[DMCA-Activists] IIM 2 Day 1: WIPO + Development Agenda

[Seth Johnson]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [A2k] Blogging WIPOand the Development Agenda, Second
IIM (Day 1)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:15:30 +0200
From: Thiru Balasubramaniam <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden,
address@hidden,address@hidden


Blogging WIPOand the Development Agenda, Round 2
The Second IIM, June 20-22: Day 1

Notes by:
Ren Bucholz, ren at eff.org, Electronic Frontier Foundation [RB]
Thiru Balasubramaniam, thiru at cptech.org, Consumer Project on
Technology
[TB]

[NOTE: This is not an official transcript. Any errors and
ommissions are regretted.]

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

The person or persons who have associated their work with this
document (the "Dedicator") hereby dedicate the entire copyright
in the work of authorship identified below (the "Work") to the
public domain.

Dedicator makes this dedication for the benefit of the public at
large and to the detriment of Dedicator's heirs and successors.
Dedicator intends this dedication to be an overt act of
relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights
under copyright law, whether vested or contingent, in the Work.
Dedicator understands that such relinquishment of all rights
includes the relinquishment of all rights to enforce (by lawsuit
or otherwise) those copyrights in the Work.

Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the
Work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used,
modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any
purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and in any way, including
by methods that have not yet been invented or conceived.
-=-=-=-=-

10:43 A.M.

~ Chair (Ambasssador of Paraguay): Highlights the presence of
Deputy Director General (Geoffory Yu) & members of the
Secretariat.  Good weather here and in the rest of Europe gives
us the opportunity to ourselves be in a good mood.  He would be
greatful for a relaxed & friendly environment in the room, and
for the thoughtful attention and cordial response to
interventions.

Experience from our previous meeting about constant communication
among delegations & regional groups shows that both of those
things are good and useful.

These are very obvious objectives and at the same time they are
very complex.  This is why we can't expect to find solutions to
all of these questions today.  This is a long term process.

In the time that has elapsed since the first and second IIMs, two
new NGOs  have applied for and been granted accreditiation.

He'd like to give the floor to the secretariat to tell us about
the new groups.

~ Secretariat: The two new organizations are the Business
Software Alliance from America and the (Missing word) Cultural
Society (Turin, Italy)

~ Chair: I see no comments from the floor - therefore they are
accepted.

Wishes to go over the draft agenda (IIM/2/1 Prov.)  There are no
comments and the agenda is adopted.

Wishes to go over the adoption of the Report of the First Session
of the IIM (See IIM/1/6 Prov. 2).

* Proposes that we adopt a report from the chair on the 22nd,
then a full report during the July meeting.  This would be made
available on the WIPO website on July 4, and comments would be
due before the 11th. Afterward, the report would be available to
all governments for their consideration before the next meeting.

We have already received comments on the draft report, but he
would like to open the floor to those wishing to comment now. 
However, if they are just corrections, asks that we please just
go to the secretariat.

~ Argentina: Argentina has a number of comments with regard to
the Spanish version of the report.  Comments range from
grammatical to substantive.  Argentina will submit them in
writing.

~ Chair: Final item on agenda - the consideration of proposals
from member states.  Two new proposals have been submitted to
enrich our debate.  First is from Bahrain (IIM/2/2), which deals
with IPR and economic development.  Also, the UK's new proposal
looks more deeply at elements of their initial proposal.

~ Bahrain: Wishes to genuinely thank WIPO for its role in
supporitng noble goals, especially those that correspond with the
goals of the kingdom.  Wishes to emphasize that their proposal is
supported by Lebanon, Jordan, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, UAE, Syria,
Lybia, and other Arab states.

Proceeds to list main points of proposal, which can be found on
<a
href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=7522";
target="_self">WIPO's website</a>.

~ UK: Reaffirms the UK's commitment to being an active
contributor.

First off, it seems that everyone understands that development
needs to be woven into every aspect of WIPO.  Where we differ is
how to do this.

The heart of the proposal is recognition of two things: 1) given
wide ranging concerns, it is unlikely that consensus can be found
in the next two meetings and 2) incorporating development
concerns cannot be a one-step process - it will be ongoing.

UK has argued against changing WIPO's charter, and they oppose
forming new bodies and favor the reinvigoration of existing
bodies.  Ergo, they believe that relocating this discussion to
the PCIPD is the most practical way to implement these changes.

"We do not seek to prejudice the scope, modalities, or outcomes
of these proceedings."  Therefore, they are open on questions of
work plans and practical plans.  Meeting frequency should be
considered and evaluated in light of funding concerns.  Notes
that DG can call meetings of PCIPD at any time, and they ask him
to instigate a meeting at his earliest convenience.  Open to
discussing a broad range of topics in that committee.

