[DMCA-Activists] 2 WIPO Dev Agenda Blogs: Day 1

[Seth Johnson]

(Two blogs here, Thiru et al.'s and Karsten's at
http://www.fsfe.org/Members/gerloff/blog/ -- Seth)


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [A2k] Blogging WIPO's Development Agenda Meeting - Day 1
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:22:31 +0200
From: Thiru Balasubramaniam <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden,
address@hidden,address@hidden,
address@hidden


Blogging WIPO's Development Agenda Meeting - Day 1

We're in Geneva at the World Intellectual Property Organization's
(WIPO's) first big meeting on intellectual property and the
"Development Agenda." That's right: the world's premiere
IP-expansionists are considering the radical proposal that more
rightsholder protections aren't always in the best interests of
developing nations.  Several copyfighters have been taking
collaborative notes all day inside the cavernous main hall, and
you check out the transcript after the jump.

Also see Pedro de Parangua Moniz's <a
href="http://www.direitorio.fgv.br/cts/";>notes from today.</a>!

11 April, 2005

Notes by:

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

Gwen Hinze, gwen [at] eff.org, Electronic Frontier Foundation
[GH]

Ren Bucholz, ren [at] eff.org, Electronic Frontier Foundation
[RB]

[NOTE: This is not an official transcript.  Any errors or
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.

-=-=-=-=-

[RB: This is the administrative portion, where leadership for the
meeting is formed]

Geoffrey Yu (WIPO):  Proceed to Agenda Item two; nomination of
officers

Jamaica:  On behalf of GRULAC-we would like to nominate the
Ambassador of Paraguay.

Czech Republic:  Second, and also nominate Bulgaria as vice-chair

China: We would like to support the nomination by the delegation
of Jamaica for Paraguay and Bulgaria is vice-chair

Geoffrey Yu (WIPO):  Permanent representative (PR) of Paraguay is
chair; PR of Bulgaria is vice-chair

Paraguay (Chair): Efficiency starts off with brevity. Move to
item 3: adoption of agenda

Jamaica (GRULAC): We would like to add an agenda item on a
substantive report and an item on the inclusion of NGOs.

IIM/1/1

Chair:  There is agreement among regional coordinators on having
a substantive report.  There's also agreement among regional
coordinators on the accreditation of 17 NGOs at the first IIM.

[RB: Wow! This is great news - WIPO had initially indicated that
groups that aren't accredited wouldn't be able to participate. 
As a result, EFF & other groups extended their delegation to
include organizations that have a lot to say about the developing
world but had not yet received accreditation.]

Jamaica: With that clarification we do not need an amendment.

India: The preparation of this document should be done before the
end of this session; then the delegations can comment to
formalize final document.

Chair: The report that I will prepare will discuss future work. 
The factual report that the IB will prepare will be transmitted
to delegations.  I will prepare a seperate report on future work.

Argentina: We're not clear about the distinction between factual
reports and substantive reports?  We agree that the chairman's
statement's report should not be binding; but "future work"
report should be done with Member States.  C's report should be
factual in nature.

Jamaica: This is an issue important with GRULAC.  Important that
the substantive report on IIM report be adotped.  If not enough
time, on wendesday it could be adopted at next IIM, But a factual
report must be produced.

Brazil: We would like to speak in the same line as the rep from
GRULAC and Argentina. We would like to follow usual UIPO
procedure that IIM conclude with a  draft report. We read item 6
as "summary by chair" not report, but it has no legal status. 
Item on future work is a substantive isssue to be  dealt with by
countries. We want inclusion of draft report.  If there is a time
constraint for adoption we would sonsider a preliminary draft.

Chair: International Bureau secretariat will prepare factual
report. The report that I prepare will be the reflection of
consutations with delegations; it will deal with future work
(item 5).  Is this acceptable?

India: We are somewhat at a loss to grapple the nuance of your
most recent statement with respect to your previous statement
given the interventions of several delegations.  (TB: What's the
difference).  For example, adoption of WIPO report from last
General Assembly meeting still has to be adopted by Member States
at the next Assembly because it was reworked to add interventions
of delegates and took several months to appeaer on WIPO's
website. However, it would be useful to put a detailed summary
before delegates to allow them to review it. That should be done
quickly when issues are still fresh in delegates' minds.

China: We are willing to support work of the Chairman.

Argentina:  Probably don't need chair's summary; it can be
reflected in the report.  We could include it in the agenda.

