[DMCA-Activists] Notes from Day 4 of WIPO GA

[Seth Johnson]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [A2k] Notes from Day 4 of WIPO GA
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:08:16 -0400
From: Ren Bucholz <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden

Here's the last day for which we took collaborative notes.  Every
day since then has been dominated by informal meetings that we
cannot attend.  Enjoy!

-Ren


**WIPO General Assembly: Day 4**
September 29, 2005 (Thursday)

Notes by:
Thiru Balasubramaniam, thiru at cptech.org, Consumer Project on
Technology
Ren Bucholz, ren at eff.org, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Teresa Hackett, teresa.hackett at eifl.net, Electronic
Information for Libraries

[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.
-=-=-=-=-

10:55 AM (Start).

[RB: The discussion of the Development Agenda started later in
the morning. <a href="#DA">Click here</a> to jump directly to
that section.   The afternoon was occupied primarily with
discussion of the Standing Committee on Patents, and that
discussion can be found <a href="#SCP">here</a>.]

Chair (Ambassador Enrique A. Manalo. Permanent Representative of
the Philippines): I would like to give the floor to the WIPO
Secretariat in order to make an announcement on new WIPO
officers.

Secretariat (Edward Kwakwa): Could I please draw your attention
to document "A/41/INF/4"

I wish to simply read the names of the new officers, and to save
time, I will refrain from reading the names of all 60 officers.

<b>Chair of General Assembly</b>
President:
Enrique MANOLO (Philippines)

Vice-Chairs:
Zigrids AUMEISTERS (Latvia)
Usman SARKI (Nigeria)

<b>WIPO Conference</b>
President:
Rigoberto GAUTO VIELMAN (Paraguay)

Vice-Chairs:
Guilherme de AGUIAR PATRIOTA (Brazil)
M'hamed SIDI EL KHIR (Morocco)

<b>WIPO Coordination Committee</b>
President:
Love Mtesa (Zambia)

Vice-Chairs:
Peter Li-Feng Schrock (Germany)
Maximiliano Santa Cruz (Chile)

Chair: We conclude agenda item 3. The Director-General is present
today and would like to comment on agenda item 4.

Secretariat (Director-General Idris): Thanks people for thanking
him, then dedicates those thanks to his staff.

Over the last year, he was struck by the amazing upswing in use
of IP in many DCs and LDCs. Double-digit growth on a variety of
axes illustrates the importance of comprehensively formulated IP
systems.

WIPO remains more committed than ever to supporting LDCs to
strengthen their regional and national IP systems, policies, and
their accompanying action plans. He is fully conscious of the
aspirations of LDCs regarding public policy space, especially
where it relates to health, education, food, security, living
conditions, employment and the elimination of poverty. WIPO will
continue to pursue these concerns in its development program.

Finally, takes note and welcome the offer of the gov't of Japan
to host a WIPO Japan office. If he understands, this office would
be dedicated to research-based output. We have an excellent
atmosphere of negotiations.

Welcomes the fact that this initiative won't have any financial
implications for this organization.

[TB: I believe he is responding to the general statements made by
Member States, intergovernmental organizations and NGOs in the
plenary on Monday and Tuesday. ]

<a id="DA"></a> Chair: Thanks DG for his remarks. We now revert
to our consideration of Agenda item 13 [RB: Agenda Item 13 = the
Development Agenda].

Malaysia: Would like to commend WIPO on its good work in
conducting 3 IIMs so far. We view IIM as a venue for constructive
discussions for all Member States.

Since the proposal for the African Group has still to be
discussed. In order to hold a fair and balanced review, this and
other proposals should be tabled and discussed at the same venue.

Malaysia believes that the IIM's mandate should be extended for
another 3 meetings, if necessary, in an effort to produce
recommendations for the next GA.

[TB: Malaysia supports renewing the mandate]

Japan: This delegation is happy to continue discussion on this
important item. We believe that this discussion should continued
in a permanent body.

We would like you to recall that the IIM was a compromise. The
IIM is not a permanent body; it is an ad hoc body.

