Last year the World Intellectual Property Organization adopted a set of 45 ground-breaking proposals on how WIPO should reorient its operations to foster economic and social development within its 182 Member States. The Development Agenda proposals are intended to require WIPO to take a broader approach to promoting creativity and innovation, instead of focusing exclusively on maximizing intellectual property rights.

The Development Agenda asks WIPO to analyze the benefits of a rich and accessible public domain, to protect a robust public domain when it creates new IP norms, and to deliver balanced technical assistance to its members, including information about the flexibilities and options open to Member States to protect the welfare of their citizens. The new mandate also requires WIPO to increase transparency about its work, the consultants it uses, and the information it is providing to its Member States as part of its technical assistance programs. If implemented appropriately, the 45 Development Agenda proposals could result in profound changes at WIPO and in the international community’s understanding of intellectual property regimes.

This week was the first meeting of the new WIPO committee set up to implement the Development Agenda - the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property. It has been charged with formulating a work plan to put development in the mainstream focus of WIPO’s operations and activities. Expectations were naturally high. At week’s end, what we can report is that there was only small progress on concrete aspects of a work plan, and that Member States will continue in informal open-ended discussions between now and the next meeting of the Committee in July. The text of the Chair’s Final Summary of the First Session is below.

What is more interesting and ultimately more important, is the procedure that governed this week’s discussions about how to craft a work plan to implement the Development Agenda. When the WIPO General Assembly agreed to adopt the set of 45 landmark recommendations last October, we believe the outcome it intended was the reorientation of WIPO’s institutional culture, operations and strategic vision to facilitate the economic and social development of all of its Members. That requires first, a recognition that change is required together with a commitment to do it, and second, a means to assess whether change is underway. Unfortunately, that commitment was less present in this week’s discussions.

On the first day of this week’s meeting, the WIPO secretariat circulated a a draft work plan, to fulfill one of the requirements set by the General Assembly. The document contained two parts: a Preliminary Implementation Report on the 19 proposals classed as immediately implementable, with a table listing current WIPO activities, and a Draft Implementation Plan for the other 26 proposals, listing proposals for new projects. It also distributed a second document containing suggestions submitted by the Group of Friends of Development, the Republic of Korea, and the Group of Central European and Baltic States, respectively.

Most of the first two days focused on whether government representatives should begin discussions with the subset of 19 of the 45 proposals that were classed as “immediately implementable” because they did not appear to require additional financial or human resources to implement (indicated in yellow here), or with the remaining set of 26 proposals, for which the WIPO secretariat had proposed activities that would require assessment of additional financial and human resource costs.

This seemingly benign procedural discussion actually has great significance. Discussions were focused on the list of activities proposed by the WIPO Secretariat for implementation of the group of 26 proposals. The goal: to provide the Secretariat with a list of projects for which it could produce a cost estimate. However there was no consideration of any benchmarks or timelines to permit evaluation of progress toward meeting the intent of the recommendations. This is a serious omission. Without some type of benchmarks and evaluation process, there will be no mechanism for Member States to enforce their expectations for what should come from WIPO’s commitments,

In addition, there was almost no discussion of the second list, which contains the activities currently being undertaken by WIPO in relation to the 19 “immediately actionable” proposals. There was no evaluation of whether the activities that the WIPO Secretariat is currently undertaking are in accord with the spirit and intent of the Development Agenda. This lead to the uncomfortable perception that existing WIPO activities might automatically be considered to be development-oriented, or as one Member State so aptly put it, that this committee is engaged in an elaborate process of rubber stamping WIPO’s existing activities as Development Agenda-compliant.

All of this could lead to exactly the opposite of what the adoption of the 45 Development Agenda proposals was intended to achieve. That would be a grave manipulation of the promises of reform. WIPO could end up doing more of the same type of activities, but there would be no objective way to evaluate the impact or usefulness of those activities for development, and no mechanism to hold WIPO accountable for its new commitments. Meanwhile, any proposed development-oriented activities might yet be vetoed on the grounds of cost (even though WIPO had a budget surplus last year).

Let’s hope that this is rectified with Member State input in the informal consultations that will take place in the next months, and that we see projects, timelines and evaluation criteria that clearly evidence WIPO’s commitment to change and accountability at the meeting in July.

