Intellectual Property Watch

Original news and analysis on international IP policy

Gurry Speaks On Allegations For First Time As WIPO Members Discuss Actions

by , Intellectual Property Watch 5 Comments

Heading into next week’s annual UN World Intellectual Property Organization General Assemblies, WIPO member states are considering a report from the United Nations investigations office regarding allegations of wrongdoing made involving WIPO Director General Francis Gurry. And for first time since the allegations arose, Gurry has offered his defence. Spoiler alert: he neither confirmed nor denied it but raised questions about the legality of the process.[modified]

WIPO

WIPO

Next week’s Assemblies (3-11 October) will be highlighted by celebrations for the entering into force of the Marrakesh Treaty ensuring access to printed works for visually impaired persons, and a range of other issues such as instructions to committees for the coming year.

Also on the agenda is a highly confidential investigation report of the UN Office Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) in New York. The meeting report, WO/CC/72/4 Prov., of the 12 September WIPO Coordination Committee meeting shows the discussion related to the OIOS report. The committee is effectively the member-state executive body at the member-state driven organisation.

At issue is the OIOS report on charges by WIPO staff that Gurry was involved in the ordering of the taking and testing of DNA from two WIPO employees without their knowledge after he received an anonymous threatening letter in 2007, and that Gurry influenced a procurement contract by steering toward a bidder. A key concern is protection of the whistleblowers who brought the allegations to member states’ attention.

The OIOS report appeared to have found the DNA allegations to be inconclusive but did find evidence that Gurry influenced the procurement contract, according to a summary of the report produced early this year.

The 33-page Coordination Committee (CoCo) report shows the detailed back and forth between some members who sought to close the investigation and put the issue to rest, and those who want to bring changes to ensure such questions cannot arise again.

A key element of the decision was to circulate the confidential report to the WIPO member states, supposedly by this week, after it was withheld from them by the chairs of the General Assemblies and of the committee, who were designated under WIPO rules to decide on how to handle it. They did make it available to members in early summer in a closed, supervised reading room under tight restrictions (limited visit time, no electronics), after receiving pressure to do so.

Another element of the debate was how much to redact (black out) the report. Some WIPO officials, including Gurry himself, have apparently seen the full, unredacted versions which include the names of the whistleblowers.

Gurry took the floor in the CoCo meeting, saying this was the first time he had expressed himself publicly on the issue. He said that in the interests of the organisation he had made a decision not to speak on the issue despite extensive publicity about it. He said the process had been entirely a member-state conducted process, and that any implication of resistance by the WIPO secretariat or himself was “completely unfounded,” according to the report. He raised questions about how some information got out, and suggested the procedure had not worked to protect him either so he welcomed review of the procedures that would lead to better governance. He did not appear to explicitly answer to the accusations, though he expressed his wish to defend himself.

Gurry also raised a question about the legality of member states to modify the decision of the two chairs not to share the OIOS report with member states [clarified – and to take action on the report beyond the two chairs’ actions], as the process they followed was in fact set up by member states and if it was to be changed it would require a process to change it for the future. Though he was not opposed to sharing the report with members, changing the process now would violate the rule of law, he asserted.

Decisions

In the end, the committee agreed to request the chair to release a redacted version prior to 26 September ahead of the Assemblies blacking out the names of and identities of individuals and legal entities. A full, unredacted version will be available to members at least through the 2016 Assemblies.

It recommended that the WIPO Internal Audit and Oversight Committee (IAOC) consider revising WIPO procurement rules, and that WIPO’s whistleblower policy be reviewed.

Below are the meeting results as stated in the CoCo report:

  1. “The seventy-second (26th extraordinary) Coordination Committee, taking note of the discussions held under “Review of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) Report”:
  • Took note of the OIOS Report on “Abuse of authority and procurement irregularities implicating a staff member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (ID Case N. 0164/15),” of the GA and CoCo Chairs’ decisions and recommendations dated August 5, 2016, and of all interventions by Member States.
  • Requested the Chair to expedite the release of a redacted version of the above referenced OIOS Report prior to 26 September 2016 in advance of the General Assemblies, redacted to protect names and identities of individuals and legal entities.
  • Emphasized the importance of Member States contributing to the revision of WIPO’s Internal Oversight Charter prior to the upcoming Assemblies and urged all Member States to carefully consider proposed amendments at the upcoming Assemblies
  • Requested the Director of the Internal Oversight Division to continue to make the full unredacted report available to MS upon request, in a controlled reading room environment immediately through, at least, the end of the meetings of the 2016 Assemblies of WIPO Member States.
  • Recommended to the WIPO General Assembly to direct:
  1. The IAOC to consider whether WIPO’s General Procurement Principles and related document should be revised, taking into account the review currently being undertaken by the Director General, as recommended by the General Assembly and the Coordination Committee chairs, to ensure clarity and transparency in WIPO’s procurement process, so that the conclusions and/or recommendations will be submitted to the PBC for consideration by Member States.

