing frontiers being
extended. In parallel, IP has been taking up a more dominant and
encompassing role in our economic and social activity. For all of us,
across the globe, it has become a part and parcel of our life, either
as a holder or as a user. This expanding horizon has made management
of IP a complex task. Rapid advancement in the use of information and
communication technology has made this task all the more demanding.
Whether in the area of life sciences or in regard to the environment,
particularly sustainable development or climate change, today=E2=80=99s IP
regimes are confronted with evolving challenges.
The concepts of patents, trademarks and copyrights need to be applied
to respond to this changing landscape of innovation and creativity.
WIPO has been successful in some areas, such as with regard to the
Internet, but much more needs to be done in other emerging areas. The
key is to strengthen the understanding of IP systems among all
stakeholders, as well as develop the capacity to expand its use. The
IP system should be able to support a win-win outcome that benefits all.
IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have
changed in WIPO=E2=80=99s management, staffing and procedures?
ALI: Reform of WIPO should be continual, to respond to changing demand
for its services. In working out a reform agenda, with input from
staff, as well as in consultation with the Membership and the
stakeholders who use WIPO=E2=80=99s services, certain basic yardsticks must
be observed.
First, there must be internal transparency. Administrative procedures
must not only be right, but be seen to be right.
Second, the system of internal oversight must be strengthened, to
ensure greater accountability.
Third, internal coherence in WIPO is essential, given the varied tasks
the organisation is required to perform and the delivery that is
expected of it.
Concurrently, skilled and committed staff is what makes an
organisation function. In this regard, the objective would be to:
* align the organisational structure with priorities so as to
enhance managerial effectiveness and to facilitate monitoring.
* establish a transparent and functional career development
system that will raise staff morale.
* facilitate staff participation in operational policy-making.
Finally, the universality and diversity of the Organization must be
upheld, as per UN principles. I will ensure regular dialogue with
Member States and other stakeholders to explore new ways of addressing
the challenges that lie ahead.
Within the first year, the basic structure of reforms should be in
place and there should be enough demonstration that WIPO is moving in
the right direction and that positive change has taken root in many
areas.
IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?
ALI: The role of knowledge in the economy has undergone tremendous
shifts. Countries that have the knowledge, or are able to acquire it,
are leaping ahead. People talk about the digital divide - perhaps the
=E2=80=9Cknowledge divide=E2=80=9D will become more important in future.
All countries are committed to the Development Agenda in WIPO, as
their statements indicate. This emerges from the awareness of
interdependence. The growing gulf between the richer and poorer
countries is a source of concern.
WIPO was not conceived as a development organisation; yet, its
activities may have a profound impact on development. In the design
and implementation of the Development Agenda that Members agree upon,
WIPO has to provide a key supportive role. WIPO should be ready to
provide impartial analysis to the Membership of the implications of
the proposals being discussed. This will facilitate informed
judgements. It is my belief that countries will be able to work
together to define the role that WIPO should perform in this area.
IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals
and potential, and how will you engage with members and other
stakeholders?
ALI: My long experience tells me that the task of transforming WIPO to
meet the new and emerging challenges is not easy. There are some key
lessons:
* The ultimate test of success is the difference reforms make to
the stakeholders at the country level;
* Reforms must be well conceived, properly sequenced and
participatory; and
* Particular attention must be paid to sustaining staff quality,
motivating staff through career development and securing continuous
improvements in the level and relevance of their skills.
To meet this challenge, building consensus among Member States is a
prerequisite for success. I also recognise that WIPO=E2=80=99s clients are
not the governments alone. Other stakeholders have an interest - the
industry, civil society, etc. WIPO provides all of them a service -
this service must be improved continually, through discussion with the
stakeholders and responding to their needs.
IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates
and work with other global institutions?
ALI: The growing complexity of the world that we live in requires new
ways of responding to the challenges. Above all else, this requires
dynamism, and a desire to learn and innovate. New ideas must be
considered to tackle new challenges. WIPO must reach out and network
with others who have new ideas, while contributing to the debate at
the frontiers of knowledge.
Recognising interdependence among nations is important. It is equally
important that the institutions set up to deal with the challenges
work in a coherent manner. Several global institutions are engaged in
activities that involve IP; WIPO should find ways of building synergy
between its activities and that of others. A structured mechanism for
dialogue and coordination is essential on all matters relating to IP.
WIPO must cooperate much more closely with other UN and multilateral
organisations, and regional organisations. The Director General of
WIPO must be in regular contact with the heads of relevant
organisations.
I would seek ways to promote WIPO=E2=80=99s competitive advantage, and
provide leadership, in matters of intellectual property.
Jorge Amigo Casta=C3=B1eda
Jorge Amigo Casta=C3=B1eda (Mexico), director general, Mexican Institute of
Industrial Property (1994-present); president, Paris Union Executive
Committee at WIPO (2005); chairman, Patent Cooperation Treaty Union
(200-2001); chairman, WIPO Committee on PCT Reform (2001); chairman,
negotiating group on intellectual property rights for the Free Trade
Area of the Americas (2000-2001)
Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in
international IP systems, such as those that govern patents,
trademarks and copyrights?
JORGE AMIGO: There are multiple negotiations related to patents,
traditional knowledge, folklore, genetic resources, distinctive signs,
copyright and neighbouring rights, where progress could be considered
minimum. It is necessary to revitalise such processes in order to
analyze new significant IP issues for discussion.
WIPO should work in reaching agreements in an equitable and balanced
manner to strengthen the importance of the intellectual property
worldwide system. A long-term harmonisation process of intellectual
property could be assessed in WIPO considering countries=E2=80=99 levels of
development with the objective to have balanced standards to protect
intellectual property for everyone=E2=80=99s benefit. For example, Member
States should carry out a detailed analysis of currents fees,
specifically those of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), without
affecting other programs, specially the Cooperation Program of WIPO,
which should be modernised in order to improve cooperation activities.
IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have
changed in WIPO=E2=80=99s management, staffing and procedures?
AMIGO: The approval of the Institutional Improvement Program by Member
States would benefit WIPO=E2=80=99s procedures and functions by implementin=
g
some amendments in order to modernise the organization and to make the
services provided more efficient to the users of the world
intellectual property system.
WIPO could establish and foster a specific =E2=80=9Cbest practices=E2=80=9D=
outline
for its management, comprising adequate planning, organisation,
leadership and control of its operations; and the creation of a
measuring system of its institutional activities according to its
goals and objectives.
Likewise it would be convenient to redirect staff to other activities
or new services with the aim to create a dynamic and creative work
environment, based on respect, responsibility and commitment. This
will help to resolve the institutional crisis that is affecting the
credibility of WIPO and the workplace.
Additionally, worldwide trends make necessary the implementation of
transparency and access to information mechanisms in the Organization.
By introducing effective and transparent systems for WIPO=E2=80=99s
evaluation programs, with special emphasis on developing the
capabilities and knowledge of its personnel and by using performance
based criteria of efficiency and responsibility. This should be done
with a view towards the future, rather than focusing on the past.
Jointly, it is necessary to establish accountability mechanisms for
better management and planning when looking at its financial statements.
IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?
AMIGO: It is fundamental to fully integrate the Development Agenda in
the Organizations=E2=80=99 work program (like WIPO=E2=80=99s Committee for
Development). WIPO as a specialised agency of the United Nations is
committed to take into account the development-related goals of the UN
system. As an example, the promotion of innovation, creativity and
technology transfer are IP tools of countries=E2=80=99 development.
Member States shall work together in an equitable and balanced manner
in order to reach agreements in initiatives that will strengthen the
functioning and credibility of the intellectual property worldwide
system. A long-term harmonisation process of intellectual property
could be assessed in WIPO considering countries=E2=80=99 levels of
development.
IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals
and potential, and how will you engage with members and other
stakeholders?
