Day 1, WIPO PCDA meeting

(Two postings from A2K list; second one below includes an "IP
Watch" article.  -- Seth)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [A2k] FromGeneva: Day 1 of WIPO PCDA meeting
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:03:17 +0100
From: Thiru Balasubramaniam <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], [email protected]


http://fromgeneva.blogspot.com/2006/02/day-1-of-wipo-pcda-meeting_20.html


      Day 1 of WIPO PCDA meeting

Monday, 20 February 2006
Thiru Balasubramaniam

The first meeting of the WIPO Provisional Committee for Proposals
Related to a Development Agenda (PCDA) meets from 20 February to
24 February. The morning session commenced at 12:43 PM and broke
up at 12:57 PM. The reason for the abbrievated morning session
was intense pre-meeting negotiations on electing a Chair for the
PCDA. One candidate favored by the Group B countries (mainly
industrialized Members) was the Ambassador of Romania. The
candidate favored by many developing countries was Ambassador
Rigoberto Gauto Vielman. Finally, after much deliberation, the
candidate from Romania withdrew from the race. When the morning
session convened, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group formally
nominated Ambassador Gauto (Paraguay) as Chair and the Ambassador
of Kyrgyzstan as Vice-Chair. Thailand, on behalf of the Asian
Group seconded the nominations; Ambassador Gauto and the Kyrgyz
Ambassador were elected unanimously to their respective posts.
Ambassador Gauto noted that he was "[c]ommitted to working in a
very open-minded way" He noted that the PCDA would resume at 3PM
with "presentation of new proposals put forward, then invite
substantive discussion of proposals". The importance placed to
the Development Agenda discussions was evidenced by the presence
of several Ambassadors (Argentina, Chile Morocco, Nigeria and
Paraguay to name a few).

Most of the afternoon session was devoted to countries making
general statements and introducing their respective proposals.

Austria, on behalf of the European Communities and its 25 Member
States and the acceding states of Bulgaria and Romania, asserted
that it shared the premise that development related issues could
be integrated into WIPO within existing the WIPO Convention and
1974 agreement with United Nations, recognizing WIPO's mandate to
facilitate development.

The Austrian delegate emphasized the need to make concrete
proposals by concentrating on proposals that were "ripe for
harvest". According to Austria, this would help engender trust
and cooperation and would ensure that this resulted in an
international IPR regime that increased encouragement for foreign
direct investment, stimulates economic growth and provide
benefits to all.

Thailand, on behalf of the Asian Group noted the importance of
public policy objectives in the Millennium Development Goals,
e.g. public health, biodiversity, access to medicines, and access
to educational material. Thailand stressed that WIPO needed to
ensure that its norm-setting activities were consistent with
public policy objectives recognized by group. It noted its
support for the mainstreaming of the development agenda into WIPO
norm-setting activities

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, presented its proposal
for the Development Agenda. Ambassador Joseph U Ayalogu stated
that "[t]echnical assistance should be development-oriented and
demand driven. With respect to transfer of technology, the
African Group echoed the conclusions of the Report of the UK
Commission in Intellectual Property Rights which asserted that

    the critical issue in respect of IP is not whether it 
    promotes trade or foreign investment, but how it helps or 
    hinders developing countries gain access to technologies that 
    are required for their development.



Ambassador Ayalogu stressed that the African Group was not
against IP protection per se. However, he noted that the Group
was of the opinion that any meaningful discussions of IP and
development take into account the following:

    1. There must be a clear and consistent rational for IP 
    protection

    2. There must be an assessment of the costs and benefits of 
    IP protection.

    3. IP protection must not be divorced from the aspirations 
    not be divorced from the aspirations of developing and least 
    developed countries for economic growth and development, the 
    acquisition of technological know how, etc.

    5. Public interest concerns such as access to knowledge, 
    health and nutrition, agriculture and so forth must be 
    protected.

Pakistan made an intervention on behalf of the Group 77 (G-77)
and China. Ambassador Massood Khan noted that the G-77 and China
were of the view that the "Development Agenda discussions in WIPO
form[ed] an in important milestone". He noted that WIPO, as part
of the UN family, had an obligation to prioritize the
mainstreaming of development dimension into the core of its
program and operational activities. Ambassador Khan reiterated
the Doha Declaration adopted at the Second South Summit in 2005
which emphasized that

    while developing countries are committed to undertaking their 
    international obligations, these undertakings may impose high 
    costs, and that given the differences in development and the 
    ability of countries to assume obligations, it is imperative 
    that identical obligations are not forced on unequal 
    participants.

Ambassador Khan highlighted the IIM discussions last year which
cited the need to make the "affordability and accessibility of
essential products like pharmaceuticals, text books and
educational software" as "primary examples of areas where such
flexibilities need to be either created or made operable, with
regard to the IP system."

Ambassador Dumont of Argentina made the intervention on behalf of
the Friends of Development (FOD). As mentioned in the FOD
proposal
<http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/pcda_1/pcda_1_5.pdf>,
the FOD identified 6 common threads among the 50 specific
proposals presented since 2004. The FOD proposal noted this 6
common themes as a means of producing tangible outcomes and
recommendations to the General Assembly in 2006. Among the common
threads identified was how to

    "facilitate access to knowledge generally around the world 
    and specifically in developing countries for example by means 
    of a Treaty on Access to Knowledge" given the [g]rowing 
    importance of access to knowledge of protecting and promoting 
    access to the cultural heritage and need to maintain robust 
    public domain through exceptions and limitations.