In the PCIPD, we understood that the mandate of the PCIPD is
flexible enough to cover the development agenda. We believe that
discussions of the development agenda should continue in PCIPD.

This delegation is of the view that, even if we discuss proposals
in the PCIPD instead of an IIM, that it would still be equitable
to pending proposals.

[TB: Japan does NOT support renewal of IIM process-supports
shunting the discussions into the PCIPD]

Kenya: It is widely acknowledged that development is the greatest
challenge to international community today. Just a few days ago,
world leaders met in NY to assess progress towards the Millennium
Goals. WIPO has a great deal to contribute with regard to the
delivery of the MDGs.

IP must not be mixed up with technical assistance.

Kenya supports the establishment of a WIPO Development Agenda
with a clear mandate and monitoring systems. We believe the
Friends of Development proposal is a good basis. Matters should
be handled by IIM, not PCIPD. While we would welcome an expansion
of PCIPD as well, we think that IIM is the best place to continue
this discussion.

WIPO DA is not about just expanding the scope of rights, but is
more like a human right with social goals.

Benin: The WIPO DA is of crucial importance to our group (LDCs).

The IIM process must be maintained in 2006 to consider the
proposal by the African Group amongst others. We support the
statement made yesterday by Morocco on behalf of the African
Group.

Relief of poverty is a vital concern, and we thank the countries
here who have stood in solidarity with us.

Bahrain: We have specific social and economic needs in our
country. Because of the increasingly important role of IP in
general, we need to increase advocacy and awareness building
programmes for IP. This will help improve living standards. We
hope that WIPO can help us to keep up with the pace of
technological development.

On the proposals that have been put on the table, we believe it's
important to find a good formula for dealing with them.

Pakistan: It has been a year since the need for a DA was first
discussed at last year's GA. The last WIPO assembly authorized
more focused discussion on the DA based on the Friends of
Development proposal. As mandated by the Assembly, it was taken
up by three IIM meetings. We have not only travelled some
distance on this road, we have a roadmap to chart our course.

Globalisation has enhanced the importance of the development
orientation of the IP system. WIPO as a member of the UN family
has an unambiguous responsibility to fully integrate the
development dimension.

It is not the mandate, but the mindset that needs to be tuned for
a certain development quotient in all of WIPO's activities. We
have drawn attention to three clusters of concerns.

1) Affordability of essential products including pharmaceuticals,
textbooks, educational software.
2) The misappropriation of traditional knowledge and genetic
resources.
3) Increasing restrictive effects of IP on access to technology
and ability of developing countries to innovate.

These concerns lead us to what the Director General pointed out
in his opening remarks. It is important to create a policy space
that codifies exceptions and limitations that already exist, and
fosters their growth where they do not. We must create a
results-oriented development agenda for WIPO. We need a balance
between IP rights and the public interest.

The way the IP system affects developing countries at different
levels must be examined. We need to have a standing group that
assesses the impacts of IP in myriad contexts. This could even be
launched as we discuss the DA, as it would only improve our
decisions.

The IIM process was mandated to examine the FOD proposal and
others to make the necessary recommendations to the GA. It is
unfortunate to note that most discussion took place on procedure.
The IIM process could not even achieve a first reading of the all
the proposals in their entirety.

However, it is encouraging that proposals continued to be placed
before the IIM. We are confidant that WIPO has the intellectual
reserves to meet this challenge.

This brings us to either renewal of the IIM process or shifting
to the PCIPD.  We believe that this Assembly should renew the
mandate for the following reasons:

1) The last Assembly charged the IIM and that duty has not been
fully discharged. Equity for all pending proposals requires that
the IIM be continued.
2) It is evident that the issues raised will cut across the whole
range of WIPO activities.
3) Despite a slow start, the IIM process acquired a momentum that
must not be lost to yet another procedural debate.
4) The IIM process has evolved into a setting where the differing
aspects of the DA could be discussed in an integrated manner.

We would like to conclude that a DA for WIPO is a milestone for
this organization and it is our collective responsibility to
ensure that high standards of equity and fair play be maintained
in these discussions.

