FromGeneva

Pre-Development Agenda Meeting In Singapore

2007-04-16T12:06:00.000+02:00

FromGeneva
Thiru Balasubramaniam
16 April 2007

The Government of Singapore will host a pre-Development Agenda meeting from 30 May to 1 June 2007. The meeting is being convened by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) with invitations being signed by Ms. Liew Woon Yin, Director-General (IPOS).

According to the invitation which was sent out on 29 March 2007, the Singaporean Government is encouraged by positive outcomes achieved in the 3rd Session of the Provisional Committee On Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda (PCDA). In order to "ensure that the PCDA succeeds in its endeavor, to submit a report to the General Assembly, later this year", Singapore considers it imperative that the 71 proposals on the table (including establishing a Treaty on Access to Knowledge and fostering discussion on a Medical R&D Treaty), be "examined intensively and a proper understanding developed" prior to the 4th Session of the PCDA which takes places from 11-15 June 2007 in Geneva, Switzerland. This initiative appears similar in spirit to the New Delhi pre-Development Agenda of February 2007 where key stakeholders were invited to frame a common consensus. It remains to be seen how this informal meeting of selected governments will tackle the thornier elements of Annex B of 71 proposals related to a Development Agenda.

The importance attached to achieving a favorable result at the PCDA meeting in June is evidenced by Singapore's remark in the invitation letter that the

process to establish a WIPO Development Agenda has attracted considerable attention the world over and has raised the expectation of the world IP community, particularly developing countries.

As the Singapore informal is intended to be representative, invitations have been extended to developing and industrialized countries and transition economies. In order to achieve geographic balance, it is understood that the regional coordinator will be requested to nominate representatives (either at the capital level or the Geneva level) to attend the meeting. It appears that WIPO will fund the travel monies for officials from developing countries and transition countries. Since this meeting "informal", it is unlikely that there will be any representation from NGOs although this is not explicilty mentioned in the invitation letter. As the future success of the Development Agenda is at stake at the June PCDA meeting, the bar is set high for the Singapore informal to pave the way for WIPO to truly integrate the development dimension.

Colombia, the Public Domain and the Development Agenda

2007-02-22T18:09:00.000+01:00

FromGeneva
February 22, 2007
Thiru Balasubramaniam

After instense negotiations today, the WIPO PCDA appreared to come to a consensus on proposals related to Cluster B: Norm-setting, Flexibilities, Public Policy and Public Domain with the following language.

1. Norm-setting activites shall:
-be inclusive and member driven;
-take into account different levels of development;
-take into consideration a balance between costs and benefits;
-be a participatory process, which takes into consideration the interests and priorities of all WIPO Member States and other stakeholders, including civil society at large; and
-be in line with the principle of neutrality of the WIPO Secretariat

2. Consider the preservation of the public domain within WIPO's normative processes and deepen the analysis of the implication and benefits of a rich and accessible public domain.

Colombia, however, expressed its reservations on the four proposals contained in Annex A and Annex B related to the protection of public domain. Colombia noted that a consensus process should not compel a dissenting minority to accept the view of the majority. Despite the progress WIPO has made in discussing norm-setting, flexibilities, public policy and public domain, dark clouds remain over the incorporation of good public policy principles into WIPO's normative processes.

Tripartite alliance against the public domain: Colombia, El Salvador and Italy

2007-02-21T14:05:00.000+01:00

FromGeneva
February 21, 2007
Thiru Balasubramaniam

Colombia, El Salvador and Italy are playing an obstructionist role in
the WIPO Development Agenda talks today repeatedly trying to torpedo
the idea that WIPO should "promote measures that will help countries
combat IP related anti-competitive practices" and the idea that WIPO
should consider the protection and enhancement of public domain.
Chile, Brazil, Argentina and the United States have a more nuanced
understanding of the implications of a robust public domain.

No Conflict of Creeds: WIPO Delegates discuss the public domain

2007-02-20T23:49:00.001+01:00

FromGeneva
February 20, 2007
Thiru Balasubramaniam

(Thanks to Malini Aisola, Ren Bucholz, Teresa Hackett and Miriam Nisbet for their notes)

The landscape of the WIPO Development Agenda discussions this week have resembled a game of “Battleships” or “Bingo” with member countries often defining the contours of the debate on such important public policy issues as “technical assistance and capacity building”, “norm-setting” and the “public domain”. This game of Bingo manifested itself in countries’ indication support of proposals by number and letter, for example, “we support the general thrust of 1, 5, 12 and 16” of Cluster A” (Technical Assistance and Capacity Building) or “we support the principles behind 17 and 20” of Cluster B (Norm-setting, flexibilities, public policy and the public domain). To further compound matters, countries used Ambassador Enrique Manalo’s (Chair, WIPO General Assembly) matrix of 111 proposals submitted to the WIPO Development Agenda process, yet this document has not been distributed to the WIPO PCDA this week. Trying to follow the debate without a physical copy of the Manalo matrix provided by the International Bureau was an exacting task given the rapid pace of negotiations especially with the impetus to streamline the 40 proposals contained in Annex A into something more concise.

Despite the Bingo/Battleship nature of the negotiations, Tuesday afternoon bore witness to a lively and interesting debate on the role of the public domain within WIPO’s programme of work. Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation kicked things off in the morning in his general statement by asserting that,

Consider, for instance, the proposal that WIPO should consider the protection of the public domain within its normative processes. Now, everyone recognizes the importance of a rich public domain, and WIPO already gives the public domain due consideration. But there is no evidence that the public domain is in any danger that requires an addition to WIPO's mandate. Rather, this is simply a bit of rhetoric that is being used by opponents of Big IP to raise fear, uncertainty and doubt about the virtues of intellectual property.

The delegate from Chile countered by stating the proposals on safeguarding and preserving the public domain received great support during the development agenda process by governments and NGOs including the Library Copyright Alliance.

The Chilean representative stressed that the

public domain is important for access to knowledge. An accessible public domain benefits inventors, universities and research centres. It is not incommensurate with protecting intellectual property as was suggested today.

[My understanding is that Chile was referring to Tom Giovanetti’s intervention.]

The Chilean delegate further intimated that a robust public domain would enrich and work within intellectual property architecture. From KEI’s perspective, an enhanced public domain contributes to a fecund knowledge ecosystem that fosters creativity and innovation in new paradigms.

The delegate from Colombia argued that proposal 17 which calls for WIPO to “consider the protection of the public domain within WIPO’s normative processes” went far beyond the remit of WIPO’s mandate further noting that creations in the public domain was not in WIPO’s purview.

In contrast, Uruguay stated that,

we have often said before that there is a relationship between intellectual property and human rights and that access to knowledge is enshrined in international human rights conventions and the rights of the child. We must guarantee access to knowledge, education and culture because WIPO is a specialized agency of the UN and it should act in line with these goals. The PCDA should not lay outside the MDGs which must serve as the guide for devising the norms within the agenda.

This is a platform to devise a more balanced system in the public interest, and this is why we want provision to strengthen the public domain to stand independently.

The United States supported the general principles behind provision 17 tabled by Chile on the public domain while Brazil noted that,

Proposal 17 is perfectly viable and relevant for the organization. When we speak of the protection of the public domain, we do not read this as legal protection of the public domain. We look at it as general protection for the public domain against ever-encroaching IP rights

created by the upward harmonization of patent, trademark, copyright and related rights.

Switzerland and Italy expressed their reservation on proposal 17 (Cluster B) which called for the “protection of the public domain within WIPO’s normative processes.” Italy in particular asserted that

The public domain cannot, by definition, be protected. Therefore we need to be clear about what can and cannot be protected because it has already fallen into the public domain.

The delegate from Chile responded saying,

I would like to dispel one or two doubts about the use of terminology. The proposal does not refer to “protecting” the public domain, as Russia has said, so we could use another word e.g. "preserve" or "safeguard," perhaps?

When we create rights, these can have undesirable effects. There are directives in the EU which have review mechanisms so that they can have a corrective mechanism later. For example, TPMs can have effects that outlive the copyright term on the underlying work.

It is clear from the rich discussion of the public domain at the WIPO Development Agenda that some stakeholders have a long way to go in understanding of the public domain. Hopefully, WIPO can facilitate capacity building to augment understanding of the role of a robust public domain within the IP system. Rather than branding the public domain as "mission creep", it is incumbent upon the International Bureau and WIPO Member States to start thinking of how to "consider the protection of and enhance the public domain within WIPO's normative processes" as a critical part of WIPO's mission.