AMIGO: The Organization requires immediate establishment of a renewed
leadership that allows recovering the organism=E2=80=99s credibility and
prestige. Likewise it shall be necessary to resolve the institutional
crisis that is affecting the workplace environment.
Some of the negotiations being carried out in WIPO have achieved small
progress, therefore it is necessary to revitalize such negotiations,
encourage Member States to work together in developing initiatives to
benefit countries and to conclude such processes in order to analyze
new significant discussion IP issues.
WIPO, Members States and Stakeholders shall jointly work in reviewing
Organization=E2=80=99s IP policies in order to adopt the appropriate measur=
es
to foster IP community active participation in a proper and balanced
manner in norm-setting processes.
IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates
and work with other global institutions?
AMIGO: WIPO as a specialised agency of the United Nations system shall
construct the main discussion forum of substantive intellectual
property topics. Although it is quite clear that a great number of
international IP related fora have generated the possibility of study
and analysis of IP fields, WIPO should remain as the main forum where
analysis, discussion and negotiation of intellectual property topics
shall be developed.
On the other hand, appropriate communication channels should be
implemented between WIPO and such international IP related for a to
worldwide intellectual property system that looks forward to produce
major benefits for holders of rights and society. This will require
the new Director General to get personally involved with the Heads of
such organisations.
Jos=C3=A9 Gra=C3=A7a Aranha
Jos=C3=A9 Gra=C3=A7a Aranha (Brazil), director of WIPO International
Registrations Department, sector of trademarks, industrial designs and
geographical indications (2006-present); former director of
Information and Promotion Division, sector of trademarks, industrial
designs and geographical indications (2004-2006); president, National
Institute of Industrial Property (1999-2003); president, WIPO
Conference (1999-2003); manager, Brazil Five-Year IP Plan (2000-2003);
IP attorney; professor
Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the
international IP systems, such as those that govern patents,
trademarks and copyrights?
JOSE GRACA-ARANHA: We need to distinguish between matters of procedure
and matters of substance. International cooperation and registration
systems, which deal with procedures to facilitate the protection of
patents, trademarks and designs, need continuous streamlining. The
relevant treaties and regulations should be looked at with a view to
further developing those systems so that they become even more user-
friendly to our users. The essence of the matter is to meet users=E2=80=99
expectations and needs. With the procedures we have today, WIPO has
already reached impressive numbers of filing and processing of
international applications. If we manage to modernise them further, we
will be able to achieve even better results to the full satisfaction
of our users. Of course, we should not forget to work on
classification standards, because they go hand in hand with procedures.
As far as substantive norms are concerned, we need to have a
breakthrough in the work of the Committees in WIPO. Very little
progress has been made in the recent years in the substantive work of
the Organization. Developing countries are visibly taking a breath.
The transitional periods under the TRIPS Agreement have just expired
for a number of them. For the least-developed countries, those
transitional periods have been extended. After the TRIPS Agreement
entered into force, WIPO Member States have adopted the two WIPO
Internet Treaties (in 1996), the PLT (in 2000), and the Singapore
Treaty (in 2006). If you put on top of all this the Decision of the
General Council of the WTO, of August 2003 (on a number of waivers
from TRIPS obligations), you will conclude that there is a lot of new
matter which WIPO Members still need to digest. However, I believe
that WIPO needs to make progress in its substantive work. There are
many topics that require consideration. Hopefully, future discussions
will be carried out in a constructive way and lead to a balanced
outcome. The next Director General will have to get personally
involved in all technical discussions. A hands-on-approach will be
needed. I am convinced that, as a result, roadblocks will be removed
and progress will be made in this very important area of work of the
Organization.
IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have
changed in WIPO=E2=80=99s management, staffing and procedures?
GRACA-ARANHA: One year is a very pessimistic deadline. If I am
honoured with the trust of Member States to be the next WIPO Director
General, in ninety days from stepping into the office, I will have the
internal programme of action written and ninety days later it will be
in operation. That programme will cover three areas: (a) restructuring
the Secretariat in accordance with the main lines of activities and
expertise; (b) a clear attribution of managerial duties and
obligations that correspond to the Organization=E2=80=99s role and mandate;
and =C2=A9 the establishment of principles and rules of intra-house
coordination that put emphasis on cooperation, aggregation of
expertise, and accountability to the Secretariat and Member States. In
one year, which is your proposed deadline, the Secretariat will be
fully engaged in carrying out its business in an ethical, transparent
and cost-efficient manner. To me, good governance is the essence of
the matter.
IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?
GRACA-ARANHA: The role of the WIPO Director General is one of a
consensus facilitator, a bridge builder. The new DG must take a hands-
on approach in all technical discussions in the Organization and will
seek a Development Agenda process that is exhaustive and inclusive. It
must be exhaustive to the extent that there should be no IP issue that
is taboo; all topics proposed by Members and approved by the General
Assembly must be thoroughly analysed and debated. And that process
must be inclusive, in the sense that the Development Agenda is not an
expression of antagonism. The Development Agenda is an initiative to
move IP forward in a set that is not framed by trade-related
concessions but, instead, is dictated by the need to promote
development in its holistic dimension, with its fundamental dimension
of human rights. Among the 45 recommendations approved by the General
Assembly for discussion and implementation in the Committee on
Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), there are many that are
crucial. For example, the recommendation to formulate principles and
values in the framework of the CDIP that would impregnate the other
negotiating processes in WIPO. I am convinced that, if this works,
those values and principles adopted in the CDIP will contribute to
move forward negotiating processes also in other organisations,
including the WTO. The reason is that the vast numbers of WIPO Member
States that have proposed and supported the Development Agenda have
sent out a clear message: they want that IP effectively serve the
objectives of development. If this works, that will be a major change,
a breakthrough in the evolution of intellectual property, as important
as the adoption of the Paris Convention, in 1883, the Berne Convention
in 1886 or the TRIPS Agreement in 1994.
IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals
and potential, and how will you engage with members and other
stakeholders?
GRACA-ARANHA: I do not see major obstacles. I see difficulties that
can be overcome. The difficulties are twofold. The administrative
issues that have had an impact on the credibility of the Organization
and the little progress made in the substantive work lately. In this
context, we have three challenges in front of us. Those challenges
are: engagement, consensus, and inclusiveness. (i) Engagement speaks
to the Secretariat, to the staff, and the use of our resources in a
coordinated, dedicated, transparent, impartial, efficient manner. The
future DG must ensure that the Secretariat is fully engaged in
pursuing the Organization=E2=80=99s mandate. (ii) Consensus is also a form =
of
engagement, but which corresponds to our Member States. The DG must be
a consensus builder, and he (or she) can do so by leading WIPO Members
to identify the common grounds, the common values, the common
interest. Only the Director General has the stature and the knowledge
to find the fine and balanced line that will allow the work of the
Organization to move forward. Finally, (iii) inclusiveness means that
intellectual property is a tool for all and that stakeholders should
not be differentiated. Owners and users. Multinational companies and
small artisans. Start-up firms dealing with nanotechnology and many-
thousand-year-old tribes domesticating and preserving genetic
resources. The DG must ensure that all stakeholders, without any
distinction or discrimination, use intellectual property to protect
their intangible assets, for the benefit of consumers. WIPO needs to
have an open and direct line of communication with all stakeholders.
WIPO is the only agency in the United Nations with a mandate to pursue
such inclusiveness.
IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates
and work with other global institutions?
GRACA-ARANHA: WIPO is at a crossroads. Part of its work is progressing
well, but confidence in the Organization has to be strengthened and
discussions on intellectual property matters have to move forward
within WIPO otherwise the Organization will become irrelevant. If
discussions do not move forward, the topics under consideration will
not be forgotten by Member States and interested circles. Instead,
they will be taken to other fora and multilateralism will suffer a
serious setback. We have to take into consideration the lessons of
history and recall that the failure of multilateralism in the 1970s
resulted in discussions being taken away from WIPO. The next Director
General, with the hands-on-approach I mentioned previously, will have
a big task to work towards strengthening multilateralism, towards
building consensus among WIPO Member States and towards achieving
concrete results that will be to the satisfaction of all stakeholders.