South Africa: We recognize the fact that new proposals have been
tabled, including the African Group, and that the IIM mandate
should be extended.

We understood development to cover the following issues:

1. Public health and intellectual property. The work of the World
Health Organization through the Commission on IP Rights and
Health (CIPIH) is important in this regard. We are tackling these
problems in South Africa through compulsory licensing and
parallel importations.

2. The CBD work is related to development including genetic
resources, benefit sharing and disclosure.

3. Access to educational learning materials and information.
Maybe the Berne Appendix should be incorporated into national
legislation.

South Africa is of the view that intellectual property is
cross-cutting nature means that it should not be the domain of
one national department or of one international organization.

We must approach IP in a collective manner. The UN agencies are
also coming to grips with the DA. Other bodies e.g. WTO has
exactly identified that there is a problem. The Doha Declaration
is a good example.

These issues do not form part of the work of the PCIPD. We doubt
that the PCIPD has the necessary expertise to deal with this
issue. WIPO itself should rise to address this agenda.

It is also hoped that bilateral trade negotiations shall not
undermine flexibilities provided for in the TRIPS agreement. I
hope South Africa is not asking the impossible from WIPO. Please
extend the mandate of the IIM.

Jamaica: Yields to Minister of Justice from Antigua and Barbuda.

Antigua & Barbuda (Speaking on behalf of Caribbean delegates): A
DA for WIPO will contribute to the strengthening of the
organization's already significant contribution to development.
It is therefore quite logical that the mandate of the IIM should
be extended to the next GA to allow for further time for
engagement with the issues. It would be premature to end
discussions and support the recommendation that further IIMs be
convened and that it should report to the GA.

Cuba: We fully support the statement of Argentina made on behalf
of our delegation. We must implement the development dimension
into all aspects of the organization's work.

We must analyze the proposals in a proactive way. We must have an
IP system that takes into account the needs of developing
countries and public policies.

Cameroon: We would like to associate ourselves with the statement
of Morocco. DA is of immense importance to our countries, as has
been stated by others. No concrete conclusions have emerged from
the IIMs, and so we question whether its mandate has been
exhausted.

Our observation is as follows: the IIM has already built a focus
on this item, and we believe that this focus should be sustained.

The African Group is still to table its proposal.  Another
advantage is that the IIM has the character of an ad hoc
structure, which is usually more expeditious than a permanent
body. Also, some of the important concerns mentioned by South
Africa cannot be dealt with by the PCIPD.

Egypt: We associate ourselves with the statements made by
Argentina (GFoD) and Morocco (African Group)

We believe that the national IP system should be implemented in a
way beneficial to development. We've therefore become active in
things like the African Group proposal to the DA. This proposal
has clearly reflected the group's endeavor to translate this into
concrete results.

We view the outcome of the IIM as a concrete step towards our
goals. However they were unable to fully address the proposals of
member states during the three meetings allotted. There has been
a clear consensus to continue these discussions. We join the
clear majority of member states in calling for a continuation of
the IIM.

It is important to understand that we do not mean to make the IIM
a permanent process - as that would simply undermine the urgency
of the DA - but rather to integrate the development dimension in
WIPO activities.

Let me remind you of the call of the leaders of 77 countries of
the importance of development.

By integrating the DA into its work, WIPO would send a clear
message to DCs and LDCs that their concerns are being addressed.

Paraguay: We attach a great deal of importance to the development
agenda. IP needs to be an increasingly general tool to contribute
to countries' prosperity.

I had the pleasure to chair the IIM meetings. I sensed the
genuine interest and commitment of delegations proceeding on the
issues, even though we spent a lot of time on procedural issues.

Our delegation believes that besides the importance of this
issue, that the mechanism chosen by last year's Assembly was
appropriate. The number of proposals submitted backs up this
judgment. It is most logical and simple to ask for a number of
similar meetings to continue.