New Chair of WIPO Committee dealing with Development Agenda

2007-02-19T12:03:00.000+01:00

FromGeneva
February 19, 2007
Thiru Balasubramaniam

The WIPO committee (PCDA) overseeing the Development Agenda got off to slow start today commencing at 10:48 AM (48 minutes late) due to several concurrent regional coordination meetings. Brazil, on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC) nominated Ambassador Trevor Clarke of Barbados to be chair of the 3rd session of the WIPO. Ambassador Clarke just finished a one year post chair the World Trade Organization (WTO) Council for TRIPS. In his intervention, the Brazilian delegate noted that Ambassador Clarke would be an "excellent choice" and stated that "we trust him fully and he would be a good person to guide us to a positive outcome".

Italy, on behalf of Group B (industrialized nations plus the Holy See), seconded the nomination of Ambassador Clarke and proposed Ambassador Muktar Djumaliev of the Kyrgyz Republic as Vice Chair. Both these nominations were accepted by the WIPO PCDA. The choice of Vice Chair was a curious one considering that the Kyrgyz Republic's submission of 40 proposals ("early harvest") is currently the main agenda item for this week's discussion.

Ambassador Clarke set out a congenial start to the meeting with charming candor noting that

I will be working cautiously because this is a very serious assignment, and one of my friends said that this is because I like punishment. But I'm always to take a challenge, so thanks for the opportunity to do this. To date, I know very little about the PCDA, but I've been talking to as many members as I can to get a feel for what's going on. Let me assure, however, that any contribution I make can only be made with your support. My role is to facilitate dialogue. I come to the Committee with the belief that you want to make progress on the matter that has been under discussion for two and a half years.We need to consider how we proceed this week. One critical issue relates to President Manalo's (Ambassador of the Philippines and Chair of the WIPO General Assembly) initial working document. We should seek your cooperation to use this working document for our discussions this week. The document has been produced by the recommendation or instruction from the GA. It is intended to guide our work this week and then in June.

As Ambassador Clarke had another engagement at 11 AM, he suspended the meeting till 3PM. Before the morning session closed, the WIPO PCDA accepted the requests for ad hoc accreditation from Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) and the Yale Information Society Project.

For an overview of some of the issues at stake please check out my colleague Malini's blog post on a KEI brown bag lunch held recently in Washington, D.C.

Icy winds and open standards tempest descend upon Ivy League haven

2007-02-06T16:41:00.000+01:00

FromGeneva
Thiru Balasubramaniam
February 6, 2007

On a cold winter's day (February 3, 2007) buffeted by hyperborean winds, around 70 participants including government officials (Belgium, China, South Africa and the United States), academics (Georgetown, Harvard, Hebrew University, MERIT, Santa Clara, University of Colorado and Yale) public interest groups (IP Justice, Knowledge Ecology International), corporate representatives (IBM, Microsoft and SUN), the World Bank and technologists met in the New England town of New Haven at the Open Standards (OSIS) convened by the Yale Information Society Project. The OSIS was divided into four panels: (1) technology, (2) economics, (3) politics and (4) law. From my own perspective, while most people focused their attention on standards' impact on US technology vendors, a small but high level group of participants were deeply engaged in the global debates about how standards and intellectual property can be barriers to trade. In one sense, the collegiate discussions over the central question of whether non-disclosure of patent assets in standards constituted a barrier to trade served as a "proxy debate" between China and United States in lieu of actual consideration of this subject at the World Trade Organization.

In the economics panel several speakers including Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (MERIT) and An Baisheng (Ministry of Commerce, People's Republic of China) stressed the "network effects of standards which they asserted could serve as entry barriers to new technologies. Rishab Ghosh provided the example of the QWERTY keyboard as an example where a standard lead to path dependence. Furthermore, he noted that where

a network effect exists, often a natural monopoly is the best way to capture its value. An alternative involves separating the technology from the producer, this provides competition among vendors. The existence of rights such as IPR over a standard allow control/rent-seeking over the standard. Standard bodies try to limit this behavior. From an economic perspective, an open standard involves the coexistence of competition for the standard with a natural monopoly for the technology itself.

An Baisheng reiterated the idea that standards have network effects and highlighted the fact that parties with relevant IP assets in a standard would have the propensity to maximize their royalties through rent-seeking behavior. An raised the issue of disclosure of IP assets-e.g. what is the real cost of disclosure. In this context, he referred to China's submissions to the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) committee including a paper (G/TBT/W/251) entitled "Intellectual Property Right (IPR)Issues in Standardization tabled in May 2005 and a paper (G/TBT/W/251/Add.1) tabled in Nobember 2006 entitled "Background paper for Chinese Submission to WTO on Intellectual Property Right Issues in Standardization (G/TBT/W/251). These timely papers raised a firestorm of controversy at the WTO with many Members wary of the subtle argument raised by the Chinese submissions, namely, the question of whether IPRs embedded in standards could be considered a technical barriers to trade, anathema to certain WTO Members (guess who?).

In the politics panel, Mr. Huang Rengang, Minister Counsellor of the Permanent Mission to the WTO, People's Republic of China) did not beat around the bush when it came to the question of open standards unequivocally declaring "I am a big fan of open standards" and noting the efforts to silence the discussion of open standards in international fora in Geneva. Mr. Huang's presentation focused on three elements:

"What role can international organizations like WTO play? When China tabled view on IPRs and standardization, there was divided opinion of this in the WTO. There needs to be more discussion of standards at the WTO".
"How developing countries can play a role in the development of open standards? How can countries improve their effectiveness in developing standards? So far, developing countries have played a limited role. Developing countries need to do their homework. The current TBT Agreement poses limitations on these discussions".
"How China has contributed to standards development, from a personal perspective. In ancient times. Chinese shared inventions such as paper and gunpowder. Our ancestors embraced the idea of sharing knowledge. Consider how different things would be if our ancesters guarded the secret to making paper and gunpowder".

During the intitial set of Q&A in the politics panel, your blogger asked Mr. Huang, "Do you see other fora as appropriate venues for discussion of open standards outside of the WTO TBT committee? How do you see its future within the TBT"? This question was grounded in KEI's previous calls for WIPO to

[a]ddress the problems faced by standards organizations, and in particular, those that involve essential interfaces for knowledge goods, such as software or Internet standards.

Mr. Huang Rengang responded by saying that when China submitted its standards papers to the WTO, questions were raised about its motivations including the "wanting to pay less royalties." Other Members decried that standards and IPR issues were not appropriate for agenda of the Triennial Review as it would imply that IPRs are barriers to trade and call for a revision of the TBT. Mr. Huang concluded by stating that the discussion of "open standards is unstoppable".

Victoria Espinel (Assistant USTR, Intellectual Property & Innovation, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative) informed the audience that the USTR recently included created a bureau on Intellectual Property and Innovation. She noted that standards were important to innovation policy and reminded us that the WTO has adopted guidelines for on how standards should be set and implemented. Ms. Espinel asserted that standards should be set in an open, transparent and inclusive manner. With respect to IP rights, she held the notion that they were sacrosanct and inviolable. According to her, one of the functions of the IPRs was they promote innovation. Usurping them when they are convenient she contended, was not the way to go. IPRs should be reassessed if they are not promoting innovation. She observed that the underlying question in this debate was the fear of competition with the looming threat of job loss. While advocating free trade Ms. Espinel acknowledged the challenge in balancing the benefits of competition with the interest of some segments of society who could lose out in the short term.

In collegiate exchange following her presentation Mr. An Baisheng of China questioned Ms. Victoria Espinel as to why China received so much pressure to drop their request to the WTO TBT committee. Ms. Espinel responded diplomatically by stating that she was not involved in the TBT negotiations referred to and that perhaps the WTO TBT negotiators were anxious in dealing with a topic (IP and standards) in which they lacked specialized expertise.

The superb quality of the Yale ISP Open Standards International Symposium in terms of content and the caliber of the panelists is testament to the efforts of the organizers, especially Laura DeNardis. Although the tenor of the open standards debates in this New England idyll remained cordial, they belied the greater stakes; one is reminded of James Carville's dictum "[t]he economy stupid". With antecedents in the WTO, WIPO and the Internet Governance Forum, this symposium underscored the point that open standards are indeed ready for prime time and are coming to an international forum near you and me.

WHO Executive Board discusses Public Health, Innovation, and Intellectual Property (IGWG)

2007-01-26T14:36:00.000+01:00

FromGeneva
Thiru Balasubramaniam
January 26, 2007

The topic of of public health, innovation and intellectual property (4.14) was discussed today at the 120th Session of the WHO Executive Board. In short, the Kenya Switzerland resolution submitted on Monday, January 22 was withdrawn by Kenya with the intention that it will be re-opened at the World Health Assembly (May 2007). Thailand proposed a draft Decision for further strengthening the IGWG process, but ultimately its status was deemed as an informal document (the Secretariat notified Thailand that for it to be considered as an offical document, it would need to be submitted in all 6 UN langages)"). What was acutely disappointing about the discussions that NGOs were not permitted to make oral interventions.

