<h2 class="posttitle">
WIPO Development Committee Completes Work; Creates Technical Cooperation Review Group <img src="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/themes/ipw/images/promotion_small.png" title="Available for IP-Watch Subscribers" alt="Available for IP-Watch Subscribers">
</h2>
<small><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/11/18/wipo-development-committee-completes-work-creates-technical-cooperation-review-group/?utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts">http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/11/18/wipo-development-committee-completes-work-creates-technical-cooperation-review-group/?utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts</a><br>
Published on 18 November 2011 @ 11:54 pm</small>
<p>By <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/author/william/" title="Posts by William New" rel="author">William New</a>, Intellectual Property Watch</p>
<div class="entry">
<p>The World Intellectual Property Organization Committee on
Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) successfully completed its
eighth session tonight, making progress on a range of projects and
agreeing to set up an ad hoc working group to examine an external report
on the UN agency’s global provision of technical assistance. <span id="more-18261"></span></p>
<p>The CDIP met from 14-18 November, and worked through a complex agenda
of numerous documents and issues that constitute the implementation of
the 2007 Development Agenda. Documents for this week’s meeting <a href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=22206">are here</a>. </p>
<p>The committee agreed on a meeting summary by the chair, Ambassador
Abdul Hannan of Bangladesh, making late changes to the text that were
not reflected in writing at the end of the meeting. A copy of the latest
paper copy of the <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CDIP-Draft-Chairs-Summary-Nov-2011.pdf">draft chair’s summary is here</a> [pdf]. </p>
<p>Several items in the chair’s summary were changed from this last
print version, including items 5, 10, and 18 (all of which show
incompletion). </p>
<p>On item 5 in the chair’s summary, which relates to a description of
the contribution of relevant WIPO bodies to the implementation of
Development Agenda recommendations (document CDIP/8/6), the clause <em>[note: official language to be confirmed]</em>
was completed to say: “… the Committee agreed to continue consultations
at the level of Group Coordinators and interested delegations in the
intervening period before its next session. The Committee agreed to
continue discussions on the document at its next session,” according to
participants. But clarifications were also made to say that
consultations will be on the coordination mechanism for the Development
Agenda implementation, and not document CDIP/8/6.</p>
<p>Item 10 relates an “External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in
the Area of Cooperation for Development,” document CDIP/8/INF/1, and it
was agreed to set up an ad hoc working group to go through the text. The
group was given modalities to follow, <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CDIP-TA-Review-Group-Modalities.pdf">available here </a>[pdf] (and also in the draft chair’s summary), which were somewhat changed from draft modalities circulated earlier in the day (<a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/11/18/debate-at-wipo-over-process-for-technical-assistance-review/"><em>IPW</em>, WIPO, 18 November 2011</a>). </p>
<p>The modalities include being open to regional coordinators and other
interested delegates (it is unclear if this includes non-governmental
observers) and facilitated by the WIPO secretariat. There will be no
additional budget for the group, the secretariat will provide some
response to the report to feed into the group, and the group will meet
between now and the next CDIP meeting, to take place in May. At least
one day will be set aside in the next CDIP to discuss the report and
analysis. It was emphasised by the United States and possibly others
that setting up the working group does not represent a precedent as this
is a unique case of a long report received by members shortly before
the meeting. </p>
<p>On item 18 of the chair’s summary, pertaining to document
CDIP/6/12/Rev., on a proposal for a CDIP new agenda on IP and
development – a carryover from two CDIP meetings ago – developing
countries said they were “disappointed” that the agenda item was again
put off till the next meeting. </p>
<p>Overall during the week, according to participants, the committee
spent significant time on document CDIP/8/2, which covered progress
reports on projects and Development Agenda recommendations. Some concern
was expressed by members over work falling behind schedule, or having
unspent budget resources. A table showing the work and budget status of
various projects was circulated during the week, and is <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CDIP-table-of-projects-Nov-2011.pdf">available here </a>[pdf]. </p>
<p>This document was referenced in item 4, and a late sentence was added
to the chair’s draft. Pakistan on behalf of the Asian Group proposed to
add a line, slightly modified in floor discussion that said<em>[to be confirmed in official form]</em>:
“While taking note of the tabulated paper on project reports, the
committee stressed the need for timely compliance of all the ongoing
projects and optimum utilization of resources allocated.” </p>
<p>Other work</p>
<p>On CDIP/7/INF/2, a scoping study on copyright and related rights and
the public domain, the committee discussed the document which carried
over from the last CDIP session, and asked the secretariat for more
information on three of the 15 recommendations. </p>
<p>The three recommendations under consideration are:</p>
<p>C.1 (c) The voluntary relinquishment of copyright in the works and
dedication to the public domain should be recognised as a legitimate
exercise of authorship and copyright exclusivity, to the extent
permitted by national laws (possibly excluding any abandonment of moral
rights) and upon the condition of a formally expressed, informed and
free consent of the author. Further research could certainly be carried
out on that point.</p>
<p>(f) International endeavours should be devoted to developing
technical or informational tools to identify the contents of the public
domain, particularly as far as the duration of copyright is concerned.
Such tools can be data collections on works, databases of public domain
works, or public domain calculators. International cross-operation and
cross-referencing of such tools is of particular importance. </p>
<p>2. (a) The availability of the public domain should be enhanced,
notably through cooperation with cultural heritage institutions and
UNESCO (through its work on the preservation of intangible cultural
heritage). </p>
<p>The document CDIP/7/INF/2 will be held open for discussion and possible implementation for next meeting.</p>
<p>Other areas of work during the week included modifying the text of a
paper, document CDIP/8/3, from the secretariat on intellectual property
and informal economy. A key modification was to remove from the paper’s
focus specific attention to counterfeiting and piracy, and to keep the
focus on innovation and the informal sector. The marked-up version will
be available here shortly. </p>
<p>The committee also substantially revised a project on patents and the
public domain, document CDIP/7/5. The revised, marked-up version will
be available here soon. </p>
<p>The late but successful conclusion of the eighth session was seen as
positive after the last session ended in a suspension of the meeting and
had to be finished at the start of this week (<a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/11/15/wipo-development-committee-kicks-off-with-compromise/"><em>IPW</em>, WIPO, 15 November 2011</a>). </p>
<p>“The suspension last time was a matter of disappointment,” Irfan
Baloch, secretary to the CDIP and director of the WIPO Development
Agenda Coordination Division, told <em>Intellectual Property Watch</em> afterward. “In multilaterism, you have to keep in mind there has to be compromise.” </p>
<p>Boumediene Mahi of the Algerian delegation, who represented the Development Agenda Group this week, told <em>Intellectual Property Watch</em>
afterward that, “In general, the CDIP is working well, making good
progress.” He said the group has agreed to many projects, but “We still
have many things to do.” Generally speaking, though, he said, “We are
satisfied with the progress of the group.” </p>
<div class="related"><h3>Related Articles:</h3><ul><li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/11/18/debate-at-wipo-over-process-for-technical-assistance-review/" rel="bookmark" title="Debate At WIPO Over Process For Technical Assistance Review">Debate At WIPO Over Process For Technical Assistance Review</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/11/15/wipo-development-committee-kicks-off-with-compromise/" rel="bookmark" title="WIPO Development Committee Kicks Off With Compromise">WIPO Development Committee Kicks Off With Compromise</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/05/07/wipo-committee-on-development-agenda-suspended-discussions-bogged-down/" rel="bookmark" title="WIPO Committee On Development Agenda Suspended, Discussions Bogged Down">WIPO Committee On Development Agenda Suspended, Discussions Bogged Down</a></li>
</ul></div> </div>