We would like delegations who have reservation in this regard to
have the flexibility to hold further IIMs to move forward with
addressing proposals that haven't yet been addressed. the
appropriateness of moving forward

Chair: We have 7-8 more speakers on this item. I would remind
delegations to adhere to the 5 minute time limit.

Algeria: We support the statement made by the African group.

We are in the process of comprehensive reform of the UN system,
and the foundation is that development must be addressed
holistically. As a specialized agency of the UN, WIPO must be
involved. IP is a key aspect of the DA. Our Chinese colleague
pointed out the benefits of IP for development. What is true in
China, can be true in any of our countries. The question is not
whether to set up a body, but first to identify objectives. There
is agreement on a need for a DA.

My delegation believes that, at this stage, we need to study all
of the proposals. The IIM was set up by the GA, but it has not
yet finished its mission. It shouldn't be stopped in the middle
of its mandate.

Jordan: Jordan has joined proposal sponsored by Bahrain. In our
view, this represents a balanced programme of action. Other
proposals submitted are worthy of attention and interest. We hope
to reach a consensus on the content of the proposals,
notwithstanding the name of the body.

India: We support the mechanism of IIM created by 2004 Assembly.
To our mind, the 3 IIM's have provided a good forum for both
developing and developed countries to make the mind of WIPO more
focused on the tasks of development. Our remaining tasks are to
identify the aspects of each proposal that we want to act on, and
to craft recommendations for the GA.

The suggestion to move the DA to the PCIPD would restrict the
scope of the interaction and would not serve the purpose as this
forum is mainly for technical assistance.

By proposing the renewal of the IIM mandate we don't want to give
the impression that we want to micro-manage WIPO's work or stall
any reforms. I plead to you to let the IIM process continue. I
find it imperative to do so. Otherwise we might send the wrong
signals to the world that we are more interested in promoting IP
than promoting public policy goals.

Thailand: The mainstreaming of development issues into all
aspects of WIPO is a key task. We therefore support the extension
of the IIM mandate into 2006.

Colombia: The IIM has been a useful intergovernmental exercise.
The interesting discussions on development and IP, and the firm
commitment of members states, has led to more than 27
constructive proposals for member states. Several countries have
indicated that they will submit new proposals and Colombia is in
the process of drafting a new proposal. Other proposals of equal
importance have not been discussed due to lack of time. It is
quite clear that we need to continue this process.

A new mandate from this Assembly should have two clear aims:

1) To continue discussing and analysing the existing proposals,
and all the new ones that come along.

2) Under its mandate, the IIM could make recommendations and
submit it to the 2006 General Assembly and have it take a
decision on these recommendations.

 From that point, the process will have been completed with
actions and proposals that complement WIPO's role.

Afghanistan: IP is an essential aspect of the development
process.

My delegation supports the DA in WIPO. However, we feel this
should not be an additional work but should transcend all aspects
of WIPO's work as it underlying all IP categories e.g. patents,
copyright.

We are of the view that WIPO is the place where these discussions
should take place. We believe that the work of the IIM should
continue, and that we should set certain targets. We support the
statement made by Argentina.

Peru: We support the statement of Argentina (GFoD) and Mexico
(GRULAC)

The differences between developed and developing countries are
immense in terms of IP. Exports from the developed countries have
a high IP-component value, and therefore their citizens benefit
greatly when rights are expanded. The countries with less
technical capacity seek differential treatment, so that they
might develop. We therefore focus on places that we have
strength: manufacturing, biodiversity, folklore, handicrafts need
preferential treatment by the Assembly. We should not focus just
on broadcasting, software and other areas where developed
countries have strength.

With regard to the appropriate forum to seek consensus, we
believe that the IIM should continue its work. The impatience
shown by some countries should not be used to argue for the IIM's
deactivation.

The IIM is doing good work and it could very well continue the
mandate given to it by this Assembly.

Sudan: Recognition that there are vast differences between the
IP/technical capacity of developed/developing countries. I quite
agree with the statement by the African Group and am in favour of
extending the mandate of the IIM.

