[DMCA-Activists] IPJ on 2nd IIM WIPO Development Agenda Meeting

[Seth Johnson]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [A2k] IPJ Report on 2nd IIM WIPO Development Agenda Mtg
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 16:55:56 -0700
From: Robin Gross <address@hidden>
Organization: IP Justice
To: address@hidden

Available online at:
  http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/IIM2/IIM2_IPJ_Report.shtml
  http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/IIM2/IIM2_IPJ_Report.pdf
  http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/IIM2/IIM2_IPJ_Report.doc


IP Justice Report
on the 2nd IIM of the
WIPO Development Agenda
20-22 June 2005


Debate on Proposals to Reform WIPO Begins Despite Delays:
Friends of Development Coalition Maintains Strong Front Against
US/UK/EU

By IP Justice Executive Director Robin D. Gross
www.ipjustice.org


I.  Background on the Development Agenda and Call for Reform at
WIPO

IP Justice was one of a handful of public-interest NGO's
accredited to participate at the Development Agenda meetings at
the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a UN
Specialized Agency this summer.  The Development Agenda is a
proposal adopted by WIPO's General Assembly to reform WIPO's
tendency to blindly increase intellectual property rights without
consideration of the public interest or the social costs of those
expanded rights.

After WIPO's General Assembly adopted the proposal in fall 2004,
three meetings were scheduled for the summer 2005 to consider the
proposal and make recommendations to the General Assembly in fall
2005.  The first Intergovernmental Intercessional Meeting (IIM)
was held from 13-15 April 2005.  The second IIM was held 20-22
June 2005, and the third and final IIM is scheduled for 20-22
July 2005 in Geneva.

The first IIM debate focused on the process and structure of the
forthcoming discussions.  Due largely to delay tactics by WIPO's
Secretariat and developed countries, not until the middle of the
second IIM did any substantive discussion take place regarding
the Development Agenda.

At the second IIM session, IP Justice provided a floor paper
supporting the Development Agenda and IP Justice delivered an
intervention statement during the meeting on 20 June 2005.

The 14-country coalition of developing countries, led by Brazil
and Argentina, called the "Friends of Development"  advocated for
the Development Agenda as further elaborated in their proposal of
6 April 2005.  The US proposed an agenda that calls for only
minor and technical reform at WIPO, and the UK provided another
submission supporting the US view on the Development Agenda.

At the Second IIM, Bahrain curiously submitted a proposal
praising WIPO and advocating for the US position on the
Development Agenda.  However, soon after Bahrain's proposal was
published, it's legitimacy was called into question since the
King of Bahrain had recently signed the "Doha Plan of Action" an
agreement reached by the Heads of State and Government of the
Group of 77 and China that pledged support for the proposals
contained in the Friends of Development proposal.


II.  Battle to Set Discussion for the Development Agenda: Despite
WIPO/US Stalling, Friends of Development Begin Substantive Debate

The Second IIM opened with confusion regarding the structure of
the ensuing debate.  WIPO's Secretariat proposed an agenda for
discussion that consisted of 4 general "Clusters and Possible
Topics".   The Secretariat's proposal for discussion lacked any
of the concrete proposals adopted by the General Assembly last
fall or any subsequent proposals made by Member Countries.  In
what appeared to be an effort to stall any substantive discussion
on existing proposals, the Secretariat's agenda consisted of only
dozens of general topics for possible discussion.

A number of Member Countries including India, Brazil, Chile, the
African Group, Argentina, Iran, Pakistan, and South Africa
immediately complained about the unproductive discussion agenda,
and instead called for a debate on specific action-oriented
proposals that had been on the table for months.  The US led the
other side of this debate, advocating for no discussion of
substantive proposals, but rather general discussion of possible
clusters of issues as proposed by the Secretariat, with support
from the UK, Switzerland, and the European Union.

Brazil and the Friends of Development eventually won this
important and hard fought battle, because in the afternoon of the
second day of the meeting, the discussion agenda was re-set to
focus on specific action-oriented proposals already submitted by
Member Countries as well as a few new proposals by the United
States, Morocco, and a coalition of Arab states.   But already,
one-and-a-half-days of the three-day meeting had been wasted on
debating the Secretariat’s proposal for clusters of topics before
any substantive discussion on the Development Agenda could take
place.

Had the US and the WIPO Secretariat been successful in setting
the agenda as general topic discussions, it would have virtually
assured that no concrete proposals could be made in time for the
final report to the General Assembly, and thus the Development
Agenda would have essentially been "dead in the water" at this
meeting.

With only one scheduled meeting to go, it remains to be seen
whether the coalition of developing countries will be able to
fend off attacks by the US and the Secretariat to further derail
discussion in order to make concrete proposals for a Development
Agenda to the General Assembly by the 30 July 2005 deadline.


III.  Specific Proposals to Reform WIPO Debated at 2nd IIM

One of the controversial issues debated was whether WIPO should
create an independent WIPO Research and Evaluation Office (WERO)
to assess the impact on development of WIPO's activities and
report directly to the General Assembly.  The US/UK were
staunchly against the creation of WERO and instead proposed that
an existing body, the Permanent Committee on Cooperation for
Development Related to Intellectual Property (PCIPD) deal with
all development issues at WIPO.  Developing countries suggested
that relegating development concerns to PCIPD was analogous to
"dumping them in a trash can", where no real action or reform
could take place.

Another important action item for the Development Agenda is
amending WIPO’s mandate to make it conform more closely with the
humanitarian objectives of the United Nations.  Developing
countries have expressed frustration by WIPO’s growing focus on
promoting private business interests at the expense of the
general public welfare.