Following is the text of the Chair’s Summary, and the NGO coalition’s notes from the first and second days of the meeting. Discussions after then were held on an informal and non-reportable basis.



First Session

Geneva, March 3 to 7, 2008

Summary by the Chair
(As adopted at 7:30 p.m. on 7 March 2008)

1. The WIPO General Assembly, in its session held in September-October 2007, reviewed the discussions during the two sessions of the Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda (PCDA) in February and June 2007, and expressed satisfaction at the consensus reached on the proposals submitted by Member States on the establishment of a Development Agenda for WIPO. The General Assembly decided to adopt the recommendations for action on the 45 agreed proposals, and to immediately implement the 19 proposals identified by the Chair of the PCDA, in consultation with Member States and the Secretariat. The General Assembly also decided to establish a Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) to:

(a) develop a work-program for implementation of the adopted recommendations;

(b) monitor, assess, discuss and report on the implementation of all recommendations adopted, and for that purpose it shall coordinate with relevant WIPO bodies; and

(c) discuss intellectual property and development related issues as agreed by the Committee, as well as those decided by the General Assembly.

2. For the first meeting of the Committee, it was agreed that the Chair of the PCDA would prepare initial working documents, including a draft work program, in consultation with Member States and the Secretariat.

3. The First Session of the CDIP was held from March 3 to 7, 2008. 100 Member States, 7 inter-governmental organizations and 30 non-governmental organizations participated in the session.

4. The CDIP unanimously elected Ambassador C. Trevor Clarke, Permanent Representative of Barbados, as Chair, and Mr. Muratbek Azymbakiev, Deputy Permanent Representative of Kyrgyzstan, and Mr. Javier Alfonso Moreno Ramos, Director of the Department of Legal Coordination and International Relations of the Spanish Patents and Trademarks Office, as Vice-Chairs.

5. The CDIP adopted the draft agenda as proposed in document CDIP/1/1 Prov.

6. The CDIP adopted the Rules of Procedure included in document CDIP/1/2, approved the representation in sessions of the Committee of the organizations referred to in paragraph 6 of the document as ad hoc observers, and noted the working arrangements for the Committee.

7. The CDIP discussed the initial working document prepared by the Chair of the PCDA, in consultation with Member States and the Secretariat, and decided to use it as a working document of the CDIP (CDIP/1/3). The delegations agreed to a methodology according to which adopted recommendations would be addressed one by one, starting with those contained in the list of 26 recommendations. After discussing all those recommendations in Cluster A, the Committee would shift its attention to Cluster A in the list of 19 recommendations for immediate implementation, prior to returning to the list of 26 recommendations to discuss Cluster B recommendations. This methodology would continue for the recommendations under the remaining clusters. [The CDIP also considered a document with suggestions submitted by the Group of Friends of Development, Korea and the Group of Central European and Baltic States.]

8. The Secretariat would introduce each adopted recommendation, highlighting the main points in the list of activities included in the working document. Subsequently, Member States, who had made written suggestions to the Chair of the PCDA, would be given the opportunity to intervene to elaborate on their submissions, after which there would be a general discussion on each adopted recommendation during which Member States may: (a) provide focused comments on the list of activities; (b) suggest modifications, where necessary; (c) consider new activities; and (d) identify points, where necessary, to seek further information from the Secretariat. The Secretariat would then provide responses to any questions or requests for clarification made by Member States. The Chair of the CDIP would summarize the discussions on each recommendation. For the list of 19 recommendations for immediate implementation, the CDIP would request the Secretariat to furnish a progress report, in line with any suggested changes and/or new activities, for the July session of the Committee. For the list of 26 recommendations, the CDIP would broadly agree that the proposed activities as suitably modified following the discussions, would be forwarded to the Secretariat to assess the human and financial resource requirements, before the July session.

9. In accordance with the above-mentioned methodology, the delegations expressed their views on the working document. It was agreed that the interventions made by Member States, while considering Agenda Item 5 ("Consideration of Work Program for Implementation of Adopted Proposals") and Agenda Item 6 ("Future Work"), would not be included in the report, unless otherwise requested by them while making the intervention.