Uruguay: We support the FoD statement. To achieve a balance
between the producers of knowledge and the users of knowledge,
there should be a development dimension. Uruguay considers it
necessary to promote and protect the public domain and other
commitments by our countries of the MDGs. It is appropriate to
renew the mandate of the IIM. The DA is of sufficient priority to
all countries and should be discussed in a dedicate meeting.

Iran: I would like to associate myself with with the GFOD
statement and the Asian Group statement.  Poses several
questions:

1) Why do we support the IP agenda for development?

Development is an integral part of all UN activities. This
explains the global consequences of the MDGs. The DA goes beyond
technical assistance to norm setting and other areas. Development
is a cross-cutting phenomenon. Specific attention should be paid
to the relationship between IP and development. We strongly
support the extension of the IIM to 2006

2) What do we mean by IP agenda for development? This needs to be
discussed further to come to some consensus.

3) What should we do about this? We strongly support the renewal
of the IIM for 2006.

Chair: Thanks to everyone, and now I'll make a brief summary of
where we stand.

Everyone here articulated their belief in the importance of the
DA. There also is agreement on the need to discuss proposals in
IIM including two that have not yet been discussed.

There was the issue of course of where to proceed.

<b>A wide majority, a significant majority believe that the IIM
should be extended.</b> The Chair noted the alternative proposal
to put it into the PCIPD.

There is some difference of opinion on this issue. This isn't a
big deal, and I am optimistic that we can agree on this point. We
shall try to have informal consultations later this afternoon. We
shall set agenda item 13 aside for now.

<a id="SCP"></a> We have 18 items left, and we need to get
through them by tomorrow. I'd therefore like to open Agenda Item
14.

Secretariat (Francis Gurry): The future work plan of the Standing
Committee on Patents. Let me tell of the story of this long saga.
Last year the United States submitted a proposal on a future work
plan of for the SCP.  The Director General held informal
consultations in February in Casablanca. The SCP failed to reach
agreement on the work plan.

Switzerland (on behalf of Group B): In order to improve the
world's patent systems, it is necessary to implement common
patent examination standards.

Argentina (GFOD): Document GA/32/9 draws our attention to the
last meeting of SCP. Notes the Casablanca recommendations. Of
interest was that these recommendations left aside issues of
concerns to developing countries. The discussion of the 11th
session of the SCP indicates that there is no consensus on this
issue. The discussions in the SCP should focus on a broader set
of issues. In fact, this marked the third time that this was
rejected.

This proposal cannot form an appropriate framework in which to
move forward.

In fact, patents are so cross-cutting that they will impact
public health, environment, and nutrition. The implications of
patents on health came to a fore in 2001 at Doha. The Doha
Declaration encouraged countries to use flexibilities. WIPO
should take into account the development dimension. Norm-setting
at WIPO should take into account the safeguarding public interest
flexibilities

The four proposals singled out in Casablanca and the US/Japan
(last year's GA) involve core aspects of the patent regime. Under
Article 27, countries have flexibility to determine standards of
flexibility.

Unfortunately, the proposals of the US and Japan would prevent
local flexibilities from being respected, and they depart from
the norms of multilateral policy formation.

We would like to raise again our concerns with the manner in
which the Casablanca consultations were organized. This sort of
situation should not repeat itself. A new possible SPLT treaty
that did not take into account the development dimension would
not be acceptable.

Morocco: We support patent law harmonization. IP is a development
tool.

United Kingdom (on behalf of EC and Bulgaria/Romania): We remain
concerned with the outcome of the last session of the SCP. We
should concentrate on a few set of issues. The EU supports the
statement made by Group B.

China: On the future work of SPT & SPLT:

1) In the recent years of the revitilization of patent law
harmonization has been of great importance to a number of
countries.

We support what developing countries propose.

2) There have been 6 sessions since the drafting of SPT, and
there has been much work done on this. However, due to the
circumstances that blocked substantive progress on this treaty,
we have seen proposals to limit the scope of the treaty in order
to gain consensus. We see why this might be valuable.

3) Outlines issues of import to DCs within the treaty, suggests
that these should be integral to future drafts. We need to have
international rules on this as soon as possible.

