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 Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas 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.

Ten Questions About Internet Governance

On April 23 in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance,” also known as “NETmundial” in an allusion to the global football event that will occur later in that country, will be convened. Juan Alfonso Fernández González of the Cuban Communications Ministry and a veteran of the UN internet governance meetings, raises 10 questions that need to be answered at NETmundial.


Latest Comments
  • Justice Roberts seems to think that adjusting ones... »
  • These obscured negotiations appear to this reader ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    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 Committee Makes Last Run At Folklore Treaty Text Before Annual Assembly

    Published on 6 July 2012 @ 9:39 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    The last session of the World Intellectual Property Organization committee on the protection of folklore before the annual General Assembly promises to be lively as the prospect of a potential treaty exacerbates stronghold positions. The treaty fervently supported by developing countries as a way to protect their cultural heritage and biodiversity has met a more cautious view from developed countries.

    The 22st session of the WIPO Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) will take place from 9-13 July.

    Delegates will work on draft articles intended to be submitted to the WIPO General Assembly in October.

    Last September, the WIPO General Assembly renewed the IGC mandate [pdf] for the 2012-2013 biennium. According to the mandate, the IGC should “expedite its work on text-based negotiations with the objective of reaching agreement on a text(s) of an international legal instrument(s).” This instrument should ensure effective protection of genetic resources, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) or folklore.

    The mandate also indicates that IGC 22 should focus on four key articles: Article1 on the subject matter of protection; Article 2 on beneficiaries; Article 3 on the scope of protection; and Article 5 on exceptions and limitations.

    Those articles were extensively discussed during IGC 19, in July 2011 (IPW, WIPO, 22 July 2011), during which a facilitator, Kim Connolly-Stone from New Zealand, was tasked to streamline them. Former IGC Chair Amb. Philip Owade of Kenya prepared a summary [pdf] of keys issues in the IGC at the close of his mandate.

    Draft articles [pdf] for next week’s session reflect amendments proposed by member states, with proposed insertions underlined, and brackets around words or phrases that some delegations have asked to be deleted or questioned, according to WIPO. The draft articles also include some comments by the facilitator.

    Prescriptive Approach vs. More Leniency

    The protection of genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore is a primary concern for developing countries, which are concerned about misappropriation of their resources. They are generally in favour of a strong international legal instrument, in contrast to most developed countries, which would like more flexibility so that some decisions are left to national legislations.

    The current draft articles reflect that dichotomy, with two distinct policy approaches.

    “In draft Articles 1, 2, 3 and 5, one option generally gives more flexibility to national law and a second option is more prescriptive,” Wend Wendland, director of the Traditional Knowledge Division at WIPO, told Intellectual Property Watch. “For example, in Article 3, option 1 refers to economic and moral interests which should be safeguarded in a reasonable and balanced manner. By contrast, option 2 is more detailed and prescriptive.”

    In Article 2, dealing with beneficiaries of the protection, one option names beneficiaries as Indigenous Peoples and local communities, while the second option includes also nations, families and individuals. In Article 5, the first option allows for few exceptions and limitations, while the second option provides more exceptions and limitations, which, according to the facilitator, lessen the protection for TCEs overall, compared to option 1.

    During IGC 19, Indonesia submitted a contribution to the draft articles on the protection of TCEs on behalf of a number of like-minded developing countries (LMCs). The contribution of the LMCs, which is presented as a set of draft articles, now is a working document [pdf] for IGC 22.

    “The Like-Minded Countries’ contribution was already discussed during IGC 19, in July 2011, and the draft articles for the upcoming session contained in document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/22/4 include some contributions from the LMCs,” Wendland said.

    On 27-29 June, the LMCs met in Bali, Indonesia. According to the Jakarta Post, Algeria, Brunei Darussalam, Colombia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Lebanon, Malaysia, Namibia, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, and Vietnam participated in the meeting. WIPO and the intergovernmental South Centre participated, the story said.

    According to the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the meeting aimed to “serve as a unique forum to discuss evolving issues and novel ideas between key delegates of Like Minded Countries (LMCs) on legal protection of” genetic resources, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural exception.

    According to the Indonesian release, “a Consultation Meeting among the Like Minded Countries (LMCs) with five key countries in the IGC WIPO framework” – Australia, China, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland – was planned for the last day of the meeting. A source confirmed that the meeting took place. Two previous meetings took place in 2009 in 2001.

    New Agenda Item on Future Work

    According to WIPO, Group B developed countries very recently asked that a new item be added to the draft agenda [pdf] to discuss recommendations to the next WIPO General Assembly on the future work of the IGC.

    During IGC 21, held from 16-20 April, the European Union delegation suggested that such an item might be added to the agenda of IGC 22. Since genetic resources, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions had been discussed separately, there would be some need to “wrap up discussions” and agree on the recommendations to be transmitted to the General Assembly (IPW, WIPO, 21 April 2012).

    Developing countries had then asked that IGC 22 focus solely on TCEs, with the African Group saying that the discussion on future work of the IGC be left to the General Assembly, according to the draft report of the 21st session [pdf]. Egypt, speaking on behalf of the African Group, added that five days was a short time to cover the specific TCEs articles and would not allow for “additional agenda items that might require lengthy discussions.”

    Role of Observers, Indigenous Peoples’ Status

    At the 20th session of the IGC from 14-22 February, the International Indigenous Forum decided to withdraw from the discussions (IPW, WIPO, 22 February 2012). In particular, they felt that rules of procedure should allow their participation at all levels of the IGC. They later resumed participation after discussions with Chair Wayne McCook, the ambassador from Jamaica.

    During IGC 21, the committee asked the WIPO secretariat to prepare an information document on practical, procedural and budgetary implications of suggestions put forward by the Indigenous Caucus and supported by Sri Lanka, according to the 21st session draft report.

    In document GRTFK/IC/22/Inf10 [pdf], the secretariat presents information on six suggestions, among which are: a special status for Indigenous Peoples, separate from observers; representation of Indigenous Peoples in any “Friends of the Chair” groups; representatives of Indigenous Peoples appointed as co-chairs or working and drafting groups; and equal representation with member states on the Advisory Board of the WIPO Voluntary Fund.

    At previous sessions, a number of countries have said that WIPO was a member-state driven organisation and should remain as such. During IGC 21, according to the draft report of the session, Egypt “recalled that Member-States had a regulatory status in the process, but that they supported the principles of transparency and inclusiveness by welcoming observer participation.”

    However, they added, “some suggestions made by the Indigenous Caucus had direct systemic implications on the governance of WIPO as a whole, and it believed that the IGC was not the proper place to change the governance of WIPO.” This was seconded by Algeria.

    Chair Consults on Methodology

    Depending on the chair’s programme of work, remaining articles, objectives and principles could also be discussed during this session. According to WIPO, the chair has been consulting with regional groups. “The Chairman of the IGC has been holding consultations and has circulated a draft programme and methodology to regional groups,” Wendland said. They were to meet again on 6 July to discuss it further.

    At the last session, some developing country sources told Intellectual Property Watch that only limited progress was made and the methodology for the next session had to be looked at.

    According to the draft report of the session, Egypt, speaking on behalf of the African Group, regarding the work plan and methodology “requested for more time for consultations at the next session so as to advance work on the texts” at the next IGC.

    Catherine Saez may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Summary: The Intergovernmental Committee: Twenty-Second Session | WIPO Monitor says:

      […] WIPO Committee Makes Last Run at Folklore Treaty Text before Annual Assembly […]


    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.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.227.5.234