From our perspective, it remains incumbent upon the IGWG Bureau in collaboration with the WHO Member States and the WHO Secretariat to address the central question posed by WHA 59.24, namely,

securing an enhanced and sustainable basis for needs-driven, essential health research and diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries, proposing clear objectives and priorities for research and development, and estimating funding needs in this area;

(eg "Who pays for what and how").

What follows below are my notes on this morning's session.

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

11:30 AM

Chair (Fernando Antezana, Asesor Principal del Despacho, Ministerio de Salud Y Deportes, Bolivia):

Chair: We are going to proceed with agenda item 4.14. Public health, innovation and intellectual property.

Brazil: I have no objections to the documents prepared for this meeting. I particularly like document EB 120/4 (Matrix) which details work that the Organization will carry out and work carried out by other organizations.

Resolution 59.24 was very important in terms of its importance and content. Through this resolution and the informal consultations leading up to the passage of the resolution, we created the spirit of Geneva which was highly positive.

How was it possible for us to reach consensus in such a tranquil way. We did this in the spirit of Geneva. We hope this same "spirit of Geneva" will prevail. Unfortunately this was not the case in the first meeting of the IGWG. This did not bring honor to the WHO or to us. I'm not here to accuse anyone. The December meeting was ridiculous. I hope this will not be the end of the spirit of Geneva. I will not comment on the draft resolution now.

We need to discuss the process. How do we strengthen this?

Kenya: The attendees to the December IGWG were not happy with the process. A second meeting is scheduled for October which we are informed may be the last meeting. Kenya and Switzerland proposed and early harvest implementation. An informal meeting was held on Jan 24. There have been intense consultations afterwards. There has been consensus to strengthen work of the group.

We would like to request consideration of this resolution be postponed. We request WHO to expedite the work of the Group. The CIPIH recommendations must be thoroughly considered. We look forward to the work of the global plan of action.

Thailand: We wish the EB to focus on the process of IGWG (spirit of Geneva). We should look at the text of WHA59.24

There is no single message from the WHO Secretariat or the IG Bureau on what Member States should contribute in their official submissions Our interpretation: What should be the global plan of strategy? We need to look at 'priority setting' 'estimating funding needs'.

We feel that the end of Feb 2007 is too tight for submissions. We want a delay. We would like to thank SEARO Regional Director for holding consultations before the WHO IGWG.

Thailand takes note of progress of early implementation.

In order to keep the spirit of Geneva, some Member States felt the need to maintain and accelerate the momentum. The Board should not in any way interfere in the work of the IGWG.

We would like to propose a DECISION for consideration.

"The EB decides to request Secreariat to implement WHA59.24 at all levels by providing support to Member States in contributions by March. Synthesis....this would go to the regional mechanism in preoparation for the 2nd meeting." [TB: I missed the rest of this. I intend to get the full text later today]

Portugal (on behalf of the EU): The first session of the IGWG needs a timely and substantial follow up. We hope many States submit their contributions. The iGWG is the proper forum on this topic. In order to continue the IGWG process, we look forward to background papers from WHO Secretariat on 8 subjects including a "health gaps' matrix and a "key stakeholder" matrix. We need further clarification on the role of experts.

With respect to the WHO progress report,

The EU has taken action on (TRIPS flexiblities-compulsory licensing for medicines, clinical trials program, through full annual reports to TRIPS Council on technology transfer, fully respecting our partners' rights in including compulsory licensing in their bilateral trade agreements.

We have new funding stream for neglected diseases, ppps. Advocates cooperation between WHO, WTO, WIPO, UNCTAD and UNESCO.

We fully agree that we need a strong preparatory process.

Portugal (in name of Portugal): We have the EU presidency in the next semester. We offer our help to Member States to help facilitate the process.

United States: We share concerns of some that outcomes of the first IGWG were not as ambitious as we hoped. We need a strong preparatory process. It is not clear to me what this preparatory process should be.

Regretably, the decision of Thailand was not made to avalaible to us. We would have to study the decision It does not seem to be very specific or point a way forward.

We look forward to receiving the June document. I'm not sure what "regional mechanisms" mean. Does this imply special consultations or regional committees? This is a little vague. Is Thailand prepared to elaborate on this? We need to see the document in writing as on official doucment of the board. Can the WHO Legal Advisor provide guidance on what role the EB has on the IGWG (WHA59.24 requires IGWG to report to WHA through EB). A formal Decision may not be necessary. EB members may just submit views to the Boardand the DG can respond accordingly.

Chair on behalf of Bolivia: This is a very important and delicate issue. It may be premature to consider a resolution now.

Namibia: Discussion on this will not be prolonged. I would like to note that without limiting Member State interventions, we are taking too much time. Our earlier understanding is not being respected.

Switzerland: We fully align ourselves with statement of Kenya on behalf the African Region. We also reiterate Brazil's "spirit of Geneva" plea.

Chair: NGOs cannot speak at this time.

WHO Legal Counsel: The IGWG will provide progress reports to the WHA through EB. IGWG reports through the EB. This entitles the EB discusses (if it sees fits) and points recommendations to WHA. However, the EB can't make decisions. The IGWG is asubsidiary body of the WHA. A request from EB to Secretariat facilitate process is ok. However, it can't change [TB: or do violence] to the original resolution.

US: I don't want issues of process to block forward movement. I would repeat what I said earlier; there should be some time for interested delegations to speak on the ideas (mentioned by Thailand and Portugal).

Thailand: Our document is ready to be circulated. Can we circulate it?

Chair (Secretariat official interrupts to tell Chair Antezana to tell him something about "translations")

Secretariat (ZUCKER) presents an 11 point plan including:
Look forward to Feb comments (including on experts)
Paper ready by July
In house task groups in HQ and regional offices
DG consultation with Bureau will identify pool of experts.
Regional consultations (Aug or Sept) and will identify experts.
IGWG final session Oct 07.
Bureau will meet as needed
Secretairat will continue to implement CIPIH recs addressed to WHO.
WHO Sec will set up website for MS to contribute comments on a voluntary basis on how they implement

European Commission: Please include regional economic integration organizations on circulars.

Brazil: I like the language of Thailand. It could use some further crafting.

Chair: Proposal by Kenya is accepted. [TB] The Kenya/Switzerland resolution is postponed.]

Australia: Point of order. What are we doing with the Thai proposal?

Chair: The idea was to have Thailand circulate document (not as an official document).

Secretariat (Kean): It needs to be circulated in 6 languagues for EB to consider as an official document.

DG Margaret Chan: We should follow IGWG process requested by WHA. It is very welcome that EB members make suggestions and give ideas. The informal Thai paper would be one such suggestions. We will take on board all your suggestions (written or oral). I pledge support for the IGWG support as I have seen how important it is for you.

Impasse at WIPO broadcasting negotiations: Our ship is sinking

2007-01-19T11:59:00.000+01:00

FromGeneva
January 19, 2007
Thiru Balasubramaniam

The image of a tanker slowly turning its course in a new direction has been used to describe how the special sessions (which convene in January 2007 and June 2007) of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) will implement the 33rd General Assembly's instructions to the SCCR to

agree and finalize, on a signal-based approach, the objectives, specific scope and object of protection with a view to submitting to the Diplomatic Conference a revised basic proposal, which will amend the agreed relevant parts of the Revised Draft Basic Proposal referred to in Paragraph 2. The Diplomatic Conference will be convened if such agreement is achieved. If no such agreement is achieved, all further discussions will be based on Document SCCR/15/2.

However, with Mr. Jukka Liedes, the Finnish chair, steering the helm, it seems that our tanker will soon hit an iceberg, with devastating consequences to follow. Informal afternoon and night sessions on the second day interspersed with pizza, beer, and wine provided gratis by the Secretariat excluded NGOs from the deliberations. During the informals on the second day, parties close to the negotiations informed your blogger that many hours were spent discussing what the "objectives" of a treaty for the protection of broadcasting organizations are. After 9 years of deliberations starting in 1998 in the Philippines, it is heartening to know that this Committee is finally considering the "objectives" of a broadcast treaty. Rather than a negotiation between WIPO Member States, the tenor of the special session thus far can be characterized by pedantic, monotone lectures by Chair Liedes boring the Committee into submission. As Brazil and India have noted, the non-papers circulated in a haphazard manner have no legal status and cannot be considered as a basis for negotiations.

