WIPO Director Election Today; Outcome Still Hard To Predict

An executive committee of nearly half the World Intellectual Property Organization membership will today, 6 March, select the leader of the key UN organisation for the next six years. And it is still hard to predict whether the incumbent will return.

There are four candidates: WIPO Director General Francis Gurry (Australia), WIPO Deputy DG for Development Geoffrey Onyeama (Nigeria), Ambassador Jüri Seilenthal (Estonia), and Ambassador Alfredo Suescum (Panama).

For IP-Watch interviews with all four, see (IPW, WIPO, 12 February 2014).

The WIPO Coordination Committee is scheduled to meet on 6-7 March to choose a candidate, and then pass the recommendation on to the full membership, which meets in an extraordinary General Assembly in May. It is likely the membership will accept the committee’s recommendation.

According to WIPO sources, the committee will proceed with a first round of ballots in the morning tomorrow, then take a lunch break and continue the process in the afternoon. The official rules of the election are available here.

It is common in international organisations that a leader will be re-elected for a second term. This has been the case in WIPO’s past. But Gurry is facing a serious challenge, according to sources, with three other solid candidates.

The reasons for the challenge are not immediately obvious, as Gurry’s first term has seen a number of accomplishments such as treaties, an economics division, new buildings, and improvements in security and other areas. Gurry took over in 2008 under very difficult circumstances, winning by a one-vote margin. His predecessor, Kamil Idris of Sudan, had stepped down a year early in his second term after a loss of confidence among the majority of WIPO members, and tension was high in the organisation.

Gurry is a long-time WIPO employee and a recognised expert in the patent field, and most observers seemed to breathe a collective sigh of relief and hope for better times when he came in. He had served as Idris’ legal counsel and was his deputy director for patents. But during the last election to fill Idris’ spot, there appeared to be significant distance between Gurry and Idris. For his part, Gurry’s propensity in public is to focus on IP policy issues.

WIPO members have been extremely closed-lipped about which way they are leaning in this year’s election, which is held under secret ballot. Gurry, from Australia, was seen as a favourite of developed countries in the last election. But that may not be the case any longer, at least for some.

In WIPO meetings in past months, some leading IP-holding countries have been outspoken about their dissatisfaction with aspects of the organisation, such as when membership failed to agree on the budget at the annual assembly last fall, a rare occurrence. There also have been critical remarks about the emphasis on a development agenda, and grumbling about a treaty on exceptions to copyright.

But Gurry also is plagued by lingering management issues, such as the secretariat’s handling of the discovery that WIPO had been shipping computer equipment to North Korea and Iran, seen as a contravention of US law. This issue came to light at a critical moment in the US presidential election. The shipments, part of a technical assistance programme aimed at getting developing countries on the IP system, were also assessed for possible violation of UN policy, and a panel decided that – based on WIPO’s report of its actions – it was not in violation. But it was upbraided for not taking better measures to inform membership and the UN sanctions committee.

Another issue has been reports of unauthorised collection of staff DNA as part of an investigation of a threatening letter Gurry received during the last election. And an investigation that has been ignited by a former appointee and fellow Australian, Miranda Brown, who according to reports such as in the generally respected Le Temps newspaper in Geneva, joined Gurry’s senior team only to leave soon after, upset about what she had witnessed. She has brought a legal case for abuse of power, the newspaper said, and there is said to be a saved collection of emails from Gurry that at minimum show undiplomatic language about officials and staff.

Intellectual Property Watch has confirmed and seen many of the documents in question, and did not request comment on these reports from the secretariat at press time.

Meanwhile, the UN Joint Inspection Unit is preparing to publish a report on WIPO, and according to Le Temps, the version submitted to the organisation for comments states that less than 15 percent of employees think recruitments are made in a transparent and equitable manner. Both authors of the report also criticise a voluntary redundancy programme concerning 87 employees and cost 22 million CHF to the organisation, over 250,000 CHF per person, according the press report. A photo of Gurry at his election in 2008 (above) shows several member state representatives in the audience who shortly afterward joined WIPO.

Meanwhile, a number of staff have indicated to Intellectual Property Watch a continuing climate of fear in the organisation about speaking out. During his first term, Gurry oversaw a strategic realignment that caused some friction among staff.

Some of the competing candidates have referred indirectly to the management and staff issues.

The African Union, which includes almost all African countries, came out last month in favour of Onyeama. [corrected:] Sources from the African Union say that the AU endorsement by African ministers of foreign affairs and African Heads of States and Governments was unanimous and received a huge applause, and calls upon all voting and not voting members of the organisation in question to vote for the African candidate. All 19 WIPO African Coordination Committee members are behind Onyeama, sources said.

For the countries that are members of the Coordination Committee, it may never been known which way they really voted, as the ballots will remain secret. Perhaps it will become evident based on which deals they made with candidates in exchange for their vote along the way.

As one staff person told Intellectual Property Watch anonymously this week: “I just want it to be normal” to work there.

Image Credits: WIPO