Brazil:  I would like to include an adoption of draft report. 
Let us stick with usual practice.

Chair: add new item 7 - adoption of draft report.

Italy (on behalf of Group B): Welcome decision on ad-hoc
accreditation of NGOs; but on the understanding that this should
not be a precedent and we will encourage them to apply for
permanent acccreditation.



Legal Counsel (Edward Kwakwa):  Named 17 names of NGOs who
applied for and have now been granted  ad-hoc accreditation for
the first IIM.


Item 4 - Substantive Proposals

Chair:  Listed four proposals

Brazil (Group of Friends of Development - FOD):  Highlight that
this document is supported by 14 Member States.  Recall WIPO
General Assembly proposal.  Development Agenda concerning ip issu

New document is not a subsitute for previous doucment but
complementary.  It is lengthy. Not exhaustive document.  Further
developt 4 aspects of our proposals from last year.  All of the
14 countries have reserved the right to further elaborate on
different aspects.

It is both conceptual and pragmatic.  It contains conceptual
elaborations-development concerns broaden ip system-broaden and
strengthen WIPO's role-give WIPO a more development oriented
focus-issues in this documents affect Southern constitutencies,
academics, NGOs.  This document is a platform for substantive
debate on WIPO.  This is why we welcome ad hoc accreditation of
NGOs.  Document also contains concrete proposals-we welcome
constructive engagement from other WIPO Member States.

FOD-relationship between development and intellectual property. 
How is development affected by enforcement and implementation of
ip agreements.  We could work on a consensual outcome that we
could forward to the General Assembly.  We resist attempts to
fragmentize the components.

Central element; broad perspective on relationship between IP and
devleopment. We seek to keep this proposal before the IIM. It is
important that this proposal be treated holistically; it's not
appropriate to separate out aspects of it, but we have broken it
into sections to allow for discussion of the 4 elements

1) Mandate and Governance-we support a more "UN" agency type role
for WIPO-We support openness and transparency - all voices should
be heard at WIPO, including IGOs and NGOs

2) Norm-setting: -development oriented benchmar Norm-setting
should not be seperated from development.

3) Technical assistance

4) Technology Transfer

We want this item to be permanently on the agenda at WIPO; we
want this to be cross-cutting-development should not be
subordinated to a subsidiary body.

Argentina (FOD):  Second part refers to revision of WIPO's
mandate and governance.   FOD believes WIPO's mandate can be
clarified through an amendment of a development dimension as part
of WIPO's mission.  Lack of leadership on part of WIPO's member
states on where DD should included. FOD believes that DD should
be incorporated into WIPO's programmes and activities.

1) Create WERO (independent office)-independent and transparent
mechanism to evaluate programmes-similar programmes exist in
World Bank and other agencies-adopt measures to include NGOs-PAC
and IPAC should be determined by Member States

2) Norm setting-norms on intellectual creativity and
technological transfer- WIPO should pursue more balanced
approach. Develop norms that reflect development dimensions in
all work. We believe UK (IPR Commission)

This should be guided by guidelines: Tech assistance should be
based on devleopment provision-level of development of each
recipient state

Make full use of flexibilites

Remedy anti-competitive practices

3) Technical assistance should be neutral and non-discrimanatory

Tech assistance should be reviewed independently

Next GA should adopt principles we've listed in our proposal,
should establish database for website listing all tech
assistancer

Seperate norm-setting from tech assistance

Commence work on indicators and benchmarks for evaluation

4) Technology transfer

See paragraphs 87,88 and 97 of our proposal for principles for
tech transfer and dissemination

Chair: other delegates should look at the FOD proposal and
comment on it. We had a belated start so no coffee .


USA:  Paul Salmon (USPTO) US Welcomes full transparency of WIPO
proceedings.  Support ad hoc accreditation for 17 NGOs but
encourage NGOs to apply for permanent obsevers. Simple procedure
outlined on WIPO's website. Outlined requirements - including
must identify how NGOs can establish that they speak for their
members.

IP protection plays an important and positive role in
development.  IP is only part of the solution. More needs to be
done but not the domain of WIPO-WIPO should focus on IP- UN does
not need any new development agencies.-WIPO's current legal
structures - including the standing committees -  provide ample
room to tackle development issues.

There is much support from WIPO from developed and developing
countries. We would not want to change WIPO if it risked their
support.