As my colleague Manon Ress pointed out, the Chair circulated draft conclusions this morning on the final day of the first special session. Judging be the lack of a rapturous welcome that these conclusions received by such States as Brazil and India, it seems our captain is intent on scuttling his ship before he would truly guide this Committee to genuinely comport with the instructions of the General Assembly to adopted a signal-based approach.

Statement by the United States @ WIPO SCCR (Day 1)

2007-01-18T15:03:00.000+01:00

January 17, 2007

The United States Government would like to congratulate the Chair and his Vice-Chairs on their election and also welcome and congratulate the new Deputy Director General of WIPO. Mr. Chairman, the United States supports the statement of Italy on behalf of Group B. We are in an important phase of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights as we start this Special Session and your leadership, and well-known diplomatic skills, will be pivotal to advance and conclude a new treaty on the protection of the rights of broadcasting organizations. We support the method of work you have outlined this morning, and will offer comments on your papers at the appropriate time.

The United States was pleased with the decision of the 33rd Session of the General Assemblies to hold 2 special sessions of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights to clarify the outstanding issues. That decision states that “the sessions of the SCCR should aim to agree and finalize, on a signal-based approach, the objectives, specific scope and object of protection with a view to submitting to the Diplomatic Conference a revised basic proposal, which will amend the agreed relevant parts of the Revised Draft Basic Proposal of SCCR 15/2. The Diplomatic Conference will be convened if such agreement is achieved.”

The United States continues to believe in, and will be guided in this meeting and the June meeting by, the critical question of what do broadcasters need at a minimum to protect against the unauthorized interception and transmission of their signals, and by the consideration that any protection should be based on answering that important question.

The expectation of the United States is that the decision of the General Assemblies, focusing on a more limited and narrow signal-based approach to this treaty, will be respected. To that end, all of us have an important opportunity and responsibility to revise the current basic proposal, 15/2. As we stated at the September 2006 SCCR and repeated at the General Assemblies, proceeding to a Diplomatic Conference using a 108 page document with few agreed provisions does not make for a text stable enough to be considered a Basic Proposal.

15/2, in our view, must be substantially narrowed to meet the criteria set forth in the decision of the General Assemblies. At a minimum, we believe this means agreement on the scope of protection providing broadcasters with what they need to protect against signal piracy while not undermining the rights of the underlying content holders or the public interest. As we have noted before, certain provisions in the current draft would undermine any protection provided under the treaty. The United States believes that resolution of those issues is integral to resolving the scope and object of protection. Furthermore, we must be sure to avoid any unintended consequences with regard to current and future technological advances. Protection for technological protection measures and exceptions and limitations consistent with international treaties remain critical components for any convention.

Throughout this process, the United States Government has sought to achieve a treaty that is reasonably up-to-date given the state of technology now and in the reasonably foreseeable future. Fundamental to this is a treaty including, at a minimum, protection for its beneficiaries against the unauthorized simultaneous retransmission of broadcast signals over the Internet. We consider the major threat to broadcasters today to be that which arises when someone places their signal on the Internet without permission.

Since the beginning of our discussions at WIPO on this issue of protection for broadcasters, the United States has scaled back its ambition for the treaty as reflected by the withdrawal of its own proposal which proposed, on a technologically neutral basis, protection for netcasting organizations. The United States believes that flexibility in this process is required of all member states in order to achieve an agreement that will enjoy consensus. However, an agreement without identifiable benefits for broadcasting and cablecasting organizations will be a pointless exercise, particularly if it derogates from existing protections and sets negative precedents.

We hope all member states will demonstrate the necessary flexibility so that we can achieve a positive outcome. We remain committed to the successful conclusion of a treaty that responds to the needs of all stakeholders. We are confident that you will ably guide our discussions going forward and we stand ready to assist you.

Canada, United States, South Africa and Kenya raise issue of fast-tracking NGO accreditation

2006-12-08T11:46:00.000+01:00

FromGeneva
8 December 2006
Thiru Balasubramaniam

On the final day of the first WHO Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation, and Intellectual Property (IGWG/PHI), Canada, United States and Kenya made helpful interventions on the fast-tracking of NGOs to the WHO IGWG process (on an ad hoc basis). Specifically, the United States delegate referred to the fast-track accreditation process undertaken at the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The WHO Legal Counsel noted that the WHO Executive Board (January 2007) would be the competent authority to make this decision. Kenya asked the WHO Secretariat on how to facilitate the quicket accreditation of civil society to the IGWG process. The Secretariat noted that a WHO Member State would need to raise NGO accreditation at the Executive Board in January 2007 but further clarified that this topic would be on the report of this meeting. The United States then queried whether NGO accreditation would be automatically included on the Executive Board and the WHO Secretariat confirmed this point.

10 Asian countries support global treaty on R&D

2006-12-05T16:40:00.000+01:00

5 December 2006
FromGeneva
Thiru Balasubramaniam

On day 2 of the WHO Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property, the delegate from Thailand, on behalf of the WHO South East Asian Region (Bangladesh, Bhutan, DPR Korea, India, Indonesia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste) indicated the SEARO region's support for a global treaty on R&D. He noted that the global health community needed a sustainable funding mechanism for upstream research. The delegate from Thailand made reference to paragraph 18 of A/PHI/IGWG/1/2 (Review of recommendations of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health) which states

Recognizing the need for an international mechanism to increase global coordination and funding of medical research and development, the sponsors of the treaty proposal on medical research and development should undertake further work to develop these ideas so that government and policy-makers may make an informed decision.

Discussion on WHO experts at meeting on R&D

2006-12-04T10:13:00.000+01:00

4 December 2006
FromGeneva
Thiru Balasubramaniam

Today is the first day of the inaugural meeting of World Health Organization (WHO) Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property mandated by the World Health Assembly Resolution (WHA) 59.24 to establish an intergovernmental working group

open to all interested Member States to draw up a global strategy and plan of action in order to provide a medium-term framework based on the recommendations of the Commission. Such a strategy and plan of action aims at, inter alia, securing an enhanced and sustainable basis for needs-driven, essential health research and development relevant to diseases that disproportinately affect developing countries, proposing clear objectives and priorities for research and development, and estimating funding needs in in this area.

Currently a chair has not been elected. Mr. Denis Aitken (Assistant Director-General- Advisor to the Director-General) is presiding over the meeting till the IGWG has elected a chair. It has been suggested that a bureau be set up with a Chair and 5 Vice Chairs representing all 6 WHO regions, and that the vice chairs meet over lunch today to nominate a chair and rapporteur.

There has been discussion over the role of experts invited in accordance with WHA 59.24 (Paragraph 4(3)) which requests the Director-General

to invite experts and a limited number of concerned public and private entities to attend the sessions of the intergovernmental working group and to provide advice and expertise, as necessary, upon request of the Chair, taking into account the need to avoid conflicts of interest

The experts invited the the first meeting of the WHO IGWG include Dr. Pecoul and Mrs. Dentico from the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Intiative (DNDi), Dr. von Schoen Angerer and Ms. 't Hoen from Medicins sans Frontieres, Ms. Feisee from the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Mrs Callan and Ms. Sampogna from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Mr. Iverson from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Mr. Wilder from Sidley Austin LLP, in addition to experts from the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Global Forum for Health Research.

South Africa, on behalf of the African Group, asked clarification from the WHO Legal Counsel on how the experts were chosen since a Chair has not been elected yet and Member States did not have input as to their selection. The WHO Legal Counsel, Mr. Gian Luca Burci responded by saying that his reading of Paragraph 4(3) of WHA59.24 indicated that the Assembly requested the WHO Director-General to "invite experts".

The representative of the United States of America aligned himself with the query by South Africa and further noted that when the resolution was negotiated in May 2006, it was not the intention of his delegation that experts would be selected by the Secretariat prior to the election of the Chair and thus disagreed with the interpretation of the "experts" clause by the WHO Legal Counsel. He further questioned the seating of the experts near the front of the conference room.

Assistant-Director General Howard Zucker (Health Technology and Pharmaceuticals) responded by stating that the experts were selected based on their expertise and represented a broad range of key stakeholders. Norway weighed in to sugggest that the text of WHA 59.24 required that experts be appointed prior to the meeting, but the U.S. rejected this interpretation.

