Interim WIPO Dev Agenda Blog: Day 2

(Manon provides an update from WIPO -- Seth)


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [A2k] Snipped news from WIPO DA Meeting
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:09:02 -0400
From: Manon Ress <[email protected]>
To: a2k discuss list <[email protected]>

The WIPO DA meeting Day 2 will continue until 7pm. Some NGOs
might speak today after the member states are done as well as the
IGOs.  The industry is everywhere in mass.  I heard many attended
an NGO meeting during lunch.  I hope to receive more later on the
briefing which included TWN, CPtech, MSF, EFF, CIEL, ICTSD and
others.

For those who cannot wait to find out what's going on in
plenary...I received some rough notes.  It looks to me as if it's
getting hotter in Geneva.

These are snipped and rough notes. I found Argentina and Brazil
comments on the proposals on the table (see
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/da.html) really interesting. 
Diplomatic but clear.

* Argentina: We would like to refer to other proposals referred
to in the meeting. They show the commitment of good will to
establish a proper development agenda at WIPO.  Three proposals
have one common element-to limit the scope of the DA to technical
assistance.  Our delegation, of course, rejects this strategy.
Our own proposal is concrete, and has policy actions.

Our paper presents concrete ways in which to achieve DA goals. 
We encourage Member States to make proposals based on the other
elements of the Development Agenda.
On the US proposal, we observe that the premise that the
partnership would be based from the GFod perspective, the US
focuses on strengthening IPRs.  We do NOT share the views
expressed in this document.  Technical assistance should be
tailor made appropriate to development needs.

The development dimension is not exhausted in the element
contained in the US proposal.
In our view, technical assistance should be based on the real
needs and interests of Members and should be managed and provided
in a transparent, neutral fashion.  There should be an assessment
mechanism such as we have proposed.
To sum up, we want greater effectiveness in the application of
technical assistance.  Therefore, the tools should not be based
on the tools of Developed countries, but on the needs of LDCs.

The UK proposal is based on many recommendations on the UK IPR
Commission.  The Development Agenda is not limited to technical
cooperation.  However, it appears that the UK only address the
technical cooperation aspect.  The UK backs a mandate change for
WIPO to better address development needs.  It also suggests that
the PCIPD should be the sole forum for the discussion of these
issues.
Patent harmonization initiatives as supported by the UK have been
rejected in the previous SCP and the WIPO General Assembly.
Re Technology transfer - consider should be taken up in WTO. Wed
don't agree.

On Mexican proposal, discussion of UN MD. We deplore the fact
that this is a closed discussion.
In Mexico's paper, we deplore the fact that Mexico's approach is
closed in their mention of the MDGs.
It contains 2 categorical statements that IP is crucial for
development.

We all know that industrialized countries have adopted patent
protection only when they achieved a certain level of
development.

Another paragraph attempts to minimize our proposal to GA in
September. Also attempts to minimize purport of resolution on
that proposal.

Reference to Casablanca meetings - We don't think that this is [a
good example of a meeting.  This meeting was not open to all
Member States.

In sub paragraph two there is no mention of the TRIPS Agreement
which imposed obligations on developing countries.
Not just developing countries affected by this - both developed
and developing country affected.

Argentina doesn't see any connection between IP and providing
meaningful employment for young people - sub-paragraph 3(8)


Argentina would like to clarify that IPRs in themselves do not
achieve stability or balance.  IPRs are tools to be utilized in
beneficial ways. We do not share the view that dissemination of
IP in developing countries should just point to their benefit or
opportunities. We should not just describe benefits, but also
costs. IP rights are not absolute. Need to diffuse information
about both rights of intellectual property rightsholders, and
also the rights of consumers. It is important that training not
just diffuse IP but also understanding of respect of third party
rights and also encourage protection of own rights.

SNIP

* Brazil:

We would like to make some preliminary remarks on the proposals
presented by other countries.

The most positive aspect of American and others is that we have
th engagement of three countries.  It is very good to see
engagement. These proposals will be duly examined in my capital.
However, we are pleased to see certain language in each proposal,
such as the recognition that IP is not the only way to enhance
development, and that a multifaceted approach is needed.

Mexico Proposal: "There is a tendency to associate corruption and
bribery as impediments to adequate IP implementation."  This
seems to be an association with these

Argument: "WIPO is not a core development agency like UNCTAD and
UNDP" This isn't disputed by GFoD, but rather we hoped to add
greater depth of analysis and expertise. This is a broadening of
WIPO's perspective. US proposal:  "The GFoD proposal will create
new bodies."  GFod: Development Dimension should be incorporated
into *all* aspects of WIPO's work programme including current
committees.  The partnership offices seems like a matchmaking
initiatives between donors and recipients.

GFoD: We do not believe that the Dev Dimension can be soley dealt
by technical cooperation.  We do no make proposals on technical
cooperation in a vacuum but rather, they exist in a wider
context.  This parternership proposal recognizes the need for
change. Partnership office would be novelty within organization,
so perhaps is at least a recognition of need for change within
WIPO.

However, U.S outsources responsibility of funds and donors. 
Also, don't see how the database will make the general thrust of
WIPO's work more development-oriented.

US proposal: Development dimension should be incorporated into
norm-setting.  This is something Brazil can agree upon.

Mexico: in beginning of that document, there is a partial and
very selective citation of development goals.  In fact, the mill.
agreement is much broader, and Mexico focuses primarily on the
IP-strengthening portion of it.  Argentina reminds everyone that
the mill. decl. also talks about access to medicine in LCDs.

There was no legitimacy in the Casablanca process which was
referred to by the Mexican proposal.  The Casablanca process is
something we would not like to repeat.

Mexico also support some kind of valuation system for gauging
compliance with int'l IPR standards for countries that are
benificiaries of technical assistance.  But we don't know how
that would benefit development.

Premise in Mexican document that dev.cos don't see the benefits
of IP. Predisposition to assume that the average person in the
dev.co is an ignorant person.  The goal WIPO, in that
formulation, is to "enlighten" those countries to the benefits of
IP.

Mexican proposal essentially endorses current global system - or
a less flexible version thereof.

United Kingdom proposal: It appears sympathetic to the cause of
development by relying on the recommendations of the UK IPR
Commission.   There are a few elements of the proposal that might
merit certain comment.

Certain flexibilites can be granted to some but not all
developing countries-aspect of graduation-this is a cause of
concern.

However, there are also positive references:  states that Ip
alone can't guarantee that country will attain objectives.  Also
states that indivudial circumstances must be taken into account
when setting policy.

Where the document shows shortcomings is in the solutions
section.  The solutions are very narrow, and the UK basically
reverts to the same kind of proposal put forward in the US
committee:  reinvigorating and focusing the PCPID.

The UK document also defends patent law harmonization.  This is
not compatible with the development agenda. As we have seen, the
net effect is a rise in the minimum amount of protection around
the world.  This is not a development friendly position.

On transfer of technology, UK notes that discussion of transfer
of technology and IP should be shifted to the WTO-so far these
discussions at the WTO have not progressed further. Transfer of
technology is part of the balance that countries should strive
for.  This should be fully discussed within WIPO.

Coffeebreak.

--
Manon Anne Ress
[email protected],
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC PO Box 19367,
Washington, DC 20036, USA Tel.:  +1.202.387.8030, fax:
+1.202.234.5176

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des  Morillons,
CP
2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology in London, 24 Highbury Crescent,
London,
N5 1RX, UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386
4642. Fax:
+44(0)207 354 0607


_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.6 - Release Date: 4/11/05