WIPO Negotiators End In Deadlock On Development Agenda

Published on 23 July 2005 @ 12:09 am

By William New, Intellectual Property Watch

After months of debate, officials addressing a proposal to make the World Intellectual Property Organisation more sensitive to developing countries could agree only that further discussion is needed.

“We had a chance to discuss a huge quantity of proposals made by delegations,” Chairman Rigoberto Gauto Vielman, the permanent representative of Paraguay in Geneva, said afterward. “These will be reported to the General Assembly without any comment on how they will be treated in the future,” leaving it up the assembly instead.

Officials generally agreed to further discuss development issues, but the key stumbling block was what forum within WIPO should be recommended to continue those discussions. In addition, delegates could not agree on the specifics of the proposals put forward to change WIPO to address development concerns. But progress toward consensus on some proposals was made.

Negotiators will gather a fourth time days prior to the late September WIPO General Assembly to finalize the report from the third meeting on the issue, which concluded on 22 July.

The proposal for a development agenda was first introduced at the General Assembly last October by Brazil and Argentina, who were joined by 12 other so-called Friends of Development. The assembly established an Intersessional Intergovernmental Meeting (IIM) to address the proposal and report back by the end of July.

The IIM met in three meetings of three days each, held in April, June and July. Numerous other proposals were introduced during the meetings, but in the end, no agreement was reached on them.

The chairman said the reports from the first two IIMs were final, and that a draft version of the report of the third meeting would be circulated in early August. The report of the third meeting will be considered in a fourth meeting to be held just before the General Assembly. But there will not be a reopening of debate on proposals, he said.

The lead U.S. delegate afterward remarked on the “good will” in the meeting, but said earlier during the meeting that it is “difficult to have a constructive debate” on intellectual property and development when the parties start from positions of such “profound” differences.

A developing country official said afterward there was no agreement on extending the IIM another year as proposed by the Friends of Development because the United States and Japan held their ground in support of a proposal to move development issues into an existing WIPO technical cooperation committee. Many developing countries view the technical body, called the Permanent Committee on Cooperation for Development Related to Intellectual Property, or PCIPD, as an ineffective venue for discussing broader proposals of WIPO reform.

An Indian delegate said late in the meeting that developing countries were being encouraged to “change horses” from the IIM to the PCIPD, but that this was really like being asked to “change from a horse to a mule.”

Categories: English, 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.

Comments

FFII WIPO workgroup: Negotiations says:
13 May 2009 at 12:56 pm
[...] 2, 3, 4, [...]

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 Negotiators End In Deadlock On Development Agenda

Comments

Leave a Reply