WIPO Asked To Explain NGO Accreditation Process

Published on 23 February 2005 @ 11:56 pm

By William New, Intellectual Property Watch

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has come under fire from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) fearing exclusion from key meetings in April on WIPO’s Development Agenda. But a spokeswoman from the Geneva-based U.N. body on Wednesday said it is complying with its mandate for meeting accreditations.

“We are complying with the decision of the General Assembly, but we are taking note of the requests that we have received to date,” the spokeswoman told IP-Watch Wednesday. She said WIPO is following the report of last autumn’s annual assembly of its members, which stated: “The General Assembly decides to convene inter-sessional intergovernmental meetings to examine the proposals contained in document WO/GA/31/11 [the Development Agenda proposal]…. WIPO-accredited IGOs [inter-governmental organisations] and NGOs are invited to participate as observers in the meetings.”

But a posting to the Consumer Project on Technology (CP Tech) email listserve Wednesday called the situation an “accreditation fiasco” and charged that WIPO “appears to be severely limiting accreditation for this meeting.”

According to CP Tech, WIPO appears to be denying all requests for ad hoc accreditation (for NGOs that are not already permanent WIPO NGO observers); and has indicated that permanent accredited NGOs may be limited to one- or two-member delegations, which CP Tech said would “greatly” skew participation in favour of right-owner NGOs as they already far outnumber other accredited non-governmental groups.

In addition, CP Tech said, WIPO has rejected or ignored requests to balance participation between right-owner and consumer-interest NGOs.

These points were accentuated in a letter to WIPO sent Tuesday by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

“The WIPO Development Agenda proposal encompasses a range of issues and substantive subject matters,” EFF said. “Limiting participation in the April meetings to currently-accredited NGOs will exclude many civil society organizations with special expertise in the matters in the Development Agenda proposal and is likely to render the discussions unbalanced and unrepresentative of developing nations’ interests.”

At least one non-governmental organization representative who applied for ad hoc status was told to file an application, despite reports that no ad hoc accreditations would be offered. And EFF cited the absence of accreditation for the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, which it called a “recognized leading expert” in issues of development and intellectual property.

CP Tech Director James Love urged NGOs to press WIPO and its member nations to change the policy. In addition, he called for organisations from across the intellectual property spectrum to quickly develop and disseminate position papers on the development agenda. On the listserve, Love made a number of suggestions for paper subjects.

“The debate on the WIPO development agenda is a big, big event,” he said. “The right-owner community and the U.S., E.U. and other developed countries are highly mobilized to undermine the [Development Agenda] proposals, and to split developing countries.”

Categories: WIPO

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

WIPO Asked To Explain NGO Accreditation Process

Leave a Reply