WHO IGWG on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property: Elements of a global strategy and plan of action

2006-11-15T14:31:00.000+01:00

FromGeneva
November 15, 2006
Thiru Balasubramaniam

Between October 5, 2006 to November 9, 2006, the WHO Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG) released five documents which can be found on the following website. The Elements of a global strategy and plan of action (A/PHI/IGWG/1/4) document states that the "global strategy and plan of action, might include the following elements:

• prioritizating research and development needs
• promoting research and development
• building innovation capacity
• improving delivery and access
• ensuring sustainable financing mechanisms
• establishing monitoring and reporting systems."

In the "building innovating capacity section" one of the areas for action is a recommendation to

promote patent pools of upstream technologies or other mechanisms to promote innovation of products for priority diseases in developing countries.

In the "promoting research and development" section, one of the areas for action proposed is to

promote discovery science in order to identify, validate and build up a sustainable portfolio of new products, whose development is facilitated through appropriate legal arrangements permitting unrestricted access to drug leads identified through the screening of compound libraries for diseases relevant to the public health needs of developing countries.

The "Elements of a global strategy and plan of action document" has been conceived as a basis for discussion by the WHO Intergovernmental Working Group when considering the 60 recommendations of the WHO Commission on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Public Health. The global strategy and plan of action,

suggests some possible elements of a draft global strategy and plan of action, but does not attempt to treat each one comprehensively. The suggestions need to be evaluated from the viewpoint of their technical and political feasibility.

Here below is are the reference numbers and official titles of all five documents.

A/PHI/IGWG/1/1
A/PHI/IGWG/1/1 Rev.1
Provisional agenda

A/PHI/IGWG/1/2
Review of recommendations of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health

A/PHI/IGWG/1/3
Status of implementation of resolution WHA59.24

A/PHI/IGWG/1/4
Elements of a global strategy and plan of action

A/PHI/IGWG/1/DIV/1
Guide for delegates to the Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property

Athens IGF: Call for an elaboration on a Treaty on Access to Knowledge

2006-10-31T11:20:00.000+01:00

31 October 2006
FromGeneva
Thiru Balasubramaniam

In the discussion session on "Openness" at the Athens Internet Governance Forum moderated by Nik Gowing of BBC World, the representative from the Republic of South Africa posited that the Internet Governance Forum could consider an elaboration on a Treaty on Access to Knowledge as a tangible way forward to find the balance between the rights and obligations conferred by intellectual property and the public interest. James Love (CPTech) called upon his fellow panelists (see list below) to endorse the elaboration on a Treaty on Acces to Knowledge first proposed by the Friends of Development in 2004 at WIPO. Hanne Sophie Greve, former judge at the European Court of Human Rights, endorsed the Treaty on the spot. This panel is being webcast now.

Here is the program and list of panelists.

31 October, 1000-1300

Openness
Session Chairman: Theodoros Roussopoulos, Minister of State of Greece

Moderator: Nik Gowing, Main Presenter, BBC World

* Carlos Afonso, Technical Director of RIT (services and capacity-building network of ICTs)
* Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, APC
* Hanne Sophie Greve, former judge at the European Court of Human Rights
* Joichi Ito, Creative Commons
* Jamie Love, Director, CPTech
* Senator Paschal Mooney, Government Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs (Ireland), broadcaster/ journalist
* Andrew Puddephatt, OBE, various human rights organizations
* Art Reilly, Senior Director, Strategic Technology Policy, Cisco Systems
* Richard Sambrook, Director BBC Global News
* Fred Tipson, Senior Policy Counsel , Microsoft,
* Catherine Trautmann, Member of the European Parliament

IGF: Ambassador David Gross on "Security and IPR"

2006-10-31T08:38:00.000+01:00

31 October 2006
FromGeneva
Thiru Balasubramaniam

The inaugural Internet Governance Forum is well underway in Athens, Greece (30 October-2 November 2006). Created by the UN Secretary-General from the mandate of the Tunis Agenda, it is the first, high-level, multistakeholder forum dedicated to internet governance. From initial impressions, it appears that over a 1000 people are attending the Athens IGF. Yesterday afternoon's panel, entitled "Setting the scene" was moderated by Kenneth Cukier of the Economist. This panel introduced the main themes of this year's IGF: openness, security, diversity and access. On the issue of security, Ambassador David Gross (United States) asserted that,

[t]his is a very serious and important issue for all of us. We think there are certain core principles that, from our perspective, guide us through this difficult process. The question really does touch on the different natures of security. But taking the question about the terrorist aspect of it, for example, we think, first and foremost, that we should never lose sight of the importance of the Internet as a conduit for the free flow of information. And that no one should use these other issues as an excuse for restricting it in ways that are not very carefully circumscribed. So we believe that restrictions on the Internet content have to be done transparently, have to be done as a result of rule of law, which is -- has great care, including the enactment in the rule of law. But, yet, also take into account the fact that illicit uses of the Internet are inappropriate, whether it's IPR violations that we've all dealt with for some period of time, whether it is incitement to violence if the like. So it requires us to do something very important but often very difficult, which is to keep two conflicting ideas in our head at the same time. One is the importance of the free flow of information, which is incredibly powerful. We have seen the rise of democracies around the world that corresponds very closely to the rise of the Internet, from about 30 democracies in the world in the '70s to over 120 today. While at the same time, recognizing that terrorism can create problems, can kill people, through the use of the Internet, and must be stopped as well. But how we do that has to be very carefully done in ways that are carefully tailored, transparent rule of law.

CPTech reaction on WIPO Broadcasting Treaty Decision

2006-10-02T17:19:00.000+02:00

2 October 2006

James Love (CPTech), "The WIPO General Assembly corrected a mistake made two weeks ago. The decision recognized that no one was ready for a Diplomatic Conference at this point. It shows that there are some problems with the way the SCCR is run. Hopefully, the WIPO leadership will get the hint."

Thiru Balasubramaniam (CPTech), "CPTech welcomes the Decision of the WIPO General Assembly to pursue a signal-based approach in this Treaty in lieu of granting dangerous new entitlements to broadcasters. As we made clear to the WIPO General Assembly, convening a Diplomatic Conference at this stage would have been premature."

Broadcasting decision adopted @ WIPO General Assembly

2006-10-02T11:53:00.000+02:00

At 11:30 AM (Geneva time) today, the WIPO General Assembly adopted the following text by consensus:

WIPO General Assembly, 2006
September 30, 2006

ITEM 10: PROTECTION OF BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS

Draft Decision

Outcome from the informal consultations, September 27-30, 2006,

Prepared by the Chairman of the SCCR

1. The General Assembly approves the convening of the Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations under the conditions set out in paragraph 4 below from November 19 to December 7, 2007, in Geneva. The objective of this Conference is to negotiate and conclude a WIPO treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations, including cablecasting organizations. The scope of the treaty will be confined to the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense.

2. The Revised Draft Basic Proposal (Document SCCR/15/2) will constitute the Basic Proposal with the understanding that all Member States may make proposals at the Diplomatic Conference.

3. The meeting of a preparatory committee will be convened for June 2007 to prepare the necessary modalities of the Diplomatic Conference. The preparatory committee will consider the draft rules of procedure to be presented for adoption to the Diplomatic Conference, the lists of States, as well as intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to be invited to participate in the conference, as well as other necessary organizational matters.

4. Two special sessions of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights to clarify the outstanding issues will be convened, the first one in January 2007, and the second one in June 2007 in conjunction with the meeting of the preparatory committee. It is understood that the sessions of the SCCR should aim to agree and finalize, on a signal-based approach, the objectives, specific scope and object of protection with a view to submitting to the Diplomatic Conference a revised basic proposal, which will amend the agreed relevant parts of the Revised Draft Basic Proposal referred to in Paragraph 2. The Diplomatic Conference will be convened if such agreement is achieved. If no such agreement is achieved, all further discussions will be based on Document SCCR/15/2.

5. The WIPO Secretariat will organize, in cooperation with the Member States concerned, and at the request of Member States, consultations and information meetings on the matters of the Diplomatic Conference. The meetings will be hosted by the inviting Member States.

6. The General Assembly is invited to approve the convening of the Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations, from November 19 to December 7, 2007, and its preparatory arrangements as recommended by the fifteenth session of the SCCR and as amended above.

WIPO Draft Decision on the "Protection of Broadcasting Organizations"

2006-10-01T14:20:00.000+02:00

This draft decision will be discussed on Monday, 2 October 2006 at the WIPO General Assembly.

WIPO General Assembly, 2006
September 30, 2006

ITEM 10: PROTECTION OF BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS

Draft Decision

Outcome from the informal consultations, September 27-30, 2006,

Prepared by the Chairman of the SCCR

1. The General Assembly approves the convening of the Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations under the conditions set out in paragraph 4 below from November 19 to December 7, 2007, in Geneva. The objective of this Conference is to negotiate and conclude a WIPO treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations, including cablecasting organizations. The scope of the treaty will be confined to the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense.