We agree that IP is an important means of development.  US paper
is not a rebuttal of FOD-it's not just about technical
assistance.  We have no agenda to  diminish WIPO's tech
assistance.  Our partnerhsip proposal will allow WIPO to  partner
with developing countries and developed countries and NGOs to
create synergies.

There is a need for better co-ordination of development
resources. WIPO tech assistance should be more relevant and
meaningful to the needs of DCs and LDCs.

Mexico:  IP is a tool for economic development. We recognize the
work already being done by other agencies but it is necessary to
supplement for promoting IP.Lack of knowledge of the IP system
has sometimes generated tensions in developing countries. Our
proposal seeks to have WIPO disseminate information on IP system
but we don't support the creation of new bodies for development.
That won't achieve the goal of streamlining WIPO's activities.

UK:We welcome the spectrum and breadth of attendees at this
important meeting. The starting point for our proposal is that IP
isa tool that allows economic and technical development. The UK
in 2001 took the intiative of establishing the IPR Commission to
investigate how IP can be integrated with development because we
believe that IP can lead to sustainable economic and technical
development.

Co-operation must be transparent and planned. We welcome the US
and Mexico proposals on these points. It must also be accountable
- we have read the FOD proposaland agree that it one model but
not the only one. We should not create other bodies but use
member government's knowledge of IP to facilitate tech transfer. 
We see technical assistance in a broad sense.  Technical
Assistance should be demand driven and transparence. 
Harmonization is not necessarily the enemy of development if it
takes account of differences in levels of development.
Cornerstone of UN/WIPO agreement is tech transfer.

Chair: opening floor to regional co-ordinators.

Singapore (Asian Group) :Supports FOD proposal; good basis for
constructive dialogue for IIM. Mainstreaming development
dimension into all WIPO's work is imperative, consistent with
other UN bodies-IP is not an end in itself. One size fits all
approach not appropriate. -public policy consideration-policy
space respect-espically when developing countries have
obligations.WIPO tech assistance needs to consider costs of IP
not just benefits. Asian Group stands behind a balance
IP-stimulate creativity, innovation and research.

And in his role as Co-ordinator of ASEAN countries: -We work
together with WIPO - we established the WIPO - ASEAN Ambassadors
annual dialogue in 1993. We recognize and appreciate WIPO's work
on development - dialogue, business/ IP co-operation, national
workshops aimed at capacity building, thematic resource work.IP
for development remains an important objective of the Director
General's  vision.  ASEAN looks forward to step up cooperation
with WIPO.

Italy (Group B) Happy to see so many NGOs seeking participation.
Important to remember that IP can serve as economic driver. UN
MIllennium Declaration has been part of WIPO's mission since
inception. Must look espectially at needs of developing
countries. Time for urgent stock-taking of WIPO's technical
assistance-is it appropriate for recipient countries. Need more
research into country-specific IP work. Could WIPO work with
other organizations? Group B agreed in 2004 that it would work
with others. Adquately protecting IP is necessary to turn ideas
into useful work.


Jamaica (GRULAC): Congratulations on your elections.  IP system
is an imporant part of National Economic Development.  However,
WIPO must address concerns of developing countries at all levels.
Mandates that start with the increase of IP must take into
account LDC needs. Doha Dev Agenda, Sao Paolo Consensus, Monterey
Consensus, Johannesburg Consensus.  DA is not just about
technical assistance. Also norm-setting. Recognizes steps taken
by WIPO.  Benefit of Extra-budgetary resources but results
sometimes can be unreliable and unstainable (tech assistance).

Chair: Countries that wish to speak-Morocco, Czech Republic,
China, Pakistan, S. Africa, Boliva, Switzerland, Egypt, Iran,
Niger, Nigeria

+_+_+_+_+_
Break
+_+_+_+_+_

Afternoon issues

Chair: to move things forward, we'll be talking to regional
coordinators.

Brazil: we are concerned about this. Our proposal has 14 country
sponsors. We don't beleive it's possible to discuss substantive
issues with RCs.

Chair: clarification - will only be discussing procedural issues.

India: We are behind on substantive matters; regional
coordinators have limited mandates.  Given shortage of time; it
might not be efficacious to set aside time to meet from this
session.  We would not advise to set aside time; Member States do
not delegate authority to regional coordinators on substantive
issues.

Morocco (African Group):  We support in principle the proposal
for establishment of Development Agenda.  It is ambitious
agenda.  IP should not be considered an end in itself. Need to
take account of different levels of development, balance general
public rights and rightsholders.Faciliattion of tech transfer and
capacity bldg. Assessment of costs of implementation.   It is
incumbent on WIPO to assist in tech transfer (Arti 7-8)-and in
accordance with WIPO-UN agreement.