We would like to support your work in making substantive
progress.

Czech Republic (On behalf of Central European & Baltic States):
Committed to continuing work on patents. Support EU position.

United States: We support Group B statement. We need a sensible
plan to move forward on the SPLT-we should focus our work on:

1) prior art
2) grace period
3)novelty
4) inventive step

We do not believe that a single undertaking is the appropriate
framework to move things forward as it would be unworkable and
inefficient.



There is a successful precedent at WIPO for breaking larger
issues into smaller talks. By limiting the scope, we can move
forward. We recommend limiting the scope of the SCP is the best
course of action.

Japan: We've been working on SPLT since 2000, but we are still
far from agreement on it.

Egypt: Attach ourselves to the statement made by Argentina. We
need to carry out these discussions in balanced manner. We should
examine the consequences of these discussions on health,
biodiversity and nutrition.

Algeria:

South Africa: We would like to support Argentina's and Morocco's
statement. We are a member of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (COOP 7 sp?)

If one follows the approach if the IGC, then you cannot accept
that patent systems continue to ignore DA issues.

The DA should permeate all WIPO treaties. WIPO should produce
instruments that cater to the needs of all Member States. SPLT
should protect against bio-piracy and protect genetic resources.

South Africa is on the verge of passing a law on this, and we
recommend other countries proceed with this as well.

Trinidad & Tobago:

Venezuela: Restates support for FoD. Inappropriate to proceed
with harmonisation work.

Brazil: We fully endorse the statement made by Argentina. In this
agenda item as unfortunately, we have both a matter of substance
and procedure. Procedure was not adequate to help find a solution
to the impasse. I disassociated myself from the Casablanca
process. Harmonization may be a euphemism for standardization
that is not appropriate.

We also believe that harmonisation is in opposition, to a certain
extent, to our believe that patent laws should be in line with
the national interests of each country. Despite these concerns,
we have supported going forward. However, we do not believe that
it is appropriate to proceed on a small number of issues, as this
might contribute to misunderstanding over this form of
"harmonization."

Iran: Associates itself with statement by Argentina (GFOD). At
the last GA, it was decided that the dates of the SCP were to be
decided by the WIPO DG.

There should be a recognition of public interest flexibilities
and disclosure of origin.

Doha Declaration drew attention to the nexus of IP and health.

Lack of consensus in the deliberations was reflected three times.
rejected 3 times ??


India: The Prime Minister of India said earlier this year "An
ideal regime has to strike a balance between the innovators and
the users of the fruits of these innovations". This will be
possible only when all the substantive issues are treated on an
equal footing. Access to health, nutrition [missed some] are some
of our key concerns.

Substantive issues of interest to us include: access and benefit
sharing, disclosure of origin, and policy space.

Chile: We believe that the best, if not the only way, to get a
balanced agreement is by including all aspects of patents,
including in the draft treaty.

Chair: The GA is invited to give directions on the SPLT. In the
view of the chair, it is difficult to give a summary of the
direction of the future work programme. There were differing
views which can only be clarified in a more informal setting. We
have a basis to continue discussions however. I will defer action
on this item and will continue in an informal setting.

Agenda item 15 at around 15.00.


1:12 PM (End of morning session)

Chair: We'll now move to Item 15.

Deputy Director-General (Francis Gurry): Document 6 concerns
involving indigenous communities in these intergovernmental
meetings, including the establishment of a voluntary travel fund.
The IGC has come to an agreement on the voluntary fund. Attendees
would have to come through accredited NGOs. WIPO would administer
the fund. Text has been created and consensus achieved - now we
need to approve.

Document 7 concerns work of IGC. In 2003, the GA established a
mandate for the IGC to create a biennial report. GA is invited to
check out the report, and asked to renew the mandate of the IGC
to work on folklore and TK. Also, paragraph 33 of the original
mandate is no longer necessary. We suggest removing it.

Chair: Can we agree on the first item? Yes - so decided. Now we
turn to the second item.