They are not trying to make the PCIPD "stronger" than other
committees. However, PCIPD should not be and is not inferior to
any other committee.  Their proposal is a "suitable vehicle" to
take forward other proposals in a practical way.

~ Brazil: Presents a document being circulated by the 14 Group of
Friends of Development.  It is being handed out by the
Secretariat.

It is a suggestion to this IIM as a way to organize the debate on
the several different issues that have been dealt with in the
proposals before us.

The first GFOD document was quite lengthy.  It was submitted just
before the first IIM.  As such, delegations did not have adequate
time to consider this document.  Therefore, one of the decisions
of the first IIM was that we meet again to consider it in more
depth.

Brazil suggest a checklist of the key ideas of the four proposals
submitted:

1) Norm setting
2) Review of mandate and governance
3) Technical assistance and capacity building
4) Technoological development, technology transfer, access to
knowledge, and related matters

This is a suggestion to consider the debate on an item-by-item
basis and avoid diffuse comments.

~ Chair: Thanks Brazil.  Initially, he thinks this doc is
extremely interesting.  Hand to Pakistan.

~ Pakistan: Actually, their Ambassador wants to make statement
and he'll be here in a short while.

~ Czech Republic: WIPO has been expanding its development work
through IP education and capacity building.  Believes that WIPO
has the ability to deepen its development work via permanent
implementation of development principles.  They would like
particularly to support UK proposal.

~ Italy (On behalf of Group B):  "As you may recall, Group B
welcomed the discussion of the relationship between IP and
development at WIPO at the first IIM."  IP has been a tool for
reaching economic, social and cultural progress.  As it has
already been outlined in the Bahrain proposal, WIPO has already
devoted substantial human and financial resources to IP and
development.

Group B thinks that WIPO should devote substantial funding to
these issues.
We should examine and assess whether the technical assistance of
WIPO meet the needs of WIPO recipient countries.  WIPO's
activities should also be coordinated with the work of other
international organizations. We note that flexibilites of
international agreements should be taken into account, including
TRIPS flexibilities.

Asks for a report on [TRIPS flexibilities?] be made available to
members.

Believes that a reinvigorated PCIPD is the place to consider the
future of WIPO and development.

~ Morocco: Asks to make the African Group statement later.

~ India: Plans to make a more substantive intervention later, but
the proposal by Brazil to better structure this debates is
something we should consider now.

Many delegations have many views, but they are often expressed in
ways that are difficult to act upon.  In short, it would be good
to structure debate, and they would further offer a fifth area of
discussion: which committee or committees would be responsible
for the various aspects involved in the DA?  For instance, tech
transfer might be properly in the PCIPD, but other pieces may be
more appropriately discussed in other forums.  All these four or
five themes should be dealt with before the discussion of the
Chair's summary.

~ Switzerland:  We completely support the Group B statement made
by Italy.  In the first IIM, we had the opportunity to have an
exchange of views on issues presented.  This session will provide
us an opportunity to further discuss the original four proposals
and the two new proposals by Bahrain and the United Kingdom.

On the Mexican proposal: IP is tool for development, not an
obstacle. All the same, though most developing countries have
acknowledged the role of IP, many developing countries have
concerns about food, water, and health.  These countries and NGOs
may have misconceptions about the role of IP to stimulate
economic, cultural and social progress.

We would like to have more information on:

  How would the assessment of national IP systems be carried out?
  What are the budget implications of that assessment?

With respect to Bahrain's proposal, what are the financial
implications for WIPO, and how will it affect other initiatives
of WIPO.  We find the the technical cooperation activities
suggested for LDCs extremely useful.

We agree with the UK and Bahrain with respect to WIPO's
mandate.   The WIPO mandate integrates development activities
into WIPO's work.  We don't need to change WIPO's mandate.  We
agree with UK's position on technological transfer activities; we
do not need to create a new body for this.

~ Pakistan: Full statement available here:<br>
<a href="pakistan_1of4.png" target="_self">Page 1</a> | <a
href="pakistan_2of4.png" target="_self">Page 2</a> | <a
href="pakistan_3of4.png" target="_self">Page 3</a> | <a
href="pakistan_4of4.png" target="_self">Page 4</a>

-=-=-=10 Minute Coffee Break=-=-=-

~ Chile: Thinks the proposal from Brazil is an excellent starting
point to structure our discussions.

~ South Africa: Wants to be called on later.

~ UK: Apologies for taking the floor a second time already.  And
also apologies because they have apparently not been clear enough
about how their second proposal builds on their first.  The UK's
proposal does not only relate to technical assistance and
capacity building, but to all aspects of WIPO's dev. work. 
Therefore, they do not feel that their proposal should be cabined
in one cluster of Brazil's proposed taxonomy.