As far as work with other global institutions is concerned, WIPO has
the mandate to promote the protection of intellectual property within
the global framework of the pursuance of the core values of the United
Nations - the values of development, international peace, and,
ultimately, human dignity. But there are other global institutions for
which intellectual property has relevance, and the DG must ensure that
WIPO coordinates with them - for the sake not only of the proper
functioning of the international system but also for the sake of
WIPO=E2=80=99s own mandate. We should not forget that the United Nations
promotes interagency coordination in various areas. Intellectual
property should be one of those. Only coordinated actions stemming
from the common system will permit us to envisage with realism the
achievement of WIPO=E2=80=99s goals and objectives under a perspective of I=
P
as a tool for development.
Gjorgji Filipov
Gjorgji Filipov (Macedonia), Ambassador to Germany (2005-present);
director general, founder of the State Industrial Property Protection
Office (1993-1999); chairman, board of directors of the Berin
Intellectual Property Agency (1999-present)
Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the
international IP systems, such as those that govern patents,
trademarks and copyrights?
GJORGJI FILIPOV: The fundamental challenge for IP experts, state
administrations and WIPO at this time is to find the right concepts
and procedures, to harmonise the differences we have in today=E2=80=99s
international IP system. WIPO has to play a key role in that process.
A further improvement in harmonisation of the well-known differences
is necessity - not only concerning IPR as patents, trademarks and
copyright, but also to find the right concepts and procedures for the
protection of traditional knowledge, genetic resources and folklore.
Therefore it is essential to define a common international basis to
bring nearer the different interpretations of the necessities and
tasks lying ahead. Apart from the evident basic requirements, i.e.,
the best protection of IP rights and in a concise concept of state-of-
the-art-procedures, the following may give an idea for an outline of
requirements of such a new structure: affordable, efficient and cost-
effective IP system; most simple possible procedures for protection;
simulative, rewardable, in appropriate time granted protection rights;
strongly cooperative, taking into account different social and
economic environment in developing IP systems in LDC=E2=80=99s; strongest
possible connection between various research and development
institutions and industry, and - simple IPR litigation system with
uniformed criteria in and out the borders of Member States.
IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have
changed in WIPO=E2=80=99s management, staffing and procedures?
FILIPOV: In the wake of my extensive experience as a manager, director
and entrepreneur I learned that the best way to discover the reality
of the internal situation in one organisation is a mind mapping
process of all affected team members. Most difficulties can be
eliminated and work can be brought back to efficiency by a careful and
open-minded mediation. Key factors are trust in the staff, motivation
among the staff and listening about ideas for further development of
the organisation from the staff.
Although I do not want to deny the complexity and sensitivity of the
agenda lying ahead for WIPO, I am very confident that with the support
of the member countries which have to be deeply involved in the
decision making processes as well as other stakeholders, such as the
business community, and the highly qualified personnel in WIPO this
will be achievable within a year. More details about the management
tool that would be applied I=E2=80=99ll give you in the further phases of t=
he
DG appointment process.
IPW: How do you see the future of WIPO Development Agenda?
FILIPOV: When I participated as a representative of the International
Federation of Inventor=E2=80=99s Associations (IFIA) at the WIPO General
Assembly in 2004, I expected more frequent activities concerning the
Development Agenda. Nevertheless, as the Committee on Development and
IP was finally established last year, the process has now commenced. I
look forward to the acceleration of its work on the Agenda as I
consider it to be crucial not to lose any more time, and to start
immediately with respective assessments country by country.
We should also rely on the experience of WTO and World Bank as natural
partners for cooperation. This cooperation among WIPO, WTO and World
Bank should be understood as a proactive approach from each of the
sides which can be the basis for success in this area.
IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals
and potential, and how will you engage with members and other
stakeholders?
FILIPOV: Honestly, I don=E2=80=99t like to think about obstacles, I prefer =
to
see challenges which can be tackled in a mutual approach.
I see the main challenge in overcoming the different perceptions of
the developing and developed countries. A fair enough geographical
representation of the staff of WIPO might be a step towards a better
mutual understanding.
An often debated challenge is the one concerning experts in IP matters
in the executive level of the Secretariat of WIPO. WIPO has broad
basis of human resources and so I am confident that a solution can be
found.
This is closely connected to the third challenge, which is the
requirement of a close cooperation between the Member States
representatives and the WIPO Secretariat.
The main task of the Director General of WIPO should be to harmonise
the interests of all stakeholders for a more efficient and dynamic
institution in the world of intellectual property. A trustful
relationship here is the basis for efficient and thriving business and
political surroundings to promote future developments. Therefore, the
Director General should understand the requirements of the inventors,
the business communities, as well as the procedures in administration.
When I=E2=80=99ll be honoured with the trust to be elected Director General=
I
will do everything in my capacity to promote WIPO as respectable and
strong matrix-structured organisation that will respond to all
challenges. With the background of my personal experience in all of
these areas, I am convinced about the worth and the necessity of
international cooperation in the field of intellectual property.
IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates
and work with other global institutions?
FILIPOV: It is not a question of keeping WIPO relevant to
international policy. WIPO is a specialised UN Agency that has to
intensify the collaboration with the WTO and the World Bank and other
relevant (for IP and economic development matters) international
institutions. WIPO=E2=80=99s central function, which is constitutionally
determined, relates to development of an IP system in the world. What
is also very important, WIPO has to contribute to the economic
development protecting the rights to creative community and taking
care about public interest. WIPO must elevate its level of
cooperativeness among Member States from one hand and between WIPO
management and country representatives from other hand. This
cooperation will deliver a new power which will reinforce WIPO
position among other global institutions. As a candidate who is coming
from a country in transition, and at the same time being ambassador in
Germany, a country where the word =E2=80=9Cinnovation=E2=80=9D is daily lif=
e, I can
cherish such a contribution. I am also aware of the necessity and
requirements within established institutions. I would appreciate the
chance to share my experiences to [make] the best of WIPO=E2=80=99s future.=
I
tried to be as short as possible. More about my attitudes you can find
on my web site www.gjorgjifilipov.com. Thank you very much for the
interest and big success to Intellectual Property Watch!
Francis Gurry
Francis Gurry (Australia), WIPO deputy director general (2003-present)
responsible for patents, the Arbitration and Mediation Center, and
global IP issues; former WIPO assistant director general and legal
counsel (1993-2003)
Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the
international IP systems, such as those that govern patents,
trademarks and copyrights?
FRANCIS GURRY: Multiple actions are possible and some are needed. It
is a question of developing a consensus of the Member Sates on a
strategic plan that can address systematically the many areas where
existing treaties and systems might be adjusted or new instruments
introduced.
On the broadest level, it is a question of adapting the territorial IP
system to global markets and the global use of technologies, while
preserving policy space at the national level to allow flexibility to
deal with national priorities. In developing a strategic plan to
address this broad objective, two questions should always be asked:
(i) is there is a real need for action, by virtue of a gap or lacuna
or because of the obsolescence of existing rules or norms? (ii) is it
an international issue, as opposed to one that might be more
effectively or appropriately addressed at the national level.
Two immediate areas (there are others) that produce positive answers
to these methodological questions are, in my view, the need for
greater cooperation in the search and examination of patent
applications in order to reduce duplication of work, enhance quality
and improve efficiency; and traditional cultural expressions and
traditional knowledge.
IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have
changed in WIPO=E2=80=99s management, staffing and procedures?