Argentina (On behalf of FoD): Many developing countries have been
disappointed in the progress of the IGC. Many pushed for a
renewed focus on mandating results-oriented work for the IGC.

Note that we have not limited any outcomes, including a treaty
implement to carry on this work.

We endorse the recommendation submitted to the GA to renew the
mandate of the IGC.

Switzerland (On behalf of Group B): The IGC is making good
progress under its current mandate. No need to expand its
mandate. Welcomes voluntary contribution funds.

UK (On behalf of EC and acceding states):

The EU supports wider stakeholder participation in the work
dealing with traditional cultural expressions and traditional
knowledge. The EU has submitted a proposal on the issue of
genetic resources regarding disclosure of origin. Any renewal of
the mandate of the IGC should include all these issues.

Morocco: We'd like to emphasise the importance of the work of the
IGC. We'd like to continue this work by introducing several
binding international instruments. This is the only way to
implement the work we've done. We therefore believe it wise to
take a contributory approach to adjusting its mandate.

We also highlight the IGC's work on traditional culture
expressions as quite important.

The African Group expresses its support for the creation of a
voluntary fund to fund the participation of indigenous groups.

Iran (on behalf of Asian Group?): We have repeatedly expressed
our interest in tangible outcomes for IGC. Despite the hard work
of the committee, there has been opposition to tangible results.

The group is of the opinion that all Member States that the
mandate of the IGC be renewed.

On paragraph 33, we believe that reopening the earlier mandate is
unwise. We recommend renewing IGC's mandate without removing the
paragraph.

China: IGC is charge of very difficult work. We hope that on the
basis of preliminary results achieved by the IGC we can continue
discussions on folklore, genetic resources and traditional
knowledge to put forward solutions to these problems.

South Africa: We have got some difficulties in the Secretariat
request regarding paragraph 33. What exactly is being asked?

International dimensions can be looked at.

Enough information has been amassed and the IB should come with a
text , that text may lead to an internally binding instrument.

Have we been following the correct mandate for the last two
years? The mandate should be crafted so that we know exactly what
it is.

Secretariat: The existing mandate is set out in paragraph 1 set
out by the General Assembly two years ago.

In para 32, the IGC asks to have its existing mandate extended.

and secondly to consider the extension of the existing mandate as
set out in paragraph 1. That is all the GA is asked to do at this
stage.

Director General: If the question is whether the extension of the
work of this committee implies an extension of its mandate, the
answer is yes. The question is whether to extend the existing
mandate for two more years, but that the substantive discussion
on the extension of the mandate would be made within the IGC.

South Africa:


DG:

India: With our ancient civilization, we have a unique storehouse
of TK, genetic resources, etc. As such, we really want a binding
international instrument.

United States: We support the continuation of the mandate of the
IGC. We will support the voluntary fund but we would also like to
encourage that measures be taken to ensure that the
representatives are not self-selected, but indeed speak for a
broad spectrum of groups.

Chile: We support the renewal of the mandate of this committee.

Kenya: We agree that the IGC's work should produce a binding
international treaty. We also agree with extending its mandate.

We look forward to when the benefits that accrue from the
protection of TK, genetic resources are shared with the relevant
groups.

We expect that the renewed committee will produce model laws and
draft treaties by the end of the year.

Egypt: It is our understanding that there was a clear consensus
to renew the mandate of the IGC. Finally we would like to
reaffirm our position that the work in IGC should be treated in
the same footing as work at the SPC and at the WTO.

Morocco: We believe that we must regulate the exploitation of TK
at international level which can only be done through a legally
binding instrument. to stop the illegal exploitation of such
resources. We approve the creation of a voluntary fund.

Chair: I have a list of 10 speakers. Recognize that.

Turkey: We welcome the establishment of a voluntary fund and we
support the delegation of Morocco speaking on behalf of the
African Group.

In addition, we'd like to recall our position on this topic, and
indeed we wonder if our opinion was fully taken into account
during the last meeting.

The selection of representatives should be made in close
co-operation with member states. We asked the Secretariat why it
was possible for donors to be involved in this process. We made
this request in writing because we had not received an answer. We
recommended the deletion of Article 6 f.2, we thought it had been
deleted, and we therefore cannot endorse the proposal as it
stands.

