TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (May08/02)
09 May 2008
Third World Network


Below are news stories by IP-Watch on the "Voting Procedures Set for WIPO

Director General Vote Next Week" and the Civil Society Meeting with WIPO Candidates held on 15 April 2008.

Election of the WIPO Director General by the WIPO Coordination Committee which will take place next week beginning 13 May 2008.

The chair of the Coordination Committee is Hilde Skorpen of Norway.

The current members of the Coordination Committee are: Afghanistan (ad hoc), Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia (ad hoc), Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Korea, Latvia, Libya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland (ex officio), Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zambia.

Best Regards
Sangeeta Shashikant
Third World Network

------------------------------------------------------------------
Voting Procedures Set for WIPO Director General Vote Next Week

Intellectual Property Watch (8 May 2008)
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=1031

By William New


The final procedures appear to be in place for next week’s all- important nomination election for the next director general of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

The WIPO Coordination Committee, the 83-member government executive body of the UN organisation, will meet on 13 May to narrow 15 candidates down to one. The new director general would take office for a six-year term on 1 October, the day after the scheduled conclusion of the General Assembly that must finalise the approval.

Next week’s Coordination Committee meeting is scheduled to last as long as three days, through 15 May, if necessary. The committee’s recommendation will be forwarded for final approval to the General Assembly, where sources say approval is likely.

Under the final rules of procedure, all voting will be by secret ballot, most likely on preprinted paper ballots deposited into a transparent box by two tellers drawn by lot among a list of volunteer delegates from each regional group, WIPO officials said. The first round will be an informal straw poll in which each member names their top two choices. This poll will not count but may lead to some candidates withdrawing.

In the actual voting, the lowest-scoring two candidates will be eliminated in each round until there are nine candidates remaining, after which there will be one eliminated in each round. During the meeting, between the plenary voting sessions there will be intensive periods of informal negotiating among members. Near the end, it would be possible that members could reach agreement on the final candidate through informal negotiation rather than vote, an official said.

This election’s procedure offers more opportunity for consultation and slower progress through the candidates than the last election in 1997, which resulted in the election of current Director General Kamil Idris, who will retire from the post one year early under pressure from some member states. Although the new director general will take office on 1 October, Idris will be paid his salary for an overlapping 14 months to the end of his original term, in late 2009, according to WIPO officials.

In next week’s meeting, there is a procedure for dealing with tie votes. If the tie does not involve candidates with the least number of votes, it does not affect the process. If it occurs among those with the least number, the chair could decide to hold a new round between the tied candidates only.

Of WIPO’s 184 members, only 83 governments will get to cast votes as members of the Coordination Committee. The other members communicate their views individually and through WIPO’s seven regional groups, six of which are based on geographic regions and one including the world’s largest economies (and holders of the vast majority of intellectual property rights). The Coordination Committee makeup is agreed by consensus by members at the annual WIPO General Assembly. Any member that belongs to a WIPO treaty or union is eligible for the committee.

There has been unconfirmed discussion of suggested offers to countries of senior posts within WIPO if a certain candidate is elected. The director general has the authority to recommend the most senior officials to the membership, which typically accepts those nominations.

The 15 candidates are: Alicja Adamczak (Poland), Toufiq Ali (Bangladesh), Jorge Amigo Castañeda (Mexico), José Graça Aranha (Brazil), Gjorgji Filipov (Macedonia), Francis Gurry (Australia), Masood Khan (Pakistan), Enrique Manalo (Philippines), Mauro Masi (Italy), James Otieno Odek (Kenya), Philippe Petit (France), Bojan Pretnar (Slovenia), Boris Simonov (Russia), Yoshiyuki Takagi (Japan), and José Delmer Urbizo (Honduras).

The biographies of the candidates are on the WIPO website, and interviews with the candidates are on Intellectual Property Watch, www.ip-watch.org

The chair of the Coordination Committee is Hilde Skorpen of Norway.

The current members of the Coordination Committee are: Afghanistan (ad hoc), Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia (ad hoc), Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Korea, Latvia, Libya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland (ex officio), Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zambia.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Intellectual Property Watch

23 April 2008

WIPO Candidates Address Civil Society Concerns on Access, Transparency

By Kaitlin Mara


Candidates to be the next director general of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) had the opportunity to meet with civil society groups recently to discuss how WIPO’s strategies for the future might involve both more transparency and better accountability to stakeholders in environmental, social, and economic issues.

José Graça Aranha of Brazil, Francis Gurry of Australia, Masood Khan of Pakistan, James Otieno Odek of Kenya, Philippe Petit of France, Bojan Pretnar of Slovenia and Yoshiyuki Takagi of Japan took advantage of the 15 April event, where they were each given a chance to answer one of eight questions on the future of WIPO and its relationship with civil society organisations and issues. Gjorgji Filipov of Macedonia and Jorge Amigo

Castañeda of Mexico, though unable to attend, sent in written responses to the civil society questions, which are available here (Filipov, pdf) and here (Amigo, pdf).
The event followed one day after an official WIPO meeting of the candidates with member states, which was closed to the media. The selection of one candidate to be recommended to the full WIPO membership will take place on 13-15 May. The biographies of the candidates may be found on the WIPO website. Interviews with candidates conducted by Intellectual Property Watch are available here.

Candidates at the civil society event answered different questions. The following are some highlights of the discussion.

