[AfrICANN-discuss] Agreement On Future Work For Development Committee Snatched From Defeat At WIPO

Anne-Rachel Inné annerachel at gmail.com
Sun May 13 16:14:10 SAST 2012

 Agreement On Future Work For Development Committee Snatched From Defeat At

Published on 12 May 2012 @ 11:57 pm

By Catherine Saez <http://www.ip-watch.org/author/catherine/>, Intellectual
Property Watch

In what could be compared to an obstacle course, World Intellectual
Property Organization members agreed late last night on the future work of
a committee working on the development dimension of the organisation’s

The work of the ninth session of the Committee on Development and
Intellectual Property taking place from 6-11 May was arduous as delegates
had to go over a number of studies, evaluations and review, decide on
second phases of projects and on the future work of the committee amidst
obvious dissension on several areas.

The draft summary by the
was released at the end of the afternoon on the last day of the
session, and underwent major edits over the following four hours, as
developing and developed countries jousted on language, each side claiming
the need for the summary to give a factual account of deliberations. The
final version is not yet available.

*[Editor’s Note: quotes in this story from the meeting floor are from a
rough transcription; exact language to be confirmed.] *

External Review on Technical Assistance

A number of areas revealed contention over the week. One of them was the
discussion about the fate of an external review of WIPO technical
assistance co-authored by Carolyn Deere and Santiago Roca (*IPW*, WIPO, 9
May 2012<http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/05/09/wpo-development-agenda-implementation-the-ongoing-fight-for-development-in-ip/>).
Pointed exchanges took place before delegates agreed on the amended
language to paragraph 9(f) of the summary by Chair Mohamed Siad Doualeh,
the ambassador from Djibouti. Para 9(f) of the summary deals with the
external review, and the management response to the external review.

After a proposal by the Group B developed countries to reduce the length of
the paragraph, rewording of most of the parts of the paragraph had to be
negotiated. The paragraph now reads “Upon request by the chair the
secretariat identified the recommendations which, in its view, were
important and immediately implementable.” The recommendations concerned
three specific areas: the WIPO initiative on country plans for technical
assistance, WIPO’s work on national IP strategies and methodology, and the
WIPO Academy’s work.

The chair’s summary now also notes: “Some delegations underlined the
importance of enhancing and improving the delivery of technical assistance
to the realisation of the Development Agenda Recommendations.” The summary
also was changed to read: “The Committee agreed that the Deere/Roca report,
management response, and the joint Development Agenda group and African
Group proposal (CDIP/9/16) would be further discussed, at its next session
with a view to considering the implementation of the recommendations.”

The edited is peppered with mentions of “some member states” instead of
“the committee,” betraying proponents’ firm stands on their positions.

Coordination Mechanism at Heart of Discussions

Another sore point was the contribution of the relevant WIPO bodies to the
implementation of the 45 Development Agenda Recommendations. The United
States, speaking on behalf of Group B countries, said paragraph 8 of the
summary applied only to work being done in the Committee on WIPO Standards
and proposed to change the second sentence to read: “Delegations expressed
their support for the initiative by the Chair of the WIPO Assembly to
facilitate an understanding of the coordination mechanism, mainstreaming of
the Development Agenda Recommendations and the expressions therein in the
special rules of procedures of the Committee on WIPO standards.”

This led to strong reactions from South Africa, Algeria on behalf of the
Development Agenda Group (DAG), and Egypt on behalf of the African Group.
Algeria proposed to change this sentence to: “expressed their support for
the initiative by the Chair of the WIPO Assembly to facilitate an agreement
on the implementation of the General Assembly decision on the coordination

Egypt on behalf of the African Group, supported by DAG, pointed out that
the proposed language merely reflected discussions in the committee, to
“put things in perspective.” The South African delegate said that the fact
that the chair of the annual General Assembly was appointed to hold
informal consultations, and not the CWS chair, indicated that the
consultations would be broader than the CWS.

The US delegate replied that the CWS was the first WIPO committee to be
suspended, in particular over the issue of the coordination mechanism in
2010, and at that time, the chair of the Assembly helped to negotiate a
solution in that particular committee. Last week, he said, “the issue on
the coordination mechanism resurfaced,” so the task was again appointed to
the chair of the Assembly (*IPW*, WIPO, 7 May

Pakistan, which was the coordinator of the Asian Group, finally proposed a
compromise which was adopted. The second sentence of the summary became:
“Delegations expressed their support for implementation of the GA decision
on the coordination mechanism.” The US asked that the word “some” be added
at the beginning of the sentence.

Flexibilities – Duplication of Work

There was no shortage of occasions for delegates to exercise their
diplomatic skills during this session, and the CDIP’s work on flexibilities
in the IP system was one of the areas where regional coordinators worked
hard to find consensus.

In particular, developed countries voiced concern about duplicating work
already carried out in the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents
(SCP), which meets next week.