Oman: The Sultanate of Oman attaches great importance to this
issue, as do our people. We agree to the proposed decision and
hope that we will arrive at a legally binding instrument for the
protection of genetic resources and TK. We have already enacted
legislation for this purpose as our constitution stresses this
principle. We also support the establishment of a voluntary fund.

Peru: On behalf of the GRULAC countries. It is important to renew
the mandate for two years.

Peru: On behalf of Peru. We would like to endorse the statement
by the GFOD and the statement on behalf of GRULAC. The work of
the committee is very important to Peru as we have many
indigenous communities.

Therefore, we also welcome the creation of the voluntary fund. We
think that things have been very productive to date, especially
with regard to traditional knowledge. However, other areas have
languished. For the sake of consensus, we accept the renewal of
the mandate, but we should strive to achieve tangible results, as
is the case with TK where we already have a possible legal
instrument which could be binding in the long term.

Kyrgyzstan: We think that the best outcome of the IGC is an
international instrument, and we need it ASAP. So we call for the
renewal of the IGC's mandate, and we support the voluntary fund.

Canada: Canada supports the renewal of the existing mandate of
the IGC.

Sudan: We support the extension of the IGC's mandate, and the
voluntary fund.

Trinidad & Tobago: We take note of WO/38/7. We are compelled to
recognise the valuable work done so far, but it would seem that
decisions are only achieved after lengthy debate.

We appreciate the efforts of the IGC, as we recognize that this
isn't easy to do.

Our music, drama, oral literature, arts and crafts now find
themselves exposed to the wider world and are subject to profit
making concerns. We are sure this applies to other developing
countries. We welcome the establishment of the voluntary fund.

New Zealand: We support the statement made on behalf of Group B.
The resources produced are invaluable to policy makers and
stakeholders, regardless of where the work leads.

The work on principles, for example, has been useful in working
through TK issues. Many of us are just getting started on our own
policy work, and the continued production of IGC's materials is
itself valuable.

There are many country specific variables and we acknowledge that
it is a complex issue.  So it doesn't surprise us that the IGC is
still figuring things out. We support the continuation of the IGC
and the adoption of the voluntary fund.

Nigeria: We note with satisfaction the proposal to renew the
mandate and to establish a voluntary fund. We are concerned about
the rate of progress on the IGC. There have been lots of
discussions but we regret to note that little substantive work
has been done. After 8 sessions and mountains of documentation,
we still do not have before us a consolidated text that can form
the basis of a binding instrument.

The core issues are not limited to protection of TK, but to
preventing the exploitation of patent applications. We associate
ourselves with all those who have called for an internationally
binding instrument.

Malaysia: Supports the extension of the IGC. We think that a
binding instrument is an important goal, and we support the
voluntary fund.

Ethiopia: Here we are dealing with assets in which LDCs have a
comparative advantage.

We also note that the discussion have themselves been valuable,
and the materials obtained there have found their way into
domestic legislation. We support the extension of the IGC and the
voluntary fund.

Iran: As a culturally rich and developing country, this issue is
of great importance to us and why reaching internationally
binding frameworks is necessary. In light of this, we think that
the extension of IGC's mandate should be approved.

Antigua & Barbuda: We support the statements of Peru & Trinidad &
Tobago. We agree that the mandate be extended to the next
biennial.

Chair: No more speakers. Draws attention to paragraph 33 on page
9 of WO/ga/32/7, asks for consensus, then adopts it as amended.

Proceeds by quickly touching on:
Agenda Item 16 - calls on Gurry to take floor.
Agenda Item 17 - regarding the Patent Law Treaty
Agenda Item 22 - concerning Internet domain names
Agenda Item 23 - All observers have been admitted.

[RB: This last item is short but significant.  Many
organizations, including EFF, <a
href="http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/dev_agenda/";>fought to gain
access</a> for a broad selection of NGOs.  Today, we won.]

/Meeting

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