2. The Revised Draft Basic Proposal (Document SCCR/15/2) will constitute the Basic Proposal with the understanding that all Member States may make proposals at the Diplomatic Conference.

3. The meeting of a preparatory committee will be convened for June 2007 to prepare the necessary modalities of the Diplomatic Conference. The preparatory committee will consider the draft rules of procedure to be presented for adoption to the Diplomatic Conference, the lists of States, as well as intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to be invited to participate in the conference, as well as other necessary organizational matters.

4. Two special sessions of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights to clarify the outstanding issues will be convened, the first one in January 2007, and the second one in June 2007 in conjunction with the meeting of the preparatory committee. It is understood that the sessions of the SCCR should aim to agree and finalize, on a signal-based approach, the objectives, specific scope and object of protection with a view to submitting to the Diplomatic Conference a revised basic proposal, which will amend the agreed relevant parts of the Revised Draft Basic Proposal referred to in Paragraph 2. The Diplomatic Conference will be convened if such agreement is achieved. If no such agreement is achieved, all further discussions will be based on Document SCCR/15/2.

5. The WIPO Secretariat will organize, in cooperation with the Member States concerned, and at the request of Member States, consultations and information meetings on the matters of the Diplomatic Conference. The meetings will be hosted by the inviting Member States.

The General Assembly is invited to approve the convening of the Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations, from November 19 to December 7, 2007, and its preparatory arrangements as recommended by the fifteenth session of the SCCR and as amended above.

Notes from WIPO Broadcast Treaty and Patent Harmonization discussion

2006-09-28T12:52:00.001+02:00

Blogging WIPO: 2006 General Assembly, Day 3

Day 3, 27 September 2006

Notes taken by:

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

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

Teresa Hackett, teresa dot hackett at
eifl dot net, Electronic Information for Libraries [TH]

[NOTE: This is not an official transcript. It's our best effort at providing a faithful set of notes of the proceedings. Any errors and omissions are unintentional and regretted.]

-=-=-=-=-
Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law)

Except where indicated in relation to specific text in the following material, 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.
-=-=-=-=-

WIPO GA 2006 Day 3

10:35 Start

* Chair: I'd like to start with Agenda Item 9 - Protection of Audiovisual Works

* DDG Rita Hayes: References WO/GA/33/3 and says that progress has been made, but that they are not yet finished. The chair will now set up national and regional meetings to further this work.

* Chair: Looks for motions

* El Salvador: We support further work on this item.

* Mexico: We give our broadest support for the continuation of the agenda of the protection of AV performances. It should be dealt with in the future by this organization.

* Chair: I would like to draw your attention to page 2 para 5 document WO/GA/33/3 This calls for national and regional meetings to be decided by WIPO. Can I ask that it is so decided? Decided.

I propose to consider item number 10 protection of the rights of broadcasting organizations.

* Rita Hayes: Doc WO GA/33/4 - Following the decision of the 2005 GA, we held that there should be two more meetings of SCCR to finalize a basic proposal in order to enable this GA to recommend the convening of a diplomatic conference in December 2006, or at a date to be decided at this meeting.

In the doc before you, there is a revised version 15th SCCR's proposal. Outlines proposal including a diplomatic conference in the first half of 2007:

1. The diplomatic conference will be convened from 11 July-1 August
- objective is to negotiate and conclude a treaty including cable casting organs
- scope confined to broadcast and cable cast in the traditional sense

2. Revised basic proposal will constitute the basic foundation with the understanding that all delegations can make additional proposals at the diplomatic conference

3. A special 2 day meeting to clarify outstanding issues will be convened in addition to the prep meeting in January

4. There will be regional consultations hosted by member states

The decision before the delegates today is whether to approve the diplomatic conference and it's attendant preparatory work.

* Chair: I open the floor for comments.

* European Community (Tilman Lueder): [Note: speaking as an IGO] We appreciate all of the open and forward-looking work on this topic. I believe that we have put the building blocks in place to allow for a successful diplomatic conference.

We would like to stress our commitment to the work of the SCCR that binds us all as we sit in the GA. We have discussed many facets of this. The work cannot and should not be ignored. We fully endorse the recommends of SCCR/15. All the building blocks are in place for a diplomatic conference which should be held in the agreed time frame as recommended to this GA.

* United States (Jule Sigal): The 15th SCCR set the stage for the GA to schedule or consider the scheduling of a diplomatic conference.

We believe that the scheduling a DC is neither timely or appropriate. The text of the basic proposal is not stable. There is no consensus and wide differences on a range of basic items such as scope, exceptions and limitations, and TPMs.

If you look at the consolidated text two years ago, it had 89 pages and 28 alternative text sections. The current text, called the basic proposal, is 108 pages long with 47 alternatives.

We are concerned that a diplomatic conference to consider this document at this time would not be successful because there is so much to be resolved. In fact, many countries left the last SCCR feeling uncomfortable about the convening of a conference at all. In our view the treaty on protection of broadcasting organizations should be the subject of more work.

We stress that in these further necessary expert meetings we would *NOT* seek to broaden the scope to netcasting or any of the new services as discussed in the standing committee. We would leave these on a separate track.

Unfortunately, the SCCR took premature action which we did not and cannot support.

Further expert meetings would help Member States come to a better understanding that would provide a diplomatic conference with a much greater chance of success than we have now.

* Japan: A broadcast treaty has fundamental importance. It also contributes to appropriate protection of neighboring rights and anti- piracy measures.

We strongly support the objective of this treaty which has been intensively discussed since 1998. The discussion has matured and the time has come to reach a conclusion.

As a result of the three SCCRs this year, we agreed to hold a diplomatic conference. The convening of a diplomatic conference should proceed without further delay.

We support the proposal of the Secretariat which was agreed at the 15th SCCR. We can clarify substantive issues at the expert meetings. We expect strong leadership from the chairman with the support of members.

* Croatia (on behalf of the regional association of Baltic states):
We welcome the decision to launch a diplomatic conference. It marks a milestone in our discussions. Further work on the draft basic proposal will be needed. The work of the prep committee will hopefully bring the agenda to the desired maturity.

Our group agrees that the discussions undertaken at SCCRs underline the need for a treaty. We appeal to Member States to approach the exercise constructively to enable the successful outcome of the conference.

* Nicaragua: We would like to offer our support for the convening of a diplomatic conference in 2006 or 2007.

* Mexico: We emphatically affirm our wish that a diplomatic conference be convened in 2007. The work that has been done in SCCR has been done with much dedication and thoroughness, taking into account diverse opinions. THis is why we accept the opinion of the committee at its last meeting.

* El Salvador: We would like to express our support for the decision reached at the 15th SCCR to convene a diplomatic conference this year or next.

That said, there are still some items in the draft that need to be clarified. The diplomatic conference should be able to sort those points out and come to acceptable conclusions for all members of this organization. We support the convening of a diplomatic conference.

Pakistan: We are of the view that the holding of a *successful* diplomatic conference is more important than holding a diplomatic conference.

We are of the view that a diplomatic conference, if it is to be a success, must be preceded by intensive preparatory work, not just the two-day conference in January.

There are many concerns amongst delegations that need to be addressed. We recommend that the duration of the January 2007 meeting may be extended beyond the two days limit. If there are still concerns, more such meetings should be held between January and July.

India: The SCCR, which met in September, did make a recommendation to the GA to hold a diplomatic conference. Throughout the three SCCRs that have been held since last year, we have had intensive discussions on the topic.

We are happy to note that the scope as it stands now has been limited to the broadcasting and cablecasting organizations and that netcasting and webcasting have been left out. Barring this forward movement, all other issues - and I repeat *all* other issues - have been left unresolved.

Even in the last SCCR, the Indian delegation pointed out that convening a diplomatic conference is important, but its success is even more important than merely convening a diplomatic conference. The building blocks are there, but the stumbling blocks are also in the text of the basic proposal.

It is not the contours of the treaty that should be discussed in the diplomatic conference, but the details. Unfortunately as we stand today, there is no consensus on the broad contours of the treaty. The basic proposal has contradictions that would suffice for the diplomatic conference not to see the face of success. We urge more deliberations, more formal meetings of the SCCR to enable member states to resolve outstanding issues and the inherent contradictions in the current draft.

Moreover, the proposed 2-day meeting is neither fish nor fowl. We would like to get clarification on nature, scope and validity of 2 day January meeting. At the SCCR we raised questions about its scope.