GURRY: Change in these areas must follow a strategic plan that I would
expect will take longer than one year to implement. The necessary
elements of such a strategic plan, some of which may be implemented
more quickly than others, include:
* the introduction of a service-oriented culture in the
Secretariat;
* the stream-lining of the structure or organigram, including the
elimination of areas of duplication;
* the establishment of vertical and horizontal lines of
communication throughout the Organization;
* the introduction of new skills in IP specialisation,
management, information technology, economics and the languages of new
demand in the Organization=E2=80=99s registration systems;
* the re-engineering of cumbersome administrative procedures, and
the introduction of an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system after
that re-engineering has taken place.
IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?
GURRY: It is vital to a healthy future for the Organization. I see it
as a dimension of all the activities of the Organization, that is,
that the development dimension should be =E2=80=9Cmain-streamed.=E2=80=9D T=
here is
a consensus in the Organization=E2=80=99s membership on the need for the
Development Agenda, but that consensus is formed around rather general
and abstract propositions, which now need to be translated into
concrete projects, with measurable outcomes, that can deliver
effective assistance. A number of such concrete projects are possible,
and the next Director General will need to engage with the Member
States to develop agreement on those projects that should be tackled
first.
IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals
and potential, and how will you engage with members and other
stakeholders?
GURRY:
1. Lack of credibility - we are a service organisation and those
services, whether to the enterprise sector or our Member States, will
not attract support unless the Organization and its services are seen
to be credible;
2. Lack of communication, both within the Organization and with
the Member States and the general public;
3. Lack of focus on the subject matter for which the Organization
exists, namely, intellectual property - we are a specialised agency
with a limited mandate.
It follows from the preceding enumeration of obstacles that I consider
credible and frequent communication concerning our area of
specialisation with the Member States, and with all stakeholders, to
be essential to the success of the Organization.
IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates
and work with other global institutions?
GURRY: I would emphasise the need for establishing trusted, neutral
and authoritative expertise in our area of specialisation, so that it
will be natural to look to WIPO for engagement on questions of
intellectual property, as well as the need for open lines of
communication with all stakeholders to facilitate that engagement.
Masood Kahn
Masood Khan (Pakistan), Ambassador to the UN (2005-present);
representative to the following WIPO bodies: General Assembly,
Coordination Committee, Program and Budget Committee (2005-07);
chairman, Committee on Internet Governance of the World Summit on the
Information Society (2005)
Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the
international IP systems, such as those that govern patents,
trademarks and copyrights?
MASOOD KHAN: The IP systems covering patents, trademarks, and
copyright must keep pace with the rapid economic, technological and
regulatory changes. International IP systems are dynamic tools for the
governance of global technology markets. We need to continue to refine
and upgrade the PCT and the Madrid systems. We also need to find ways
and means to promote better understanding and cooperation on
enhancement of international patent, trademark and copyright policies.
But that is not enough. The Organization must take a more proactive
approach on identifying and dealing with new emerging IP issues which
have a bearing on WIPO and other international organisations.
IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have
changed in WIPO=E2=80=99s management, staffing and procedures?
KHAN: Foster institutional mechanisms to ensure transparent financial
management; accountability; performance-based human resource
management, recognition of merit; consolidation of a culture of work
ethics, and strengthening technical expertise. Procedures could be
revisited to make them more functional and productive.
IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?
KHAN: The future of the Development Agenda is promising because now
most of the developed countries are supportive. I foresee movement.
The Development Agenda should be substantive, resilient, and
sustainable. Effective implementation requires proper orientation of
the WIPO Secretariat and generation of adequate resources. The
Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), under the
chairmanship of Ambassador Trevor Clarke, has made a good beginning.
The new Director General will have to mobilise support of all
stakeholders to ensure effective implementation of the Agenda.
IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals
and potential, and how will you engage with members and other
stakeholders?
KHAN: I would not call them obstacles, but challenges. Three
challenges: First, to build trust and confidence among states and
other stakeholders. Second, to build on convergences and narrow down
continuing divergences over substantive issues. Gaps will have to be
bridged. Third, to leverage expertise within the Organization and
attract talent to place IP in the contemporary technological, economic
and development context.
IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates
and work with other global institutions?
KHAN: The WIPO is relevant to international policy discourse and it is
a key player on IP. WIPO is the centre of excellence on IP, serving as
a natural source of expertise and advice for other global
institutions. What we need to do is to move it to a higher plane of
engagement and productivity. It should aim for better brand name
recognition. It is time for the WIPO to go global and emerge as the
most authentic and authoritative voice on intellectual property
covering legal, enforcement and development dimensions. The WIPO
should develop synergy with other multilateral organisations, regional
IP entities and national governments. The WIPO should emerge as the
global hub on IP. More importantly, it should use its pivotal role in
the areas of the Internet and biotechnology to influence decision-
making in the new international economic landscape.
Enrique Manalo
Enrique Manalo (Philippines), undersecretary for policy, Department of
Foreign Affairs (2007-present); former ambassador to the UN in Geneva
and Chairman of the WIPO General Assembly (2005-07); chairman, WIPO
Construction Selection Board (2006-07); chairman, WIPO Committee on
Cooperation for Development Related to Intellectual Property (2005)
Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the
international IP systems, such as those that govern patents,
trademarks and copyrights?
ENRIQUE MANALO: WIPO, as an intergovernmental and multilateral
institution for IP matters, needs to take a leading role in offering
fresh perspectives on the future of the international IP system in the
context of rapidly changing needs and a globalised economy. The new
Director General himself must pursue policies and goals that can guide
internal WIPO debates and IP norm setting in order to produce outcomes
that can credibly impact on the IP system.
I have always believed that a truly responsive IP system significantly
depends on achieving consensus and cooperation among governments
through the open and inclusive engagement of all Member States and
other stakeholders. Therefore, I intend to promote consensus on the
issues before WIPO by engaging not only Member States but also other
stakeholders such as IP owners and users, industry, consumer interest
groups and the media. I also intend to raise awareness of IP issues by
proposing approaches other than negotiations, such as open forums and
debates that could clarify understanding on outstanding issues.
IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have
changed in WIPO=E2=80=99s management, staffing and procedures?
MANALO: I intend to address WIPO=E2=80=99s governance and staffing issues
from day one. My main priority is to ultimately create an effective
Organization. I can assure Member States that the Office of the
Director General will not balk at addressing allegations of misconduct
or mismanagement within WIPO. I shall implement fair and transparent
staffing policies and approve appointments that are based on merit,
open competition and duly considered by the WIPO appointment and
promotion board. I think it would be possible to put in place within
one year an effective, accountable, and transparent organisational
system that gives full respect to staff rules, regulations and
procedures.
IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?
MANALO: I see a positive future for the development agenda and its
place in WIPO. I am proud that the WIPO General Assembly under my
Presidency was able to reach agreement on the elements and substance
of the Agenda. I attended the first meeting of the CDIP and felt
extremely encouraged when Member States quickly approved the
committee=E2=80=99s rules of procedure and went on to discuss the 45 agreed
proposals. I believe this shows the commitment of Member States,
developed and developing countries alike, to make progress on the
Agenda for Development. I can assure Member States that they can rely
on my active support and help as Director General in moving these
discussions forward and achieving concrete and lasting results.
IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals
an petential, and how will you engage with members and other
stakeholders?
MANALO: A big obstacle is the often mentioned trust deficit among
Member States and between the latter and the Organization. That in
turn, has to some extent contributed to the impasse/deadlocks in
negotiations in WIPO on a number of important issues being considered
by some of the committee of WIPO. The failure to approve the budget
for the 2008-2009 [biennium], which directly impinges on the
programmes and priorities of the Organization, is a painful reminder
of the lack of sufficient trust and division among Member States.
Another obstacle emanates from management and staff issues. The new
Director General must squarely address all of these obstacles.