That WIPO’s Whistleblower Protection Policy and its implementation be reviewed to ensure that the Policy takes into account lessons learned, recent developments in this area, and best practices from other organizations.”

 

William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

Creative Commons License"Gurry Speaks On Allegations For First Time As WIPO Members Discuss Actions" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Comments

  1. Branson5544 says

    Congratulations, Mr. Gurry, you have done it. You have succeeded in making a fool of the entire world, including even the mighty Americans. You must be feeling very pleased with yourself.

    You even managed to wriggle out of pushing an IT contract (not something you know much about) with a friend, when the expert says it is only one percent better technically, but twice as expensive.

    I just hope you realise what you are doing. At a local level, you have hammered yet another nail into the coffin of the UN. This slow drip of quasi corruption at the top will eventually kill it. On a broader canvas, you are part of the visibly above the law elite drawing us to the election of Mr. Trump, or someone like him, as leader of the free world.

    So thanks Mr. Gurry, and congratulations again. Sleep well.

    Reply

  2. Richard Hill says

    Thank you for this informative report and analysis.

    You state that Gurry “raised questions about the legality of sharing the [investigation] report with member states” and asserted that “Though he was not opposed to sharing the report with members, changing the process now would violate the rule of law”

    But I note that, according to paragraph 49 of the Report you cite, Gurry said: “He [Gurry] also welcomed the publication of the OIOS report, suggesting that the lack of clear provision in the procedures in this regard may be one of the first things that Member States may wish to consider when looking at the procedures. He very much welcomed the publication of the report, redacted or unredacted, whichever the Member States chose. In this respect, he noted that he had already provided both a redacted and an unredacted copy of his own observations on the report to the relevant authorities, so that they could be transmitted and published.”

    As I understand it, Gurry’s point about the rule of law was that the provision governing investigations of the Director General provides that “final investigation reports concerning the Director General shall be submitted to the Chairs of the General Assembly and the Coordination Committee for any action deemed appropriate.”

    Therefore, it was up to the two Chairs to decide what, if any, action to take pursuant to the final investigation report.

    Since the two Chairs had decided, after consultations with Member States, “to close with no further action all investigations regarding alleged misconduct by Mr. Gurry in both the DNA and procurement cases” (paragraph 27 of the cited Report), there was no call or scope or mandate for any other WIPO body to consider further the allegations levied against Gurry.

    If I understand Gurry’s statements correctly, his point is that any further consideration of the allegations against him would violate the investigation procedure specified in the applicable WIPO rules and regulations, and thus violate the rule of law.

    Reply

    • William New says

      Thank you Richard for your clarification, your knowledge of this is impressive. I think you are correct and it’s an important point, but perhaps there may be small distinction since the chairs also took the action of deciding not to share the report at first and then changed direction, which Mr. Gurry supported. The CoCo meeting report shows significant discussion around this issue, but it does appear that members took the path of not taking further action on the report itself, so I guess we’ll see what happens at the Assemblies this week or in the future.

      Reply

  3. Anon says

    I believe Mr. Hill has probably conveyed Mr. Gurry’s point remarkably well. But for some reason he omits to mention the counterargument, as made by Germany among others:

    Paragraph 55: “The Delegation had the legal understanding that the fact that the Chair was mandated by paragraph 32 to take action as deemed appropriate did not extend to the capacity to close a case in contradiction with the findings of the OIOS report.”

    In the same paragraph, Germany bluntly sums up the problem: “the Delegation considered that how the Chair had dealt with this matter in his capacity as Chair of the Coordination Committee did not seem proper.”

    The function of any chair is to mediate and find compromise if possible on conflicting views within the group he chairs. Then, if compromise cannot be reached, to reflect such conflicting views effectively in his proposed outcome, such that it that outcome may be agreed to by all parties. The fact that the Chairs’ proposed outcome is plainly unacceptable to many delegations means that it has no validity of any kind, including in respect of “rule of law”.

    Particularly so, moreover, since Germany understates its case: paragraph 32 does not actually say, as it (and Mr. Hill) mentions, that “the Chair was mandated by paragraph 32 to take action as deemed appropriate.” It says “…submitted to the Chairs of the General Assembly and the Coordination Committee for any action deemed appropriate” i.e. It very clearly does not end with the words “…by them”. It is obvious that the real implied ending is “…by the members of the GA and the Coordination Committee”.

    Reply

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign up for free news alerts