SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

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.

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.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • Congratulations upon re-election;-WHO chief.Priori... »
  • Great article. Ms. Chan may want to read our book ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    WIPO Members Greet New Cabinet As Some Seek Better Regional Presence; Idris End Date Unclear

    Published on 23 June 2006 @ 6:21 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    The World Intellectual Property Organization Coordination Committee this week welcomed new appointees to the highest policy echelons of WIPO, but some governments added calls for broader regional representation in the organisation. In addition, a question remains as to whether WIPO Director General Kamil Idris must step down in 2009.

    Of the four newly named deputy directors general (second only to Idris of the Sudan), three are from WIPO’s Group B of developed countries: Australia (Francis Gurry), France (Philippe Petit) and the United States (Michael Keplinger). The final DDG is from India (Narendra Sabharwal). (IPW, WIPO, June 1, 2006).

    The assistant directors general (ADGs) are from China (Wang Binying), Nigeria (Geoffrey Onyeama), and Uruguay (Ernesto Rubio). Wang Binying was given a newly created position to last until 2009. She will hold the highest position of any Chinese national in WIPO since it joined the organisation in 1980, the Chinese delegate told the meeting, according to the draft secretariat report.

    The appointees were approved at the 19-20 June meeting of the WIPO Coordination Committee. All member states paid particular tribute to outgoing DDGs Geoffrey Yu and Rita Hayes. New appointees will take their posts in December 2006.

    Idris’ 2009 Departure an Open Question

    All of the appointees are understood to be in office until late 2009, when Idris’ current term ends. But according to a WIPO source, Idris’s departure at that date is not imminent.

    If Idris were to choose to continue as director general, blocking it would require three-quarters of the WIPO membership to complete their domestic processing of an amendment to WIPO rules, the source said. At least 129 members (as there were 171 members at the time of the 1999 amendment) would have to accept an amendment to the WIPO Convention limiting the number of mandates a director general may serve to two six-year terms.

    As of 15 January 2006, about 50 WIPO members had notified WIPO of their acceptance of the amendment, according to a WIPO status report on treaties. This did not include the United States. Acceptance comes after countries have gone through their domestic constitutional requirements, which for the United States is the advice and consent of the Senate, the source said.

    Idris’s predecessor, Árpád Bogsch, was director general of WIPO for some 24 years, from 1973 to 1997. Idris took over in 1998. That year, the WIPO General Assembly (the annual gathering of member governments) agreed to an amendment setting term limits.

    As Idris appears to have emerged unscathed from some concerns raised last year about WIPO’s financial and personnel practices (though a Swiss federal investigation is ongoing), some have speculated about whether he might wish to stay on past 2009. Preventing it would require a majority of developing countries to oppose his continuation, which could be politically sensitive, according to some sources. Idris is from the Sudan.

    Fair Geographical Distribution at the Top?

    On geographical distribution, Peru, speaking at the Coordination Committee on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC), praised the appointments but raised concern that neither its group nor the African Group has an official at the DDG level. Both GRULAC and the Asian Group, represented by Thailand, stressed the importance of geographical distribution and gender balance.

    The delegation of Croatia, which had unsuccessfully put forth a candidate for an ADG position, said the Group of Central European and Baltic States had been marginalised in terms of appointments in WIPO’s structure, citing low representation among its employees.

    In its statement, Russia said it supported China’s original proposal to have a DDG position, and was surprised to see that China was proposed for an ADG. The economies in transition, such as China, Russia and the Central Asian countries, need representation at the DDG level, the Russian delegate said.

    Switzerland, speaking on behalf of Group B, said the selection of strategic appointments should be based on merit, and held by staff with technical expertise and appropriate qualifications, according to the draft report on the meeting prepared by the WIPO secretariat.

    In answer to the statements, WIPO said the director general gave statistics from document WO/CC/54/2, which showed that the number of member states represented in WIPO staff rose from 68 in 1997 to 94 in May 2006. The proportion of women in the professional and above categories increased from 30 percent (63 out of 209) to 42 percent (184 out of 433) in that period. He mentioned the criteria behind appointments and expressed openness to discussing the issues raised.

    Group B Stresses Desk-to-Desk Review in WIPO

    In their statement, the Group B developed countries supported the director general’s confirmation that the new positions would be subject to the ongoing desk-to-desk review of human and financial resources at WIPO, recommended by the UN Joint Inspection Unit in February 2005.

    A WIPO summary of the Swiss delegate’s remarks on behalf of Group B said the delegate said the review “had to be carried out as soon as possible starting with the review of the top management of WIPO and that it would offer a unique opportunity for the organization to get a clear picture in order to be able to make the necessary adjustment of human and financial resources, in order to make the International Bureau even more efficient and effective for the benefit of all member states.”

    The independent review is expected to be submitted to the 2007 annual General Assembly of WIPO members. The delegate from the United Kingdom laid out the timeline for the review, beginning with an agreement on the terms of reference that the WIPO Audit Committee will need to make in July 2006. This would have to be accepted by the September General Assembly, which also would have to appoint the independent consultants. The review would then have to be submitted in April 2007, agreed upon in July 2007, and sent to the General Assembly in September 2007, the delegate said.

    Indemnity Proposal Already Covered in WIPO Rules, WIPO Insists

    In addition to approving the appointments, the Coordination Committee also addressed a proposal that “an indemnity be offered to those staff members mentioned above who held permanent contracts with the organisation before their appointments through the Coordination Committee and who will not have reached the age of retirement at the expiry of the said appointments.” This was specified to be in keeping with the existing WIPO staff regulations on indemnity.

    The director general withdrew this proposal under paragraph 18, plus paragraph 21, which spelled out the action to be taken on indemnity after resistance from committee members. WIPO officials emphasised to Intellectual Property Watch after the meeting that the paragraphs taken out would have reflected existing WIPO rules.

    Also in the director general’s proposal, WIPO officials say the disputed last sentence of paragraph 17 remains despite earlier reporting in Intellectual Property Watch that some officials said it had been removed. The sentence states:

    “The director general further proposes that, without prejudice of any new appointment through the Coordination Committee, no outgoing deputy director general and assistant director general shall remain in the service of the organisation upon the expiry of their appointments.”

    Some members have opposed its inclusion as it would appear to prevent appointees from returning to jobs within WIPO, even if they are still of working age. In the secretariat report, the WIPO legal counsel was quoted as saying that paragraph 21 was the action for paragraph 17, so with paragraph 21 removed, the last line of paragraph 17 could remain as a “mere proposal” and the Coordination Committee would not take any action on that proposal.

    But an African Group source said on 23 June that some countries were left with the understanding that the sentence will be removed as a consequence of the removal of paragraph 21. “It is the African Group’s belief that the last sentence paragraph 17 stands as amended, that is, removed,” the official said. Others possibly supporting its removal included China, Italy, Mexico, and the United Kingdom, the source said.

    The 82-member Coordination Committee consists of members of three bodies: the executive committee of the Paris Union (protection of industrial property; 41 members), the Executive Committee of the Berne Union (protection of literary and artistic works; 37 members) and one-quarter of the states that have signed up to the WIPO Convention but that are not members of any of the WIPO unions, according to WIPO paper A/41/9 Rev from the 2005 General Assembly. In addition, Switzerland as a host state is an ex officio member of the committee, WIPO said.

    The members of the Coordination Committee are elected every second year at the General Assembly, according to the WIPO paper, adding that 82 members will serve until September 2007. It also has administrative tasks such as preparing the draft agenda for the WIPO General Assembly. WIPO currently has 183 members.

     


    Leave a Reply

    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.

    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.

    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.