As Director General, I intend to restore trust and confidence in the
Organization by regularly engaging Member States and other
stakeholders. I think the best way for the Organization to achieve
growth and progress is to encourage all Member States to participate
actively in negotiating processes. I shall also address the problems
of WIPO Staff, as well as provide them with access to the Office of
the Director General. It will also be a priority to enhance the
working relationship between Member States and the Organization
through greater transparency in our work and more regular contacts or
informal discussions on issues.
IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates
and work with other global institutions?
MANALO: I will strengthen WIPO=E2=80=99s policy research capabilities to
enable it to keep abreast with current IP policy issues and debates. I
also believe that WIPO is in a unique position to promote coherence in
multilateral approaches to intellectual property issues beyond the
existing relationships and contacts, specially those under
consideration in other fora such as WHO and WTO. In this regard, I am
prepared to initiate regular consultations with due regard to our
respective mandates, with the heads of other international
organisations so as to exchange views on IP issues being discussed in
our organisations. I also intend to promote greater appreciation of IP
issues by initiating debates and forums on the IP system and their
relationship to and implications on issues such as the development
process, innovation, access to knowledge, and public health.
Mauro Masi
Mauro Masi (Italy), Ministry of Foreign Affairs delegate for
intellectual property in Geneva (2006-present); professor
Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the
international IP systems, such as those that govern patents,
trademarks and copyrights?
MAURO MASI: As we know, a fully functioning intellectual property
system has become an essential factor for the development of the
global economy. Unfortunately, there has been a certain delay in the
international community in perceiving the importance of the radical
changes introduced in the field of intellectual property by the
processes of globalisation and by the new technologies.
The complexity of those changes makes this delay understandable, to a
certain degree. Nevertheless, we all know that at the root of the
problem, there is also a different approach between industrialised
countries and developing countries, in a debate which is still
strongly influenced by the North-South dialectic.
In this frame, it is certainly necessary to open a new international
dialogue on intellectual property protection, on many important
issues: the role of intellectual property protection in economic and
social development; the effectiveness of market incentives for
innovation and for the diffusion of knowledge; the importance of
harmonising the international patent system in order to improve the
acquisition and protection of patent rights worldwide; the promotion
of an innovation-friendly business environment, in particular with
regard to small and medium-sized enterprises, including the issue of
licensing as a major driver for the international transfer of
technology.
The new dialogue should also address the problem of the effective
implementation of intellectual property rights. It is in fact out of
question that the benefits of innovation for economic growth and
development are increasingly threatened by infringements of
intellectual property rights worldwide, through counterfeiting and
multimedia piracy. In the same view, we should also find a solution
for the long-standing issue of the effective protection of genetic
resources and traditional knowledge.
Without a new international dialogue, it will be extremely difficult:
a) to progress towards a positive evolution of the intellectual
property system; b) to maintain the central role of WIPO in
Intellectual Property negotiations.
In my view, WIPO cannot just be an =E2=80=9Chonest broker.=E2=80=9D WIPO sh=
ould
adopt a pro-active role in fostering a spirit of dialogue, in order to
achieve the concrete results expected by the international community.
IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have
changed in WIPO=E2=80=99s management, staffing and procedures?
MASI: Over the past two years, since the publication of a report by
the Joint Inspection Unit, we have seen growing tensions between
Member States and Management, among Member States themselves;
moreover, there has been a growing lack of confidence between the
staff and the management.
A number of actions have been undertaken, namely the creation of the
Audit Committee and the desk-to-desk study review, recommended by the
Joint Inspection Unit. The desk-to-desk study review has represented
an excellent basis to start reviewing the management of WIPO. This
very complex task would be facilitated by the ground work initiated
within the framework of the =E2=80=9COrganizational Improvement Plan=E2=80=
=9D
prepared by the Secretariat of WIPO and by the recommendations made by
the Audit Committee.
With this introduction, I would say that, in just one-year-time, it is
difficult and not realistic to expect big changes, which need to be
endorsed by Member States. As clearly stated by the General Assembly
at its last session, the reorganisation of WIPO must be based on an
=E2=80=9Cintegrated plan". I fully share this approach and would work
accordingly.
Nevertheless, to work at the establishment of an =E2=80=9Cintegrated plan",
does not mean that no action should be undertaken until the next
General Assembly. As a consequence, I would expect, within the limits
of the authority vested in me, to have the basic rules established in
order to ensure full transparency in the decision making process in
the financial, personnel and procurement areas; to have a constructive
dialogue with the staff; and to have built the confidence of all
Member States in the management team. This aspect concerns in
particular the selection of staff and the methodologies for assigning
the staff resources according to the demands of users of WIPO=E2=80=99s
services and to the priorities decided upon by the Member States. Last
but not least, I would ensure that the ethics code in WIPO will be
aligned to the highest standards existing within the UN system.
To be successful, the Organization must have a credible and competent
management team. I will endeavour therefore to select the highest
ranking officials who would be working with me at reshaping the
Organization, primarily on the basis of their proven management
skills, with due consideration to balanced representation.
IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?
MASI: WIPO Development Agenda represents one of the few successful
negotiations in the last few years: the 45 Recommendations have been
approved in a spirit of effective dialogue and compromise among the
different groups.
On the other side, on many of the crucial issues of the Development
Agenda (Norm-setting, Public Policy and Public Knowledge, Technical
Assistance and Capacity Building, Technology Transfer and Access to
Knowledge, etc), there are different views among the various groups;
and those differences are quite visible in all IP negotiations.
Therefore, I think that the possibility of ensuring the implementation
of the 45 recommendations will depend on the capacity of Member States
to progress toward a positive evolution of the intellectual property
system, in a spirit of dialogue and flexibility, in all negotiations
in the WIPO.
In this view, the Development Agenda may be considered a sort of
barometer: it will reflect the general climate in the WIPO.
IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals
and potential, and how will you engage with members and other
stakeholders?
MASI: The first obstacle is the inadequate importance of intellectual
property in many Member States=E2=80=99 internal political agendas, which
encourages defensive stances. It is not coincidental that the most
active positions are taken by countries which are deeply aware of the
importance of Intellectual Property in the global economy, both in the
industrialised and developed world.
The second obstacle is the persistent weight of a specialised, mainly
technical mentality and attitude. For a long time, intellectual
property has been a technical matter, far from the big political and
economic issues. While it is no longer like that, the persistence of
this technical attitude is complicating the effectiveness of the
dialogue, also at the internal level of many Member States. IP
stakeholders should make a better effort in order to make intellectual
property fully understandable, and to stress its vital connection to
the global economy.
The third obstacle is the current, static scenario of economic and
commercial international negotiations - as evident by the [WTO] Doha
Round - and, in this frame, the specific difficulties of the North-
South dialogue.
IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates
and work with other global institutions?
MASI: As I have said, this is one of the most important issues, for
intellectual property and for WIPO. The era of intellectual property
as a mainly technical matter is definitively over: intellectual
property must be fully integrated in the international debate.
Actually, the most important international economic and social issues
are constantly overlapping among the different international
organisations (UNDP, WTO, UNCTAD, WHO, WIPO, UNESCO, etc), but an
effective dialogue is still problematic. Specialists of the various
sectors have problems in fully understanding each other and in
translating their specific receipts into viable political solutions.
We need a new wave of international representatives, fully capable to
control the technical aspects and to translate them into
understandable political messages. In my view, WIPO=E2=80=99s personnel
should improve its capacity to understand the other big issues -
environment, energy, health, etc - to which intellectual property is
strategically connected. As a first step, I would certainly potentiate
WIPO=E2=80=99s human resources in charge for the dialogue with the other
specialised agencies of the United Nations.
James Otieno Odek
James Otieno Odek (Kenya), professor; managing director of Kenya
Industrial Property Institute (2004-present); chairman Paris Union
(2007); chairman Madrid Union (2005-07), chairman Berne Executive
Council (2006-07) of WIPO; member, governing council, African Regional
Intellectual Property Organization; vice chairman, WIPO Committee on
Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Industrial Designs (2005-2006)
Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the
international IP systems, such as those governing patents, trademarks
and copyrights?