~ Thailand (Speaking on behalf of ASEAN):  ASEAN and WIPO
cooperation has been underpinned by a strong development focus. 
The DA offers a role to further WIPO's work in this area. 
WIPO-ASEAN cooperation is multifaceted and robust.

~ Bahrain: Agrees with Italy's comment on funding.

~ Morocco: Plugs <a href="http://www.nepad.org/";
target="_self">NEPAD</a>.  Quotes Doha Declaration on promoting
access to knowledge for all.

The approach suggested by Brazil provides concrete guidelines in
which to structre discussion.  It is an ambitious proposal.  The
African Group supports this proposal which is comprehensive and
not limited solely to technical assistance.  The US proposal only
deals with the technical assistance aspects.

They need more time to consider the Bahrain and UK proposals.

~ China:  Suggests that they agree with Brazil, India, Pakistan
on the proposed way forward.

~ Benin (on behalf of LDCs): Pleasure to take the floor on behalf
of LDCs.  Their number has risen to 50, most of which are in
Africa.  44 are WIPO members.  As a global forum, WIPO has
assisted LDCs to set a debate on the role of IP and development
and dialogues with civil society.

WIPO organized a conference for LDCs in the Republic of Korea on
the role of IP in development. They chose Korea as the venue
because it has enjoyed an explosion of economic growth in recent
years thanks to IP. Korea was essentially an LDC in the 1950s.

~ Secretariat (Sherif Saadallah):  WIPO's role has not been to
increase IP at any cost.  It should be stressed that any member
state is free to ignore the secretariat's advice.

WIPO's legal advice is confidential.  A number of WIPO Member
States involved in bilateral or regional free trade agreement
negotiations have sought WIPO's advice which includes guidance on
copyright exceptions, test data provisions and dealing with the
backlog of foreign patent applications.

All of WIPO's norms are deployed within international law, and
any country is free to decline implementation if a norm is seen
to compete with national interest.  There is no one size fits all
model of IP for developing countries.  WIPO works with countries
to tailor IP laws to suit ther national needs.  WIPO conducts
workshops and seminars in countries expressedly at the countries'
request.

With respect to NGOs, it should be noted that no group is
excluded as an observer.  The procedure for accepting NGO is
"simple, transparent, and subject to the ratification of member
states."

* WIPO's policy will be to increasingly engage NGOs to harvest
their knowledge, and intend to hold an interactive forum with
NGOS later this year.

Cooperation and assistance are only initiated at the request of
[WIPO] Member States.

<em>[RB: The Secretariat's speech is intended to respond to a
number of claims about WIPO: that WIPO is a one-way ratchet for
increasing IP around the world, that it obstructs participation
by NGOs, etc.  This is a tad defenseive and extremely rare.]</em>

~ Colombia: Needs more time to consider the new proposals.

~ South Africa:  We associate ourselves fully with Brazil's
statement and Morocco's statement (speaking on behalf of the
African Group).   We do not agree that the development dimension
should be consigned to the PCIPD because the development
dimension is cross-cutting and all WIPO bodies should contribute
to the realization of the development dimension.

Would like to urge WIPO Member States to ask how we must
implement the development dimension into all facets of WIPO's
work.

~ Luxembourg (speaking on behalf of EU): For a more comperhensive
EU perspective, they refer to their statement from the first
IIM.  They advocate building on PCIPD to address developing
countries' needs.

~ Korea: Delegation is convinced that IP will be come
increasingly important in development.  Korea has set up a a
group to provide technical assistance for other nations, with the
help of WIPO. Essentially endorses US proposal to help put DC &
LDCs in contact. Endorses Bahrain proposal.

~ Iran: Associates delegation with Brazil & GFoD with respect
future debate. We reserve the right to comment on the Bahrain and
UK proposals when we have more time to consider these proposals.

~ Egypt [entire statement available <a
href="http://homes.eff.org/~renbucholz/wipo/egypt_statement.txt";>here</a>]:
We attach ourselves to the African Group statement made by
Morocco.  As highlighted by the African Group, the G-77 made a
statement on their concerns on the implications of IP on
development in Doha, Qatar (June 16, 2005).  The group of over
130 countries - the majority of the world's countries - explicty
called upon WIPO to incorporate the Development Dimension into
the core of its activities.  In the reform of the UN, WIPO is not
and should not be an exception.  It is imperative for this
session to have a more focused approach to guide these
discussions.  The GFOD proposal for this 2nd IIM to structure
these discussions is a good starting point.

Preliminary comments on Bahrain's proposal: Appreciate Bahrain's
contribution and are happy that the Secretariat has helped
Bahrain so much.

Development cannot be the sole responsibility of WIPO which is
reaffirmed in this document.