We welcome the US proposal-reinforce tech cooperation activities
of WIPO.  It assumes infracstructural access to internet.  but
digital divide exists. Not all the oucntries have access. WIPO
has shown commitment (WIPONET).

Welcome Munich Group B comminique-para 3

Czech Republic (Central European and Baltic States):  Thanks to
Int Bureaus for organizing mtgs. Want to underline importance of
strengthening IP for development for members of goup. Appreciate
assistance of WIPO in development-related activities. Providing
tech assistance and training, institutional capacity bldg but
there is room for improvement. Should have high level of
transparency, and include full range of participants. WIPO
activities should meet concerns of developing countries and meet
needs of LDCs. IP is important tool for development so long as
takes account of different levels of development.


China: Devlt is Daunting challenges in the new millennium. Given
that WIPO is a UN agency has obligation to consider impact of IP
on development. WIPO shouldn't concentrate only on tech
assistance. In identiffying priorites and in norm-setting, WIPO
should take account of developed. Norm-setting should take
account of real capacity for member states; must be realistic,
otherwise IP by itself insufficient for development. China hopes
that secretariat will provide member states with highly
transparent information as well as time to consider it, to
promote discussion and dialogue.


Benin (Representing LDC's): We would like development to be
incorporated into all programmes of WIPO.  TRIPS negotiations; IP
should be made into a development tool.

Luxembourg (EU): EU looks forward to take part in this debate. 
EU has always said IP is not an end in itself.  IP can help
achieve the UN Millennium development goals.  Many factors play
here environmental, social, economic development.  WIPO promotes
IP in balanced fashion - this system of IP cannot secure the
developmentt goals.

Developing countries play greater role at WIPO.  EU would like to
make some observations-Part 5 tech transfer-these agreements must
stimulate exchange of knowledge: "efficient tech transfer"

On Part 6 (of GFoD?): Implementation of IP rights-must contribute
economic, social and cultural benefit.  Want to "encourage
national culture of IP"

Part 7: EU convived that strategic cooperation must be targeted. 
More must be done in technical assistance.  Technical assistance
should be appropriate to level of development and specific needs
of countries. Also, they fully embrace UK proposal.

Nigeria: WIPO has given assistance and Nigeria has benefitted. 
Associates itself with GFoD proposal.

South Africa: Wishes to associate itself fully with Brazil &
Argentina proposal [RB: the Global Friends of Development
proposal]

The development dimension must be incorporated into WIPO, and it
must be reflected in future treaties.  Like many other
international agencies it needs to be guided by the broader
development agenda of the United Nations.

South Africa believes that IP has an important role to play and
WIPO has a signifcant role to paly in ensuring that IP rules
support development.  Our experience is that North-South
activites have proceed, but there is a loack of understanding of
implcations.  The GFoD proposal calls for an independedent
evidence-based impact assesment.  Techincal assistance can't be
"technical assistance" can't be equated with Development.  The
GFoD proposal explains our key points.

We won't support *any* formulation that views technical support
as the only method of development.

[RB: meaning that they also want to see technology transfer
(moving help, governance (reforming WIPO as an institution),
norm-setting (respecting locally appropriate policies)]

Bolivia: Associates with statement by GRULAC - looking for proper
balance between interests of developed & developing nations

Supports push for NGOs to participate in this proceeding, and
believe that it will enrich the dialogue

Switzerland: Congratulations on your elections.  We give full
support to the statement given by Italy on behalf of Group B.

We have an opportunity today to have a discussions on the basis
of 4 specific proposals on the role of IP on development.  More
than ever before-my delegation is convinced that IP has a central
role to play in economic, social, cultural development

However, IP alone cannot provide entirety of the development of a
country and an end to poverty.  To achieve this, each country
must undertake joint action.

Believes in: dev. of human resources, rule of law, stable
economic policies, application of rules that support competition

All the activities undertaken by WIPO on "development" are fully
in line with UN goals and within the specific terms of WIPO's
mandate as a specialized UN agency.  We are surprised therefore
to read that WIPO must establish a development agenda; it already
exists.

Believes that WIPO should simply work with other groups that
already exist to refine their current trajectory - wants a
"pragmatic" approach that examines outcomes

Delegation wants to examine these proposals in further detail to
understand the financial obligations these proposals may entail. 
We look forward to play a constructive and active role in these
deliberations.