JAMES OTIENO-ODEK: Various actions are needed in the field of patents,
trademarks and copyrights. At the trademark levels, the action needed
at the moment is administrative in nature. This basically involves
improving efficiency of the Madrid System and striving towards
ratification and implementation of the Singapore Treaty on the Law of
Trademarks. For developing countries, technical assistance is needed
to understand and implement the provisions of the Singapore Treaty in
line with the Resolution of the Diplomatic Conference.
With regards to Patents and Copyright, treaty making and norm setting
should be given priority. On patent matters, the fee issue as is being
discussed in the Standing Committee on Patents, issues of non-
disclosure, Prior Informed Consent, Transfer of Technology and
Flexibilities need to be addressed. There seem to be an emerging
consensus on issues of prior art, grace period and meaning of
inventive step. On all these pending issues, Member States and parties
should be brought together to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.
As relates to Copyright, a lot of work needs to be done. In this area,
the countries have far and wide positions on whether there is need for
a Diplomatic Conference on Broadcasting. Discussions to bridge the gap
between countries should be given priority.
IPW: One year after taking office, what do you expect to have changed
in WIPO's management, staffing and procedures?
OTIENO-ODEK: There are several changes that I do expect to attain
within a year of office. These are:
* Restore credibility of WIPO by inculcating integrity, good
governance, financial disclosure and ethics at the organisation
* Introduce professionalism and strong leadership at WIPO
* Setting up an Ethics Office at WIPO in line with United Nations
Practice;
* Enhancing systems in WIPO that seal loopholes for malpractice
(i.e strengthening governance and management);
* Implementing the desk-to-desk review recommendations in a fair
and humane manner.
* Provide efficient global IP services to industry and other
stakeholders
IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?
OTIENO-ODEK: The Development Agenda has a bright future in WIPO. The
first thing is to recognise the establishment and work of the
Committee on Development of IP. Given the importance of IP for
development, I intend to strengthen the Committee so that it fulfills
its functions and mandate. Discussion will focus on encouraging Member
States to come up with a programme of action that has support from
all. Of priority will be to enhance technical assistance to developing
countries, least developed countries and countries in transition to
improve their IP infrastructure, develop their technologies, ease the
role of IP in transfer of technology and facilitate developing country
participation in WIPO norm setting meetings.
IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals
and potential and how will you engage with members and other
stakeholders?
OTIENO-ODEK: The three big obstacles are: lack of credible leadership
that has Member States support; lack of programme of action on the
Development Agenda and different expectations from Member States on
what the Development Agenda entails; lack of progress in treaty making
and norm setting particularly in patents and copyright and thus
insensitivity to industry and stakeholder concerns. A further obstacle
in WIPO today is factionalism and division amongst staff. There is
limited teamwork and team spirit in the organiation. Lastly, WIPO's
fading role as a global leader in the IP norm setting debate is a
cause of concern.
The way to tackle these obstacles is through frequent and transparent
dialogue and teamwork amongst staff and all stakeholders. Measures to
restore team spirit, staff enthusiasm, morale and confidence will be
undertaken. Diplomatic approach to ensure that a mutually satisfactory
solution among Member States as regards treaty making and norm setting
will be a key strategy. As the Director General, I intend to play a
catalytic role in providing leadership to address the obstacles
identified above.
IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates
and work with other global institutions?
OTIENO-ODEK: WIPO is a specialised agency dealing with intellectual
property issues. Its global role and place in IP discourse has taken a
nosedive and other global institutions are now actively involved in
norm setting debates on IP. The WTO and WHO easily come to mind.
WIPO needs to reclaim its position as the specialised agency dealing
with IP issues. How to keep WIPO relevant is by taking a lead role in
discussing topical issues of concern to Member States. WIPO should not
shy away in discussing controversial issues. For example, WIPO should
embrace debates on issues of IP and access to medicine; the role of IP
in development particularly as relates to concerns raised by
developing countries in the Development Agenda debates. Debate on IP
flexibilities and technical assistance to developing countries and
countries in transition should be made more concrete with measurable
outputs. Concrete measures for transfer of technology should be put in
place rather than rhetoric.
As regards working with other global institutions, collaboration will
be strengthened and deepened. Prospects of developing a joint
programme of action taking into account recipient country needs and
levels of economic development will be explored.
Philippe Petit
Philippe Petit (France), WIPO deputy director general responsible for
general affairs and administration (2001-present), former ambassador
to the UN in Geneva (1998-2001)
Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the
international IP systems, such as those that govern patents,
trademarks and copyrights?
PHILIPPE PETIT: WIPO is one among many actors and stakeholders which
play a role in the international IP systems. WIPO has to act according
to its mandate and the decisions of its Member States. But its action
should not be isolated. It is part of the worldwide debate and
management of IP and IP systems.
IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have
changed in WIPO's management, staffing and procedures?
PETIT: One year after taking office, the internal atmosphere should be
appeased and confidence restored with the Member States and WIPO
stakeholders.
Repartition of responsibilities and accountability, team spirit,
internal communication, as well as Human Resources regulations, and
results of new procedures already worked upon should contribute to
achieving this result.
IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?
PETIT: The WIPO Development Agenda has been adopted by consensus. Once
confidence has been restored and the budget adopted, its
implementation should not be a matter of conflict.
IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals
and potential, and how will you engage with members and other
stakeholders?
PETIT: Facing the three biggest obstacles which are:
* deficit of communication
* deficit of trust
* lack of consensus,
I would engage with Member States and other stakeholders in every
possible way.
IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates
and work with other global institutions?
PETIT: WIPO has the advantage of excellent experts and unchallenged
knowledge in all fields of intellectual property. It should bring
expertise to international policy debates and cooperate with other
global institutions interested or concerned by IP issues.
Bojan Pretnar
Bojan Pretnar (Slovenia), deputy director for policy development, WIPO
Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Development (2000-present);
oversaw creation of Slovenian IP Office (1992); contributed to
Slovenia's agreement with the European Patent Office (1994); led
Slovenia's immediate implementation of the World Trade Organization
TRIPS agreement, waiving transition (1995), former technology industry
executive
Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the
international IP systems, such as those that govern patents,
trademarks and copyrights?
BOJAN PRETNAR: The actions are, basically, twofold. First, WIPO's
Standing Committees and other similar bodies need to continue their
work in an established manner, though there is some space for
injecting new initiatives. Second, primarily as a response to
Development Agenda, but not limited to it, WIPO should undertake an
elaboration of a number of different policies on how to utilise
intellectual property for promoting growth and development in widely
different social, economic, legal and cultural environments in various
parts of the world. This would be then the second, and to some extent
novel, line of activities. Studies of this nature should subsequently
pave the way towards new and more efficient approaches in rendering
technical assistance to developing countries.
I believe that the internationally harmonised legal system can be
beneficial in serving desired economic and social objectives, provided
it is applied in a number of different ways, each of these ways being
tailored to specific and vastly different needs in various parts of
the world. If so, then we must of course know all these available
ways. But currently we do not know them, or at least we do not know
all of them. Identification and elaboration of these ways seems to me
a natural next step after a successful policy of demystification of
intellectual property.
IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have
changed in WIPO's management, staffing and procedures?
PRETNAR: As far as management and related procedures are concerned, I
would immediately establish what I call Management Board, members of
which would be top WIPO officials. The Board would obligatorily meet
weekly, keeping all the relevant records on decisions made; if desired
for transparency reasons, these records would be made available to
Member States. In addition, I would introduce the so-called matrix
organisational structure of the International Bureau, ensuring
efficient coordination among various units through simultaneous
vertical and horizontal communication and coordination within a more
simplified organisational structure. For staffing, I would seek to put
right people to right posts, according to their expertise and skills.
IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?
PRETNAR: The WIPO Development Agenda is an important project, which I
personally strongly support; after all, I wrote extensively about
development-related issues of IP over several decades, the most recent
contribution being my book Public Policy and Intellectual Property,
published by Chambers of Commerce and Industry of South Africa in
2004. I am apparently the only candidate who is not coming from a
developing country, but who has nonetheless relevant professional
background, as well as relevant practical experience in this respect
(I lived four years in Africa). Being also familiar with IP issues in
Europe and other developed countries, I may be able - through a
constant dialogue with all members - to reduce, at least to a
reasonable minimum, unnecessary tensions between developed and
developing countries, which otherwise could jeopardise the road
towards striking the right balance in achieving a consensus, by which
WIPO was so well known in the past.
As a first step, however, I would favour elaboration of a few studies
on the economic impact of IP on development, which I already
mentioned. Economics of IP is an area currently much debated but far
from being well understood, despite its obvious importance. Due to my
professional background, I would be happy personally to contribute to
such studies which, by the way, are explicitly within WIPO mandate
(Article 4(vi) of the WIPO Convention). Without having novel insights
and fresh suggestions for new initiatives, we may not be able to
achieve the desired objectives of the Development Agenda.
IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals
and potential, and how will you engage with members and other
stakeholders?
PRETNAR: I shall touch upon one single obstacle that I indirectly
already addressed in the previous question. Given the immense economic
importance of intellectual property on a global scale, it is no wonder
that it has become a controversial topic. From an exotic subject
matter for legal scholars in the past, intellectual property has
recently evolved into a hot topic vigorously debated by economists,
sociologists, ecologists, politicians, and numerous non-governmental
organisations, stretched in all geopolitical directions - North-South,
North-North, East-West... While such a broad debate is obviously
welcome, we should be aware that intellectual property as such is a
highly demanding area in law, economics, and management, with daily
growing complexity.
And here we come to a major obstacle of a global scope: many arguments
either in favour, or against the intellectual property regime are
heavily plagued by lack of sufficient professional understanding. This
problem extends well beyond the discussions about Development Agenda,
and often leads to contradicting outcomes. The rejection of the EU
Directive on patentability of computer-implemented inventions in 2005
may serve as an example: its basic purpose was to exclude software as
such from patent protection (in line with Art. 52 of the European
Patent Convention) - exactly what was the main objective of all those
who (successfully) lobbied against its adoption in the European
Parliament.
I believe that bringing professionally correct explanations and sound
arguments into all the controversial discussions about intellectual
property is a major task for WIPO in general and for the next Director
General in particular. The Director General is the chief executive of
WIPO (see Art. 9(4) of WIPO Convention), and with such an authority
she/he must personally make every effort in relaxing tensions in
controversial discussions, by clarifying possible misconceptions or
misinterpretations in a convincing manner, that is, from a purely
professional point of view. In carrying out these efforts, the
Director General should, I believe, heavily rely on a working method,
which I would label as informal professional diplomacy - a self-
explanatory notion. If so, then it would be of an enormous advantage
if the next Director General be a person who, along with diplomatic
skills, would personally command legal, economic, and social aspects
of intellectual property, preferably in both developed and developing
countries.
IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates
and work with other global institutions?
PRETNAR: By respecting sovereignty and equality of members; by
maintaining a WIPO capable of responding to discussed issues in a
professionally correct manner, which may include some new initiatives;
and by promoting cooperation with other involved global institutions,
paying attention not to interfere with their own mandates.
Boris Simonov (Russia), director general of the Federal Service for
Intellectual Property, Patents and Trademarks (Rospatent) (2004-
present); lead delegate to WIPO General Assembly (2004-present),
chairman of WIPO Substantive Patent Law Treaty Committee (2005);
chairman, Executive Committee of the Bern Union (2005-present);
director, Innovation Development Department, Ministry of Industry,
Science and Technologies (2003-2004), lead Russian delegate on IP to
many international groups and meetings, such as the Group of Eight,
the Russia-US negotiations for Russia's accession to the WTO, Global
Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy, EuroAsian Patent
Organization, and the Commonwealth of Independent States
Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the
international IP systems, such as those that govern patents,
trademarks and copyrights?
BORIS SIMONOV: We see WIPO as an important development mechanism and
strongly believe that it can - in its core areas of comparative
advantage and expertise - make a significant contribution to the
international efforts in supporting countries, so that they achieve
their development objectives. In order to strengthen its own
development impact WIPO should participate actively in the system-wide
coherence processes as well as management reforms. WIPO shall be some
sort of a booster for more wide use of such a powerful instrument of
economic development as intellectual property through existing
mechanisms, including the PCT [Patent Cooperation Treaty].
Both the PCT and Madrid systems are attractive options for businesses
as they make it easier to obtain patent or trademark rights in
multiple countries and they should be promoted in this direction
further. But there is an obvious misbalance among the users thereof.
Speaking about the PCT and taking into account the above mentioned I
would like to point out some aspects. The PCT system should be more
flexible, granting more advantages to the users from the developing
world. One of the disadvantages of the patent system is its high cost
and overload of national patent offices, which caused the lengthy
patenting procedures.
The five year period of the PCT revision is finished in 2008 and now
it's time to begin studying the experience of practical implementation
by the PCT authorities. Presumably such a step-by-step revision of the
PCT was not the best mode for introducing amendments and made the
system more complicated for users. Bearing in mind the triangle of
interests of the main PCT players (patent offices, patent attorneys
and users), the further development of [the] system shall be aimed at
simplification of the international procedure in the favor of the
applicants.
The legal development of the Madrid system needs to be continued for
further simplification of the system. The amendments adopted by the
Assembly of the Madrid Union in 2007 will basically change the
structure of the Madrid system by approving the repeal of the
"safeguard clause," resulting in a clear benefit for users, keeping in
mind the goal that the system be governed by only one treaty, namely
by the Madrid protocol. Furthermore, we shall strengthen trademark
protection against acts of unfair competition in the spirit of Article
10bis of the Paris Convention.
The tools of the international IP systems to stimulate commercial
activity and economic growth in today's knowledge-driven economy shall
be used.
When we are talking about copyright and related rights, it is
necessary to point out that some amendments have been made within the
WIPO Digital Agenda declared at the WIPO International Conference on
Electronic Commerce and Intellectual Property. Two WIPO Treaties on
Copyright and on Performances and Phonograms have been concluded. It
is not a secret for anybody relating to the area of copyright and
related rights that both these treaties are already out of date and
the international community obviously needs new documents to regulate
this complex area. In this regard, WIPO General Assembly shall
continue to pursue its efforts towards the conclusion of an
international instrument on the protection of broadcasting
organisations, updating international intellectual property standards
for broadcasting.
IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have
changed in WIPO's management, staffing and procedures?
SIMONOV: The international community cannot wait a year to restore the
trust in WIPO. The changes shall be made as soon as possible.
The staff should be highly professional, knowing the problems faced by
Member States. With respect to the staff of the WIPO Secretariat, it
should strictly follow the UN Ethics Code.
The structure of the Secretariat should be flexible and allow reacting
promptly to new challenges.
The most important task is to change the internal organisation of
work. The new structure should be transparent to Member States in
order to ensure full understanding of how it works. All staff members
should have clearly defined functions and responsibilities. The whole
structure should work as a single mechanism. All the divisions shall
be mutually supportive and ensure fulfilling any task from different
perspectives if necessary for Member Countries.
It is necessary to make the decision-making process easy and clear. In
order to achieve that goal it is necessary to share the
responsibilities among Division's Directors, Deputies of the DG and
the DG. Each Division when having a clearly defined mandate could take
decisions within this mandate and be justified by the Programme this
Division is responsible for. In cases when two or more Divisions are
involved in the realisation of the Programme, the decisions are to be
taken by the curator =E2=80=93 respective DDG or DG.