The CDIP decided to ask the secretariat to prepare a document on four
patent-related flexibilities that have already been addressed in the SCP,
and whether those flexibilities could be addressed by the CDIP from the
same or a different perspective. The flexibilities addressed by the CDIP
are found in the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

An informal document on
was discussed by regional coordinators which was later adopted with
some modifications, to be included in the chair’s summary. The headline now
includes the full language of paragraph 2(c) of document
to address concern about further work on flexibilities, and paragraph
1 now reads: “The Secretariat will prepare for the next session of the
Committee, a document showing if any flexibilities listed in paragraph 2
have already been addressed in the SCP, and whether such work would be
addressed from the same or a different perspective. This document will also
contain further explanations on the latter two bullet points in paragraph

Paragraph 2 displays the four flexibilities: the scope of the exclusion
from patentability of plants (TRIPS Art. 27), flexibilities in respect of
the patentability, or exclusion from patentability, or software-related
invention (TRIPS Art. 27), the flexibility to apply or not criminal
sanctions in patent enforcement (TRIPS Art. 61), and measures related to
security which might result in a limitation of patent rights (TRIPS Art.

After another run of informal consultations, the first part of paragraph
9(c) of the chair’s summary now reads: “The Committee discussed the work
programme on flexibilities in the IP property system – New elements
proposed at CDIP/8 (CDIP/9/11). Some delegations emphasised the importance
of WIPO’s work in the field of flexibilities and the IP system. Some
delegations emphasised the need for the committee to undertake this work
efficiently and without duplication of the work taking place in other
committees and/or forums,” to accommodate concerns of developed and
developing countries.

WIPO Asked to Keep TK Separate from Public Domain

On 10 May, discussions on an information
clarifying the scope of a study
on copyright and related rights and the public

Discussions on recommendations 1(c), 1(f) and 2(a) of the study turned sour
when developing countries voiced concerns about what they said was a WIPO
interpretation of recommendation 2 (a) of the study, mentioning traditional
knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs), both of which
are currently being hotly discussed in the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee
on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and
Folklore (IGC).

Recommendation 1(c) deals with the voluntary relinquishment of copyright in
works and dedication to the public domain, 1(f) encourages international
initiatives to develop technical or information tools to identify the
contents of the public domain, and 2(a) calls for enhanced availability of
the public domain in particular through cooperation with cultural heritage
institutions and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO).

Egypt for the African Group said that TK and TCEs are essential elements of
cultural heritage and as such have no links with the public domain. A
number of developing country delegations including Brazil, the African
Group and the DAG suggested that reference to TK and TCEs be removed from
the information document.

WIPO said during the session that the organisation had been invited to
participate in the upcoming UNESCO conference “Memory of the World in the
Digital Age: Digitization and
to take place in Vancouver, Canada, from 26-28 September.

The DAG, supported by the African Group, expressed concern about the way
WIPO would characterise TK and TCEs at that conference. “We would appeal to
the secretariat when they participate in the Vancouver conference to be
very careful indeed about the kind of contribution made by WIPO,” the
delegate from Algeria said.

“WIPO should be very cautious and prudent indeed in what it says at that
conference and should not in any way let it be inferred that TK or TCEs are
part of the public domain,” she said. “Anything that is said by WIPO at
that conference should be purely technical in nature.”

South Africa added that the committee was just being informed of WIPO’s
participation in the UNESCO conference and that it would appreciate if WIPO
just “voice what is happening in the IGC” during the conference. India
concurred asking that no prejudice be done to ongoing negotiations in the

Article 9(g) on recommendation 2(a) of the chair’s summary was amended to
read, essentially: “Some delegations requested to eliminate from the
document any reference to traditional knowledge, TCEs and folklore in order
to dissipate any concerns relating to overlap with the public domain,
taking into account work undertaken in the IGC, it was agreed that the
document would be revised accordingly.”

The committee is also divided on whether or not discussions should be
extended on the study. Compromise language now replaces the second sentence
of paragraph 9(n): “Some delegations have proposed that this issue will be
discussed in the next session. Some delegations have opposed that
discussion in the next session. The chair concluded that this issue will be
discussed in consultations on future work,” in an attempt to give a
faithful account of discussions in plenary.

New Burkina Faso Project Adopted

One of the main converging points of the session was the unanimous support
to the Burkina Faso project on strengthening and development of the
audiovisual sector in Burkina Faso and certain African countries, which was
adopted by the committee.

Developed countries hailed the project, and in particular the US on behalf
of Group B who said that this project was “exactly the type of project that
should form the basis of the CDIP’s work, that is how IP can be used for

Switzerland added that it was “very positive that delegations should take
the initiative to present projects that meet specific needs and aim at
using IP in order to promote development, which we feel is the initial aim
of the Development Agenda.”

Democracy and Holism

“Diplomacy did prevail,” a delegate said at the closing of the session. But
it seems that future work will likely still be a place where delegations
hold fast to their positions.

Separately, at the outset of weeklong meeting, the chair told *Intellectual
Property Watch*: “The objective is to make sure the agenda as set by member
states is discussed in a holistic manner, and the mandate of the CDIP is
fully executed. I expect member states to help me in that endeavour.”

Perhaps staying at the negotiating table until the wee hours of the night
in order to get a result means they did just that.

*William New contributed to this report. *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20120513/ff488608/attachment-0001.htm

More information about the AfrICANN mailing list