Dominican Republic: We would like to voice support the Group of
Friends Of Development (GFOD) proposal.

Discussion of 4 aspects in GFoD proposal -  Dominican thinks this
is a very innovative and creative proposal. Would like to
highlight principles on technical cooperation.  We Support the 
proposal to separate the international secretariat from WIPO's
role in norm-setting.

Proposes the creation of a new body with members from other UN
organizations. Will conduct evaluation and research on IP as tool
of development.

Chile: One of the central purposes of gov't is to enhance
individuals' ability to actualize through access to knowledge. 
We need greater emphasis on: flexibility & strengthening of
agencies to review effects of policies that expand rights

Proposals:
1. Establish permanent space for discussion of IPR - not just
accepting & expanding it
2. [RB: missed this one]
3. Form strategy for working with other agencies at the U.N.

On U.S. proposal, Chile expresses gratitude and agrees that it
tackles only one aspect of development.  However, and contrary to
what the doc said, inefficient use of U.N. resources is likely to
occur.

On Mexican proposal - grateful, but believe that there should be
broader mandate
        - not just protection, but also exceptions & limitations,
etc.
        - shouldn't think that more IP is better for development

On UK - thanks, and believes that this is the kind of proposal &
spirit that they need

Canada: Shares the view that IP is important in both DCs & LDCs
effective, balanced & flexible IP is important

WIPO's primary function is to provide IP expertise within the
context of the UN.

WIPO should reflect needs of all members, & note a positive
response from LDCs - In particular, must approach this in
comparative & balanced manner

Since resources are finite, should consider prioritizing concerns
- pragmatic proposals with outcomes should come first

Pakistan: Congratulations on your election and that of the
vice-chair.  We associate ourself with the statement of Singapore
on behalf of the Asian group.  We also note the four proposals
submitted (that's UK, US, Mexico, GFoD).

The core issue at the heart of this debate is to ensure that IP
system effective policy space appropriate to their own level of
development. In particular flexibility-they should not be
rendered inoperable by multiple caveats

Other issues raised are not importance - for instance, discussing
WIPO's mandate is only important if it blocks discussion of
"substantive" issues (RB: discussing WIPO mandate would be a
"sterile excercise" !?)

US suggestions should be seriously considered.  Policy space
should not be considered in an abstract manner.

Three clusters of concerns

1) Impact of IP on prices of medicines, textbooks, educational
software and other essential goods
    - sometimes priced out of the reach of the people
2) constraining effects of IP on technology - broad patents,
length of protection, pools, skewed licenses, lack of disclosure
3) misappropriation of TK - need prior consent, benefit sharing,
etc.

Academic proposal on impact statements deserves much attention

Norm-setting should be conducted in an equitable manner. 
Shouldn't rely on islolated enclaves to set policies that affect
the group... Other bodies moving away from that model

We should have further sessions of IIM to discuss these issues
substantively.

Egypt: Congratulations to chair and vice-president.  Egypt firmly
believes that development in all its forms is the only way to
raise standards of living for our people.  IP is a component; it
is not an exception from this path.  If we don't deal with IP
from a development point of view including a development
dimension, standards of economic development, it will lack one of
its main targets.  Egypt was one of the authors of the GFOD
proposal.

Let me affirm two basic topics (priority for Egypt)

1) The need to not have a narrow point of view of development in
IP.  It is important that all parties concerned understand that
the question of promoting IP development aspect...it is not
limited to quantatative and qualitative aspect of technical
assistance

2) The instruments which WIPO offers should incorporate IP but
should not be exceptions to development. Some of these treaties
impose constraints on developing countries.  The development
dimension should be put on the core of all standards that WIPO
creates.  This cannot take place unless we take into
consideration elements which are noted in the proposals contained
in the FOD paper.

Hope that GFoD & other doc are deeply discussed to allow
"continued credibility of the WIPO process.

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

---

> http://www.fsfe.org/Members/gerloff/blog/



> http://www.fsfe.org/Members/gerloff/blog/


2005-04-11

WIPO meeting on development agenda: Pt 1

Together with Georg, I'm at the WIPO meeting in Geneva. The
delegates have gotten together to discuss if the needs of
developing countries should be better integrated into WIPO's
work. The climate, to me as a naive observer, seems as if the
delegates are somewhat confused. Development normally is not an
issue in their work; as a consequence, the comments on the
proposals of Argentina and Brazil, which are considered
revolutionary by the rightsholders industry lobby assembled here,
seem a bit rough around the edges.