One part of this document mentions that WIPO's development aims
should be integrated.

This seems to be the understanding from the Doha conference,
where his Majesty, King of Bahrain participated, his Majesty the
Crown Prince of Qatar and his excellency the President of
Lebanon, and that explicit plan of action from the G-77 statement
from June 16, 2005 (Doha, Qatar) seems to disagree with the
current Bahranian proposal.  In the spirit of Arab solidarity, we
will refrain from making further comments on this proposal right
now.

~ USA: The US believes that IP is critical for development and to
foster economic, social and cultural progress.  IP is part of the
solution.

Yet IP is only one part of the solution, and other structures
must be put in place, including IP protection.  They do not
believe that the UN needs another specialized agency.  The
exisitng agencies are the best palce to handle these tasks.

With regard to Brazil's porposal, they welcome any attempt to
structure the debate.  However, they wish to express that many
crosscutting issues will be lost in this proposal.  The US
expresses its concerns that its proposal is charaterized as
limited to technical assistance.  Instead, the US proposal
includes "protections & flexibilities."  The US has reservations
to the approaches suggested by Brazil and Pakistan.

~ Japan: Supports Italian statement on behalf of Group B. 
Endorses US database plan.  Remarks that it is important to avoid
duplication of programs, therefore EU & Bahrain proposals are
desirable.  Supports UK's proposal.  Makes several references to
WIPO's current budget constraints.

~ Jordan: They have endorsed the Bahrain proposal.  This support
emanates from our conviction that IP is crucial for development. 
We should foster an IP culture.

~ Russia:  Support UK proposal.

~ Bahrain:  Requests the Egyptian delegate to present to him in
writing the statement made by the delegate of Bahrain at the G-77
meeting in Doha, Qatar.

~ India: Would like to reiterate that IP should not be an end in
itself, but instead should support the goals of society.  Several
proposals on the best way forward were presented in the morning. 
In particular, the standing committee on Patents could address
growing concerns on patent quality, article 4 of Doha, and
article 40 of the TRIPS Agreement on the control of
anti-competitive practices.

Support the idea of a WIPO evaluation & research office to work
independently of the WIPO secretariat.  Propose a wall of
employment between the two bodies.  IP assessment should look at
indirect and secondary effects of IP in LDCs.  Supports a
dedicated work group for IT transfer.  We would like to see an
elaboration of a Treaty on Access to Knowledge and Technology.

~ Argentina: Today, we have had many general statements.  In all
of them, they have expressed great interest in continuing to talk
about DA.  We should use our time to pursue the structure
presented by Brazil.

They don't think that there is a problem with Brazil's 4-part
taxonomy.

~ Canada: Supports statement of Group B.  Believes that IP has an
important role to play in society. WIPO should reflect the needs
of all its Members.  We need a coherence.  We also need structure
for these discussions.  We note the Brazilian proposal.  We would
like to highlight our own proposal, which we made at the PCIPD in
April.

Want to emphasise these points in a general way, with specific
items below:
1. Innovation, creativity & economic growth
2. IP, development & capacity building
3. Role of WIPO, its bodies, & the Secretariat in the DA

~ Brazil:  The structure we have proposed is operational.  We
must have a structured discussion. We believe that there is a
lack of development attention in the history of this
organization.

~ Mexico:  We welcome the Bahrain and UK proposal.  However, we
don't have a lot of time to consider them in depth.  These
proposals contain globally positive elements in addition to the
previous proposals.  We welcome a thematic discussion proposed by
Brazil (on behalf of Group of Friends).  In principle, we agree
with the list of proposals.  We don't agree with every item but
we can add other items later.  Despite some differences in the
documents, they all have positive elements.  Perhaps the IB could
propose a thematic discussion as a starting point for future
work.

<em> [RB: The following is an incomplete but chronologically
sound list of the remaining speakers.  At this point the Chairs
unexpectedly announced that NGOs would have an opportunity to
comment on these procedural matters, so we all broke to write
something quickly.]

Egypt
Australia
CSC
EDRI
filmmakers' association
TACD
IFPI
EFF
IFA
Innovation Policy Network
IPI
FSFE
</em>

~ India: Wants to clarify that tomorrow's informal discussion is
nonetheless sctructured.

~ Italy: Group B will meet tomorrow morning.

~Argentina: Reiterates concern of India, expressing a wish for
transparency, notice, and a more formal structure for the coming
discussion.

~ Chair: Thanks both India & Argentina.  Is very flexible, but
wishes to move forward.  Whether formal or informal doesn't
really matter, the issue is to agree.  Wants to give delegations
the ability to speak frankly & freely & be able to take risks by
exchanging views.  Will think on it tonight and propose a method
of moving forward tomorrow.

_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k