The Chair of the Secretariat, the Ambassador from Paraguay,
stated that WIPO’s objectives are "to promote the protection of
intellectual property throughout the world."  The US delegation
agreed, frankly stating that, "WIPO is for promoting IP
protection."

This objective sharply clashes with Article 1 of WIPO's agreement
with the United Nations, which states its objective: "for
promoting creative intellectual activity and for facilitating the
transfer of technology related to industry property to the
developing countries in order to accelerate economic, social, and
cultural development...".

A clarification is needed regarding WIPO's proper objective, to
prevent it from working against the greater humanitarian goals of
the United Nations.  As a UN Agency, WIPO's primary obligation is
to promote the public interest, a principle that must be
re-infused in all WIPO norms and activities.  Indeed, the growing
subordination of public to private interests at WIPO gives the
United Nations a black eye and undermines the UN’s credibility as
a humanitarian organization.

Led by India, developing countries argued that intellectual
property should not be viewed as an end in and of itself, but
rather should be pursued as a means to promote the greater social
good.  They called for an end to the "strong IP culture" at WIPO
that blindly works toward increasing intellectual property rights
without any weighing of the social costs associated with the
expanded rights.  Brazil cited WIPO’s current initiative on
patents, which does not take development goals into account at
all.  The Canadian delegation admitted that proposals made by
developed countries in fact go beyond existing international
obligations regarding intellectual property rights.

Developing countries also overwhelming support the proposed
Access to Knowledge Treaty that would ensure more widespread
access to textbooks, medicines, library and educational materials
so sorely needed in the developing world.

Apparently frustrated and forgetting Swiss diplomacy, the Swiss
delegate boldly asserted that developing countries are themselves
"standing in the way of their own development" by supporting the
Friends of Development proposal, and that "civil society
misunderstands intellectual property."  Imperialism is alive and
well at WIPO.

Brazil articulated the need for flexibility in tailoring
intellectual property rights with a country’s particular economic
and social needs, a point supported by many developing countries
throughout the meeting. WIPO's current approach of "one size fits
all" (XL) for setting IP rights among nations will only increase
the gap in access to knowledge and medicines between developed
and developing nations.

Another issue debated was WIPO's need to include more civil
society participation from public interest groups in the
discussions.  Brazil noted that rightsholders groups have
dominated at WIPO, but participation from all stakeholders,
including consumers is needed to create balanced laws.  Brazil
suggested that WIPO should hold public hearings on matters prior
to creating proposals for new IP laws.   WIPO does not presently
have any means of receiving general public input regarding its
processes and activities.

With little public accountability and participation, WIPO's
Secretariat has been able to drive the discussion on many topics
for years with little interference from opposing views.  Member
Countries resoundingly called for WIPO to become more
member-driven, a necessary component to all legitimate law-making
bodies.  The lack of transparency in WIPO's work plan and
strategic vision was also widely criticized during the debate by
developing countries.

The US delegation flatly stated its opposition to the Friends of
Development proposal, claiming that, "development must not be a
pretext for diluting international IPR regimes."  The US stated
it was against adopting principles and guidelines for
norm-setting activities at WIPO, and against the proposal to
undertake independent evidence-based development impact
assessments.  The US also recorded its objection to the proposal
to hold public hearings prior to the initiation of proposals on
the matter.

One technique used frequently in the debate by opponents to the
Development Agenda was to mischaracterize the debate as being
either "pro intellectual property rights" or "against
intellectual property rights".  The US, UK, Switzerland, and the
EU waxed on repeatedly about the benefits of intellectual
property rights without any acknowledgement of their social costs
and accusing those who call for a balance as "anti-IP".

Despite the simplistic rhetoric, the Development Agenda is not
about undermining intellectual property rights per se, but
rather, about ensuring that the scope and level of the rights are
set appropriately. Rather than address the merits of specific
proposals for reform, the strategy of the developed countries is
to attack the motives of the developing countries and to
mischaracterize the Development Agenda as "anti-intellectual
property", something analogous to "anti-motherhood" at WIPO.


IV.  Looking Ahead to 3rd IIM: Recommendations to the General
Assembly

On the afternoon of the final day of the 2nd IIM, the WIPO
Secretariat unexpectedly proposed ending discussion an hour
earlier than scheduled, but a number of countries objected to the
proposal and asked that the substantive discussions be allowed to
continue until the official end of the meeting at 6pm on 22 June
2005.

The 2nd IIM ended with no real conclusion, since it was only in
the beginning of the substantive debate on the Development
Agenda.  A Summary by the Chair was adopted on 22 June 2005 that
lists 25 specific proposals for continued debate at the 3rd IIM
on 20-22 July 2005 in Geneva.  Also, the Secretariat stated that
new proposals may be received prior to the 3rd IIM for debate at
that final meeting as well.

A Draft Report of the 2nd IIM will be prepared by the Secretariat
and made available on WIPO’s website by 4 July 2005.  Comments on
the Draft Report must be submitted in writing by 11 July, and the
revised Draft Report will then be made available and adopted at
the beginning of the 3rd IIM session from 20-22 July 2005.

At the conclusion of the 3rd IIM, Member Countries should adopt
specific recommendations to the General Assembly for a
Development Agenda at WIPO.  The final reports of the three IIM
sessions together with the draft decisions and recommendations
will constitute "the Report to the General Assembly" as mandated
by the General Assembly in the fall of 2004.

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