NGOs were mostly locked out in the run-up to the conference. Only
organisations with permanent observer status were allowed in.
This morning, there was an ad-hoc accreditation of 17 more NGOs.
This helped a bit, but did not do much to remedy the fact that
many NGO people simply do not have the resources to come to
Geneva on the bare chance they might be allowed in.

The proposal of the US, submitted as a response, is just whacky:
Create a website that would allow for easier contact between
developing countries and rights holders. Besides, pair up
developing countries' beefed-up "IP" protection offices. Although
this might slightly reduce transaction costs for developing
countries, it would leave the fundamental problem untouched: The
fact that much "intellectual property" is claimed by the
rightsholder industry in rich countries, while developing
countries are left to scavenge for what might drop down from the
table.

Mexico's proposal doesn't really have any substance. Their most
interesting point is that hostility towards the "IP" system in
developing countries is just due to lack of information. They
suggest that, if people only knew why their children can't have
school books, or why sick people cannot receive cheap generic
medication instead of unaffordable original products, then they
would gladly accept dying stupid - and doing so much more
promptly than would be the case otherwise. Now that's what I call
an informed opinion.

The UK takes a very European approach. They say: "Yes, there are
problems. We should discuss if we want to discuss these topics
more frequently."

This is the substance of two hour's worth of of hypnotising,
diplomatic dribble. I wonder if I will manage to stay awake all
afternoon. This will be especially difficult, as the Chairman has
cut out the coffee breaks, because the meeting started about an
hour late. This especially hurts the observing NGOs, as those are
the times when they get to do their lobby work, since we hardly
have the possibility to speak during the conference phases. This
afternoon, there will be statements on the proposals. This
process might continue well into tomorrow.

Oh, and by the way: International diplomat's mobile phones have
the same boring and annoying ringtones as everyone else's.

---

WIPO meeting on development agenda: Pt. 2

In the statements of regional groups (eg. Africa, EU...) and
individual states, there is a tendency to follow the USA on the
argument that incorporating a development agenda into WIPO's work
is fundamentally a technical question; or rather, a question of
technical assistance. This would essentially mean: reinforced
efforts by rich countries to push proprietary technology into
developing countries (which constitutes a transfer of products
and services instead of a transfer of knowledge); building of an
infrastructure to strictly control and extend the current system
of copyright, patents and trademarks. Although I like to be
careful with the word "imperialism", it probably is the
appropriate term here.

Most rich countries (for example, Switzerland and Canada) are
d'accord. They want to lure the idea of a development into a dark
subcommittee, where they are going to quietly strangle it. They
do this under the cover of being "pragmatic", of "starting out
with the areas where progress can be made more immediately". This
way, they hope to avoid a rethinking of the direction of WIPO's
work by labeling it a purely academic question.

The Friends of Development group [1] seems to stick together so
far. It's hard to tell if, how far - and much less, through which
mysterious back alleys - the influence of hard-core patents,
copyrights and trademarks advocates USA and their allies on this
issue will succeed in breaking up this alliance.

South Africa and Bolivia, from the Friends of Development group,
are arguing to the contrary; however, they seem to be in the
minority. Pakistan joins in more or less, doing an important
service to the cause by naming examples of patents, copyrights
and trademarks hindering development: schoolbooks,
pharmaceuticals, software. Chile also seems to be on this side.

This seems a good idea to me. As someone from the German embassy
in Geneva told me, many diplomats, especially from the EU, don't
understand why WIPO should need a development agenda. As he said,
to them it seems that the topic of development is simply stuck
onto every United Nations forum. We will need to make clear why
WIPO's activities play such a fundamtental role for developing
countries - and for us all.

So much for an afternoon of statements largely by governmental
delegations. This will continue into tomorrow. Eventually, after
the governments and the intergovernmental groups, NGOs will get
to make statements too.

Interesting enough: At WIPO, even companies are labelled as NGOs.
I should hence be speaking of "Civil Society" instead, although I
understand that the term is also contested in much the same way.

-- 

[1] This group consists of the 14 countries that co-sponsored the
original development agenda proposal at the Assemblies last year,
that is, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, the Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran, Kenya, Peru, Sierra Leone, South
Africa, Tanzania and Venezuela.

_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
address@hidden
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