It is absolutely clear that internal procedures should be changed
drastically.
IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?
SIMONOV: The WIPO is a strong international body aimed not only at
administration of basic IP treaties and conventions but also the forum
for negotiations on matters of priority of its Member States.
The UN community forwarded a difficult task to its agencies, I mean
the Millennium Development Goals to be met by 2015. We cannot ignore
that fact and we should realise that to achieve the Millennium
Development Goals will first require intelligent, well-managed
approaches by both national governments and respective international
organisations.
The Development Agenda is in the focus of many respective
international organisations. The WIPO shouldn't be aside of those
processes.
The main thing is that the benefits of modern science and technology
should reach all countries and people. I have already mentioned the
Millennium Development Goals. In order to achieve these goals all
international community should unite its efforts to promote all the
various forms of progress referred to under the blanket term of
"development".
The previous work of PCDA [Permanent Committee on Proposals for a
Development Agenda] and now the activity of CDIP [Committee on
Development and IP] showed that Member States could find a consensus
on any issue, including development-related. In this respect, Member
States should define the main direction of this work and then start to
discuss the substantive issues.
As we have already stated, WIPO itself is a strong development
mechanism and shall realise this capacity.
IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals
and potential, and how will you engage with members and other
stakeholders?
SIMONOV: As we see the problem, there are some obstacles in achieving
WIPO goals and in realising the great potential of the Organization.
Firstly, the WIPO has suffered from the absence of trust. Secondly,
the international debate on intellectual property is polarised, the
deep differences in Members' positions caused the situation when the
negotiating process within WIPO has become fruitless. Thirdly, we face
the growing criticism of the IP system and diminishing societal trust.
It would be our goal, first of all, to restore the trust in WIPO among
international community and Member States. WIPO shall act more closely
with its Members to contribute to better understanding and co-
operation among them, assist its Members to resolve problems they
faced, including building modern national IP systems, use of IP,
counteracting production and trade of counterfeit goods and piracy, etc.
WIPO needs to enable its members to understand the real economic and
social consequences of excessive intellectual property protections,
and the importance of striking a balance between the public domain and
competition on the one hand, and the realm of property rights on the
other.
IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates
and work with other global institutions?
SIMONOV: As I have already said, we consider the WIPO as a key element
of the international IP system. Intellectual property is being
considered by all the nations as an instrument of economic development
and sustainable growth. That is why many international organisations
include IP topics in their mandates. These topics are being discussed
from different points of view.
Intellectual property is a highly complex area, involving elements of
economics, law, international relations, politics and ethics.
Since other respective international organisations have their own
competence, we should find such a way of cooperation as not to
duplicate the functions of each other.
The cooperation should cover all UN agencies, such as WHO, UNCTAD, UN
regional economic commissions, WTO, OECD, WCO, Interpol, etc.
Yoshiyuki Takagi
Yoshiyuki Takagi (Japan), executive director of WIPO Office of
Strategic Planning and Policy Development and the Worldwide Academy
(2003-present), numerous other senior posts with WIPO, including
internal operations and international classifications (1994-2003);
first secretary, Japanese mission, responsible for WIPO and WTO
(1991-1994); deputy director, international affairs, Japan Patent
Office (1988-1991)
Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the
international IP systems, such as those that govern patents,
trademarks and copyrights?
YOSHIYUKI TAKAGI: The international IP systems must respond to
diversified and evolving needs for providing an environment
facilitating further innovation and creative activities which are
crucial in meeting global challenges such as poverty reduction, the
improvement of public health and action on climate change. WIPO needs
to take initiatives to ensure a better understanding by world leaders
about how IP systems can be best used to contribute to an improvement
in the living standards and quality of life of their people, and to
this end, WIPO needs to promote open and fact=E2=80=91based international
debate on such issues as the role of IP systems in the improvement of
public health, the management for granting good quality patents,
intellectual property protection of traditional knowledge and genetic
resources for sustainable development, and well-balanced and well-
functioning systems for copyright and related rights in cyber space.
WIPO needs to reinforce its research functions to provide more useful
data and evidence for such debate in search of better international IP
systems. WIPO also needs to organise regular open meetings in which
various interested groups could contribute to the international
debate. While coherent worldwide policies are desirable in a
borderless world, WIPO needs to consider a more pragmatic phased
development of international IP systems by using various approaches
including recommendations, guidelines, good practices, practical
tools, administrative agreements and international framework agreements.
As concerns the existing international systems for filing applications
for patents and trademark registrations, WIPO will need to reinforce
international collaboration with WIPO Member States and to make
further investment in the networked systems of PCT [Patent Cooperation
Treaty] and Madrid Operations to enhance the quality, timeliness and
the cost effectiveness of WIPO's services. WIPO needs to enhance the
capacity in developing countries to enable nationals to properly
protect their innovation results so as to fully benefit from the PCT
system. WIPO needs to redouble its efforts to expand membership of the
Madrid system. Finally, WIPO needs to further promote the
establishment of the collective management systems in developing
countries.
IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have
changed in WIPO's management, staffing and procedures?
TAKAGI: I expect to see WIPO starting to use a variety of benchmarks
and parameters for the evaluation of programs, as a basis for regular
discussions on how best to improve the responsiveness and
effectiveness of WIPO's result-based management (RBM). As concerns
staffing, I expect to see the integration of human resources
management strategy and policies (including recruitment, career
development and personnel appraisal system) into the RBM. I expect to
see initial changes in WIPO's decision making processes, procedures
and communications systems which should enhance the transparency,
accountability and fairness of the human and financial resources
management as a follow-up to the desk-to-desk report on the management
of human and financial resources that WIPO Member States discussed
last year.
IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?
TAKAGI: The future of the WIPO Development Agenda is a critical test
for WIPO to prove that IP is a universal tool that does not
discriminate against any country. WIPO needs to integrate IP into
national and global efforts to meet challenges such as poverty
reduction, improvement of public health and sustainable environment.
To make the implementation of recommended activities more effective,
WIPO needs to enhance its inter-agency cooperation, undertake more
activities on the field in partnerships with various players, increase
human and financial resources through new channels for voluntary
contributions from donors and to strengthen business-oriented programs
for promoting the transfer of knowledge and skills about management of
intellectual property. Common understanding and wider support for
national and global partnerships at different levels are key elements
in seeking mutually agreeable sharing of benefits in business for a
win-win situation.
IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals
and potential, and how will you engage with members and other
stakeholders?
TAKAGI: The three biggest obstacles are needless politicisation of
intellectual property issues, isolation of WIPO from the reality of IP
management in national and global business, and the diminishing
opportunities in which WIPO Secretariat's expertise of intellectual
property could be used for advancing international debate on IP issues.
They will have to be removed by engaging Member States and
stakeholders to make constructive and creative proposals for improving
IP systems, to promote partnerships with various stakeholders for
testing and evaluating different options to balance different
interests, and to strengthen professionalism for restoring the
credibility and trust in the Secretariat to be accorded by members and
other stakeholders.
IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates
and work with other global institutions?
TAKAGI: As discussed above, WIPO needs to organise more public
meetings which should promote open and fact-based debate on various
policy issues. To provide more data and evidence for the debate, WIPO
needs to enhance research activities and its function of disseminating
information about IP to the public through a more vibrant and dynamic
web site. WIPO needs to undertake joint projects with other UN and
global institutions in partnerships to share knowledge, resources and
responsibilities.
Jos=C3=A9 Delmer Urbizo (Honduras), Ambassador to the UN (2006-present);
president Group of 77 and China (2007); head of delegation, WIPO
General Assembly (2006); held several cabinet level positions in
Honduran government
Did not answer.
------------------------------------------------------------
Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
thiru@keionline.org
Tel: +41 22 791 6727
Mobile: +41 76 508 0997