The Chilean Ambassador outlined his delegation's proposal
<http://fromgeneva.blogspot.com/2006/02/%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttp://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/pcda_1/pcda_1_2.pdf>.
He stressed that a public domain was an important source of
creativity and a key factor for growth. He cautioned that the
public domain could be unnecessarily affected through
technological protection measures (TPMs). He warned of a global
trend towards increasing exclusive rights and restricting
material in public domain. In his elaboration of the importance
of complementary systems to and in intellectual property the
Chilean Ambassador noted current discussions on an a2k treaty and
a treaty on medical research and development
<http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB117/B117_R13-en.pdf>
(being discussed at the WHO).

The United States made an elaboration on its proposal for a WIPO
Partnership Program.

Please see Georg Greve's blog
<http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/%28tag%29/WIPO>
for additional insights.

Thanks to Gwen Hinze and Teresa Hackett for inputs

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

---

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [A2k] IP-Watch: WIPO Development Meeting Starts Slowly
Despite Push For Strong Reform
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:04:54 +0100
From: "Carolyn Deere" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

Link to the complete article:
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index_test.php?p=222

WIPO Development Meeting Starts Slowly Despite Push For Strong
Reform

By Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen and William New, 20/2/2006

A meeting on a development agenda at the World Intellectual
Property Organization got off to a slow start after a half-day
debate over who would chair the meeting. This took place in
contrast to efforts of key developing nations to keep
negotiations on track to significant reforms of the United
Nations body.

After a failed effort by the Group B industrialised countries to
install a new chairman from Romania, Paraguayan Ambassador
Rigoberto Gauto Vielman was elected to continue in his position
as chairman, which he held for last year's intersessional
intergovernmental meeting on a development agenda. Kyrgyzstan was
chosen as vice-chair for this week's new Provisional Committee on
Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda (PCDA). Group B
withdrew the suggestion after several hours of negotiation,
according to officials.

Some sources argued that it is natural for Paraguay to continue
to chair the process, while Group B members sought to signal that
the PCDA - established by the General Assembly in October - is a
new and separate process. Developed countries questioned
privately did not criticize Vielman's performance last year.

Romania is a candidate to join the European Union. Paraguay may
be seen by some as more favourable to developing country issues
although it is not part of the Friends of Development Group
promoting the WIPO development agenda, some sources said.

Following resolution of the chairmanship, regional groups made
official statements and then moved into discussion of new and old
proposals.

FOD Document Stakes Out a Way Forward

Fourteen members of the Friends of Development group put forward
a document for the meeting summarising the key points in the
proposals on the development agenda so far and indicating where
the process should go from here.

The proposal highlights the mandate given to the provisional
committee and says that 2006 is the year for deepened discussions
and concrete recommendations on the development agenda. In 2005,
the first year of discussion on the proposal for such an agenda
put forward by Brazil and Argentina in 2004, debate often focused
on procedural issues.

The new Friends of Development document also emphasized that
despite the number and variety of proposals submitted to WIPO on
the development agenda, there are some common threads. It
welcomed WIPO's progress in including public interest groups in
the discussions; the general agreement among members that WIPO
should indeed be active in development; and that public hearings
should be held before rule-setting activities are undertaken.

The document summarises the key issues to be addressed that are
found in most or all of the proposals put forward prior to this
week's meeting. First, what should be the new approaches to WIPO
norm-setting activities to ensure: they reflect the priorities of
all WIPO members; that the impact and cost for developing
countries is analysed; that they reflect the "profound factual
economic and social differences" between member states; and that
once adopted, they are evaluated.

Second, consider "member-driven mechanisms, procedures or rules"
that could help WIPO carry out independent evaluation of
intellectual property rules' impact on development.

Third, strengthen the area of technical assistance including
"improved availability and sharing of information on theses
activities."

Fourth, consider what measures are needed to help WIPO fulfil its
mandate to facilitate technology transfer.

Fifth, to consider the issue of access to knowledge and ensuring
that a "robust" public domain is being kept through norm-setting
activities, including a proposed Treaty on Access to Knowledge.

Sixth, WIPO should provide developing countries with "policy
space" to promote their development needs and requirements.

The document also highlights the need for all proposals to be
given equal treatment and consideration and sets a deadline of 30
June 2006 for the provisional committee to arrive at concrete
results. The PCDA is scheduled to meet for two week-long sessions
in 2006 before making recommendations to the autumn 2006 General
Assembly.

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

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. All of
the news articles and features on Intellectual Property Watch are
also subject to a Creative Commons License which makes them
available for widescale, free, non-commercial reproduction and
translation.

Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen, the author of this post, may be reached
at [email protected]. You can subscribe for automatic
notifications of these stories, via the RSS feed or via the
e-mail alerts. Subscribers can choose the frequency of
notifications as well as particular topics of greatest interest
to them.

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