We must hasten slowly to a diplomatic conference to iron out inherent contradictions.

* Norway: Our general position is that related rights should be as similar to copyright as possible. RR holders should be treated on an equal footing. Therefore Norway favours the convening of a diplomatic conference and thereby the conclusion of the updating of the protection of RR holders.

It is evident that the project is ready to be concluded. Not much can be achieved in more meetings. In 2004, the GA urged the acceleration.

* Uruguay: This delegation understands that there is no agreed and no consensus text in the current draft from SCCR. We think that it would be impossible to have a successful diplomatic conference without more expert meetings and extensive work.

* Mongolia: We support the basic aims of the treaty and we would support the convening of a diplomatic conference.

* Chile: In the SCCR meeting in September, we said that the convening of a DC would be premature at this time. The state of play is insufficient to convene a DC right now. At the SCCR, the delegate of India simply reflects the fact that there was simply no consensus on anything.

In that meeting, many delegation expressed their doubts about procedural and substantive issues, plus calls to examine the development aspects of the treaty.

We support further SCCR meetings and prefer it to the be General Assembly of 2008 which recommends the convening of a DC. We favour the inclusion of minimum L&E.

Lastly, we welcome the point made by the U.S. that they feel the negotiations should be limited only to the protection of traditional broadcasting.

At the last meeting of the SCCR, much progress was made to change the focus on the treaty.

* Canada: We certainly support the rights of broadcasters and we would support a successful treaty. As others have noted given the wide range of alternatives and view, we would suggest that it is premature to hold a Diplomatic Conference. More work is needed to clarify the scope and substance of a successful treaty.

* Kyrgyzstan: We would support the convening of a DC on broadcasting including cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense of the term. We need thorough work by the prep committee if it is to be successful. We support convening the conference on the said dates.

* Iran: The protection of the rights of broadcasting organizations is important but the implications of the treaty may be different for different Member States
In the last SCCR, the incorporation of all Member States viewpoints was not clear.

Regardless of the substance, the procedural matters should be clarified in a transparent manner. The process of a Diplomatic Conference is separate from the work of the SCCR. We express our readiness to continue constructive discussion on the rights of traditional broadcasting organisations and to exclude all references to webcasting.

* Ukraine: We believe that this is an important area of IP. We are thinking of cable and satellite broadcasting in the Ukrainian law.

We support the proposal of a thorough review. The sooner we convene the conference, the sooner we protect the rights of broadcast organizations. We believe that the SCCR does, however, need to hold more meetings and to think about adding Internet transmissions as well.

* Azerbaidjan: We consider that a the protection of the rights of broadcasting organizations is difficult and sensitive. We would support the convening of a Diplomatic Conference in August 2007.

* Indonesia: We are of the view that the GA should consider wisely the recommendation of the SCCR to convene a diplomatic conference. My delegation has concerns on substance and procedure.

We would like to ensure that orphaned and public domain works are not compromised when we protect against signal theft.

It is clear that there is wide divergence of views.

The scope should be confined to broadcasting and cablecasting in a traditional sense.

There is a lack of evidence that the protection for broadcasting and cablecasting is necessary for developing countries. We would like to see a treaty that will not compromise the flow of information, A2K, freedom of expression and cultural diversity. We are very concerned that the SCCR recommended the convening of a DC despite strong reservations by Member States.

We strongly suggest that you seriously consider these concerns. We propose that that the GA could postpone the convening of the DC from 2007 to 2008.

China: We thank the SCCR for its constructive work on this issue, and would like this work to continue.

We consider it necessary to convene a DC in order to discuss the issues, and we believe that these discussions can take place in the diplomatic conference and attached preparatory meetings.

We should fully discuss the issues in a flexible manner which reserving differences.

Russian Federation: We support a diplomatic conference in 2007. We do not object to a special meeting in January where we can address some of our concerns.

We hope that states will be able to work in a constructive spirit to prepare for a diplomatic conference.

* Singapore: In SCCR/15 we supported the convening of a DC in 2007. We continue to believe that there is sufficient time to consider all the issues.

However, we recognize the serious concerns expressed by many nations and the need to have a successful conference. We need not be fixated on the precise dates of a convening of a Diplomatic Conference but we must seize the impetus to convene a DC as quickly as possible.

* Nigeria (on behalf of the African Group): The Group submitted its viewpoints during the last SCCR/15. We realize that it is an important process. We have supported a DC in principle subject to certain conditions.

To enable a smooth transition frof the SCCR to a DC, the DBP should be cleaned up in order to remove certain ambiguities and with a view to remove as many alternative articles as possible and to reduce the risk of failure.

We also express a desire to protect a number of public interest issues:

1. A2K
2. Free and unfettered flow of information
3. Protection of cultural diversity
4. Protection of performers
5. Impact assessments especially with regard to technological measures

We would like Member States to inform us how they plan to implement the TPM provisions of the treaty.

The Group also indicated that the inclusion of webcasting was not essential to the process.

We recognize the views of the US delegation that the proposed treaty should be limited to traditional broadcasting.

* League of Arab States:
Observer with IGO status

The basic proposal must be a balanced one.
The Arab countries do not oppose the convening of a DC. We will examine the broadcast treaty at a meeting in 2007.

* Morocco: I wish to express my support for the work of the secretariat over the last year. Throughout these SCCR meetings, we have striven to reach consensus on many of the issues pertaining to these rights. These rights are not new, nor are they at a higher level. They simply address the problem produced by new technologies.

We submitted a compromise solution, namely, to call for two further meetings. We do not have to settle everything before a DC. Time is now ripe to convene a DC.

* Algeria: We are not opposed to the convening a DC in 2007 without deciding on a precise date indicated in the draft recommendations. If a review of the dates help us to move away from the divergences in the text,

These questions of public interest, access to knowledge, scope of this treaty deserve being defined. We should talk about the legal framework for this treaty. We are in favor of convening of DC, but we are in favor of a DC that will be successful.

* Croatia (not speaking for regional group): We have sympathy for those arguing against a diplomatic conference at this stage, we are of the opinion that all of the open loops in the doc are political and not technical.

We strongly believe the outstanding issues can be solved at dip not experts level. That is why we align ourselves with the convening of a DC

* Macedonia: Support convening of DC in 2007.

* Kenya: Would like to associate herself with the statement of Morocco. There is certainly more work to be done, and we believe that this work can be done at a diplomatic conference. It is clear that delegations recognize the need to have a treaty to protect broadcast organisations. Kenya supports the convening of a DC.

* South Africa: At WSIS, we committed ourselves to putting public interest issues at the heart of our work on technology.

We maintain our position of 13th and 15th SCCR. We would like to integrate people friendly principle into this treaty.

The proposal does not provide clarity on what this treaty is supposed to protect. There is a need to strike a balance between the needs of broadcast organisations.

* Chair: two more speakers then a cut for chair's comments

* Veneuzuela: We would like to submit its concern (because of what happened in the 15th SCCR). There was a total lack of consensus and plurality, following not much of a discussion of a text that is full of inconsistencies. We are concerned that the NGOs were not given the right to speak.

Under these conditions, we believe that there is a high probability to fail. It is necessary to achieve a result in a more democratic manner.

* Honduras: Our delegation is in favor of convening a diplomatic conference in the next year. This is, of course, dependent on resolving the concerns expressed here.

We should reduce the number of alternatives in the text, which should reflect the public interest.

We should make sure that the treaty is limited to signal theft approach.

* Chair: Almost 40 delegations spoke reflecting its importance. What we are expected to do is approve the recommendations of the SCCR. Based on the discussions, at this stage in the Chair's view, we are NOT in a position on consensus on recommendations. A large number of delegations were in favor but a number had concerns.

Based on the discussion, it is the chair's view as of this morning, I don't think we are in a position to say that we have a consensus on the recommendation. I don't think it would make good use of our time to keep the floor open at this time.
We will not close this item but we need more informal discussions.

I feel that we need some more intensive and informal discussion to hash this out but at the same time keeping the integrity of the recommendation. I propose to have informal discussions some time during the day.

The Chairman [Jukka Liedes] of the SCCR is here and I would like to seek his assistance in this endeavour.

I'm still hopeful we can reach a consensus decision. It would be difficult to enter a DC if some delegations felt unable to join in a consensus.

Sometime Mr. Liedes could have some informal consultations on my behalf to see where we stand this afternoon. I will have informal consultations this afternoon on another matter.

I am not closing consideration and we will see where we will stand this afternoon. Mr Liedes will arrange some informal consultations to see if we can maintain and structure and integrity of the recommendation.

We temporarily suspend consideration of item 10.