The need to have WIPO at the centre of global debates on intellectual property policy - as a focal point of IP expertise and as a platform for IP disputes - was mentioned by nearly all of the candidates. Many also spoke of the need to boost staff morale. Civil society representatives asked questions on public health and IP as well as WIPO’s ability to liaise with public interest groups and to build capacity - through the Development Agenda and through technical assistance - for beneficial IP policies in developing countries.

A More Engaged, Accountable WIPO?

Communication and integration with other IP-focused organisations as a vital activity was a major theme for the director general candidates. Moving WIPO from “isolationism to engagement” is necessary, Gurry said. Khan emphasized consensus building, developed-developing nation collaboration, and a multi-stakeholder approach, saying that WIPO’s major weakness now was in “not asserting itself as an agent of change,” capable of engaging various actors working on IP issues. Khan noted that the power of civil society should not be underestimated, that it represents the intersection of worldwide interests, and that “no one constituency has a monopoly over the writ of WIPO.”

Graça Aranha said that the next director general would have to “put the house in order,” to put WIPO “back in the centre of IP discussions.” He further said that “civil society has to participate.”

Khan and Odek highlighted accountability issues. When asked about how to better make norm-setting empirical, Khan said impact assessments should be conducted “not as an encumbrance but as a tool for decision-making” and with the required due diligence. Consulting a “wide spectrum” of stakeholders, including business, new global actors, civil society when testing norms is “not an option, it’s an imperative,” he said, adding later that it was a responsibility of WIPO to reach out when civil society organisations have new capabilities for development.

Khan called for the setting of “benchmarks, with deadlines,” for judging the next director general. One major task is coping with the “appalling degree of polarisation” in WIPO, he said, adding that if the organisation faced the “same malaise after a year” it should be considered a failure of the director general. Khan further added that if merit is not there, none of the 15 candidates should be elected.

Odek called for the setting up of an “ethics office” to deal with transparency and accountability issues. Replying to a question about his viability as a candidate from the same regional group as the outgoing Director General Kamil Idris (Sudan), Odek said “when you talk about an African not succeeding an African, you are encouraging divisive politics at an international level” and said that merit, service delivery, and integrity should be the key characteristics of the next director.

Pretnar said it is important to remember that all decisions are made by member states. Petit separately made a similar point, saying “WIPO is not here to impose solutions,” but rather to put forward “suggestions that can be debated by stakeholders and decided by member states.”

Others emphasised WIPO’s leadership role in the IP field. Graça Aranha, responding to a question on actions he would undertake to ameliorate countries’ concern over negative impact of IP rights, said that challenges to the IP system must be addressed within the “existing legal framework” and that debates over access to medicine or educational materials should take place within WIPO, as it is the UN organisation mandated and with the technical capability to handle IP issues.

Odek said that WIPO needed to be converted from a “conservative organisation” to a “proactive organisation,” that it should not be one of a pack of other international organisations but should instead “lead from the front” on IP.

WIPO in the Developing World

Several candidates discussed how to handle the new Development Agenda. Gurry said his priority recommendations for its implementation were to “reduce the knowledge gap, and the digital deficit” in developing countries. The public benefit built into the IP system - the disclosure of information – is limited in efficacy without digitisation, especially in developing countries that do not have big libraries, he said. Gurry added that scientific publications, especially in the life sciences, were becoming increasingly important to the patent system, with 20 percent of patent applications citing a science article as a source, and that these needed to be available. He then discussed a plan for putting together multidisciplinary teams to design action plans for particular countries’ IP circumstances, and mentioned the importance of translating information into languages other than French and English.

Takagi pointed out a need to “address lack of infrastructure and capacity in developing and least developed countries” and to strengthen the education system as a basis of innovation.

Odek said that WIPO must help developing nations “extract tangible benefits from the IP system” and that the director general should provide leadership in addressing traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. He added that strategies “at a grassroots level” are needed: working with national institutions to create frameworks for IP policies and strategies.
Pretnar said that it is possible to integrate the Development Agenda with the general mandate of WIPO, and that “the same IP system with which many of you [civil society organisations] aren’t happy can be used as a beneficial economic tool,” with or without exceptions. As evidence, Pretnar cited a case of India handling a patent application for a key HIV medication. Rather than trying to skirt the IP system, India found prior art on whose basis the drug patent is to be rejected at the US and EU patent offices and likely in India as well.

Pretnar further added that “we have to make a distinction between inappropriate behaviour of IP owners and whether IP itself is inappropriate,” and said if appointed director he would engage in “informal diplomacy” to handle abusive practices of IP owners.

Organisational Structure

Some candidates had thoughts on WIPO’s most important focus areas and processes. Petit cautioned that the scope of WIPO is “much, much larger” than just patents and industrial property; that the organisation was about “promoting capacities for innovation in every country.”

Takagi later wondered if recent emphasis on innovation had been too weak. Citing the surmounting of past health crises with technology breakthroughs, such as penicillin, and the facilitation of communication and knowledge building due to innovations like the internet, Takagi said more attention should be paid to stimulating “innovation and creativity to overcome global challenges.” WIPO could be a provider of information on how to make the most stimulating policies, he added.

The event was co-organised by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), the Third World Network, and a group of other civil society organisations. The event organisers said they are planning to make a webcast of the event available on CIEL’s website.

Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.