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

Item 11: Matters concerning the advisory committee on enforcement.

* Rita Hayes: WO/GA/33/5 Matters concerning the advisory committee on enforcement. The first part takes into account what has been done in the enforcement advisory committee.

I ask you to take note of Page 2 item 6 and the Annex (last page following page 12).

* Chair: I see no requests for the floor. Can I take note that the GA adopts the decision as so requested? So decided.

I would like to return to Item 6 proposal by Group B delegation of Switzerland

* Switzerland: There is not much to report, no negative feedback so far. The Asian group is still consulting within its group.

* Chair: I haven't heard any negative feedback either.

* Tanzania: We need to be on record the Joint Inspection Unit has been observed as a useless outfit.

This isn't just our view, but Group B's view as well going back as far as the 1970s

But the irony is that as far as WIPO is concerned, that in WIPO is considered to be a useful outfit. What an irony. I just wanted to put that on record.

* Chair: 15 min break before item 12.

Item 12 (Patent Law Treaty, Frances Garry): WOGA/33/6, gives history- so-far bit.

* Chair: Reminds us that the task before us is to set up a workplan for the SCP for the following year.

* Switzerland (on behalf of Group B):

* UK: The joy of closing the meeting fell to me.

Expands on what VDG Gurry said...
We got to a point where we had a package. We had 9 items and 4 other items.

There was agreement that they should be talking about those 13 items and no more. We then broke into two camps - those who wanted to make subgroups for the sake of setting priorities, and those who wanted everything to be evaluated on equal footing.

There was no progress in relation to those. I also asked if there were other proposals to make a July meeting worthwhile. At that time, there were none so we decided it was not viable for there to be another meeting.

* Croatia (on behalf of CEE and Baltic States):

We want to express our concern on the state of play within the SPLT.

It is frustrating that despite useful discussions and frank exchange of views, we made virtually no progress since the last GA and consequently failed to fulfill our mandate.

Our work is vital to the success of the SCP. It will improve quality, reduce costs for users, reduce costs for patent users, increase communication and cooperation between WIPO members' patent systems.

We should avoid making linkages that will negatively affect the process.

* Morocco: We recognise there are differences. We favour the harmonisation of patent law. We should continue to work to achieve a compromise and a balance.

* Chair: We have to conclude our morning session. We will continue the debate on this item at 15.00.

* Switzerland: Group B meeting at 14.30 in Room B

-- BREAK --

[RB: The following countries made interventions, but our note-takers were attending to other business at the time.]

Finland (on behalf of EC):
Algeria:
China:
Malaysia:
B?? Bhutan?? [RB: two countries to Brazil's right]:
Japan:
US:
Indonesia:
Argentina:

* India: We need a new method of proceeding rather than the hackneyed way in which we have been proceeding.

* Iran: In our opinion there was a constructive discussion during the 3 day meeting of the SCP. The informal meetings gave us the view that work on an SPLT was premature.

* Ecuador: The proposal of the GFOD is highly viable.

* Cuba: We consider that the future work of the SCP should include the interests of developing countries and should include inter alia L&E, prior informed consent and country of origin.

The development of patent law is not always to the advantage of dev countries.

* Pakistan: This assembly should provide guidance to the SCP rather than going into details.

1. Public interest aspects of the patent system
2. Quality of patents

* Brazil: Brazil understands that WIPO is not a multilateral patent office. Dev should be a core objective of this organisations. Harmonisation of patent law cannot take place if it is not in the interest of the majority of members, especially developing countries.

Lots of issues were raised in the open forum that should be mainstreamed into the patent system.

No reduced package can be the way forward on the SCP.

There is a growing critique of the patent system worldwide in IGOs, NGOs, academia on all of the issues we are discussing. Even institutions e.g. OECD are producing relevant work in this area and are coming to mixed conclusions regarding the impact of the patent system on economic growth and development and social issues in general. This reality should not be ignored in the SCP so that a more profound debate can be held in that body.

The agenda on development contains a chapter on norm setting that is very relevant to the SCP. The GFOD has put forward a work plan of nine issues that we consider important in the spirit of inclusiveness the DG has stressed in this Assembly.

We understand there is an issue of impact assessment that needs to be provided to member countries. We cannot proceed blindly without studies on the impact of the patent system.

A member has raised the issue of patent quality. For developing countries there is also the issue of quality of life of the inhabitants. I cannot erode the quality of life of people around the world.

* Tanzania (Khamis Suedi): It's clear that there are problems here, big problems.

Some want a reduced package and others have stressed the inclusion of 9 issues. The dilemma we see is how we add a work plan.

We may see a further hardening and stratification of positions.

* Switzerland: We place great importance to this topic.

There are technical deliberations that could be made in the context of the SCP. We hope that it will be possible to deliver a work program that can be discussed.

* Chile: The reduced package which has been put forth more than once- exclusion is not correct.

Chile supports an approach that includes all issues including those mentioned by Brazil.

If we're trying to harmonise the situation, then we obviously need to include those issues as well.

* US: Apologies for coming back to the floor on this matter but it is obviously of importance to this delegation.

WIPO, as a specialised UN agency, has within its mandata the need to improve the IP system, streamline and simplify the situation so it can be used effectively to promote development throughout the world.

Many of the issues such as anti-competetive practices, alternative models of innovation raise matters that go well beyond expertise of SCP and maybe beyond WIPO itself.

We cannot support a work program that would not facilitate concrete work, and would instead provide no prioritization to aid in working through the many political issues lying in wait. We do not wish to have meetings within meetings. Which would be a waste of WIPO's limited resources and delegations' time.

If we cannot come to a workplan this week, perhaps we should wait until next year.

* Francis Gurry: I respond to the question from Argentina.

We have planned a series of colloquia to delegations with a proposed schedule of dates and topics. They will take place between October 2006 and September 2007 and will be informal and free with no decisions taken.

They include topics such as research examples, standards and patents, flexibilities, technology and policy, national strategy for innovation and patents for technology.

* Russian Federation: We do not intend to repeat our disappointment since everyone is likely disappointed with the SCP. THese are not serious problems in front of us - these are challenges thrown up by society and the outside world.

We currently have many proposals which would cancel one another out.

The IP system is a combination of protection, enforcement of rights and [one other thing he didn't go on to mention]. We can go on two parallel coaches.

On protection against piracy, planes have crashed because 60% of its parts were counterfeit. There is one more key to open this door (win- win situation). It is to look at this through our neighbors' eyes.

I'm suggesting that we should move on these three aspects at the same time.

* Chair: What many delegations have said is their disappointment. Our main task is to establish a workplan. The chair has noted the suggestions. I can't honestly say there is a common ground on these suggestions.

What I would like to propose is, we are obviously not in a position to take any decision now. We have to undertake informal consultations.

I am willing to attempt something. We suspend consideration of this item now. Any suggestions are welcome, preferably in writing.

After this we can have a working text to guide us to reach consensus in a further round.

I said I would be holding informal consultations on Development Agenda. I was wondering if we could maybe could go ahead and look at item 14 as Mr Gurry is here.

* (WIPO Secretariat: Francis Gurry): I refer to document WO/GA/8 Information document concerning internet domain names. There are over 100 million internet domain names registered throughout the world. Conflicts are managed through the uniform dispute resolution process (UDRP)

Today, WIPO has dealt with over 9,000 cases involving 17,000 names. There is a legal index, guiding principles based on jurisprudence.

* Chair: WO/GA/33/8 - Para 19. Do we take note of these contents? Ok.

US statement on broadcasting at WIPO General Assembly

2006-09-27T11:10:00.000+02:00

United States:

The 15th SCCR set the stage for the General Assembly to schedule or consider the scheduling of a DipCon.

We believe that the scheduling a Diplomatic Conference is neither timely or appropriate. The text of the basic proposal is not stable,

There is no consensus and wide differences on a range of basic items such as scope, exceptions and limitations, and TPMs

If you look at the consolidated text two years ago, 89 pages and 28 alternative. The current text, called the basic proposal, is 108 pages long with 47 alternatives.

We are concerned that diplomatic conference to consider this document at this time would not be successful because there is so much to be resolved. In fact, many countries left the last SCCR feeling uncomfortable about the convening of a conference.

In our view the treaty on protection of broadcasting organizations should be the subject of more work.

We stress that in these further nec expert meetings we would *NOT* seek to broaden the scope to netcastsing or any of the new services as discussed in the standing committee. We would leave these on a separate track.

Unfortunately, the SCCR took premature action which we did not and cannot support.

Further expert meetings would have Member States come to a better understanding that would provide a dip con with a much greater chance of success than we have now.