10. The CDIP discussed adopted recommendations 2, 5, 8, 9 and 10 in the list of 26 and agreed that the proposed activities, as suitably modified following discussions, would be sent to the Secretariat to assess the human and financial resource requirements, before the July 2008 session. In addition, the CDIP reviewed and commented on activities being implemented under adopted recommendation 1 in the list of 19, suggested changes and considered new activities. It was agreed that the Secretariat would make the necessary modification and furnish a progress report on the adopted recommendations in the list of 19 for the July 2008 session of the Committee.

11. After discussions, it was decided that there was a need to continue consideration of the work program for implementation of the adopted recommendations. In order to facilitate this task, it was decided that the Chair would organize informal consultations between the first and second sessions. The consultations would cover the adopted recommendations with particular attention being paid to those recommendations with additional financial and human resource requirements to enable the Secretariat to make the necessary assessments.

12. The CDIP noted that the Draft Report of the First Session will be prepared by the Secretariat and communicated to the Permanent Missions of the Member States, and will also be made available to Member States, IGOs and NGOs, in electronic form, on the WIPO website. Comments on the Draft Report should be communicated in writing to the Secretariat within three weeks of its issue. The revised Draft Report would then be considered for adoption at the beginning of the Second Session of the CDIP.

13. The CDIP considered and noted the
contents of this Summary by the Chair.

[End of document.]

WIPO Committee for Development and Intellectual Property
First Session

Day One - March 3, 2008

Notes taken by:

Teresa Hackett, Electronic Information for Libraries [TH]

Gwen Hinze, Electronic Frontier Foundation - gwen at eff dot org [GH]

Eddan Katz, Electronic Frontier Foundation - eddan at eff dot org [EK]


[NOTE: This is not an official transcript. It's our best effort at
providing a faithful set of notes of the proceedings. Any errors and
omissions are unintentional and regretted.]

Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law)
Except where indicated in relation to specific text in the following
material, the person or persons who have associated their work with
this document (the "Dedicator") hereby dedicate the entire copyright in the work of authorship identified below (the "Work") to the public domain.
Dedicator makes this dedication for the benefit of the public at large
and to the detriment of Dedicator's heirs and successors. Dedicator
intends this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in
perpetuity of all present and future rights under copyright law, whether
vested or contingent, in the Work. Dedicator understands that such
relinquishment of all rights includes the relinquishment of all rights
to enforce (by lawsuit or otherwise) those copyrights in the Work.
Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work
may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified,
built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial
or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not
yet been invented or conceived.

Meeting opens 10.50 am

Russian Fed: nominate Trevor Clarke, Ambassador of Barbados as Chairman.

Seconded, agreed.

Trevor Clarke: I have enjoyed the full cooperation of everyone last year. Where are we? We are at the stage of developing a work programme for the development of the recommendations. We have two tasks this week:

1. Adopt rules of procedure
2. Begin work programme

Don't expect to finish work this week, but hope to make good progress for the July 2008 session of the Committee.

Decided to admit ad hoc NGOs to IIMs and PCDAs. WIPO has not yet been asked for ad hoc accreditation for this Committee but it is raised under Item 4

In order to get started, I invite your attention to the agenda. Any comments or additions?

Since this week will focus on the large number of issues under Item 5, I propose a summary by the chair instead of a draft report. The draft summary would be submitted to delegates early on Friday afternoon. The draft report to be prepared later by the Secretariat would contain all interventions and the Chairman's draft summary. Will be placed on WIPO's website, and comments should be communicated within 3 weeks. Revised draft report would be considered for adoption at next session in July 2008.

Do I have your agreement to this arrangement? Thank you. The agenda is now adopted.

I move to Item 4 Adoption of Rules of Procedure of CDIP.

I draw your attention to document entitled Procedural and Organizational Matters.

Member States are asked to do three things

1. Adopt rules of procedure contained in paragraph 4
2. Approve accreditation of ad hoc observers described in paragraph 6.
3. Note work and arrangements described in paras 8 and 9

Open floor for comments on Rules of Procedure.

We have the assistance of the legal counsel (Mr. Edward Kwakwa) in going through these ideas.

In two informal sessions with General Counsel this year have had benefit of their counsel, on that basis, I suggest that draft rules of procedure should not be considered unusual.

Clarification sought. Rule 2 entails that NGOs cannot be admitted without approval of Committee. In other words, no one can be admitted without approval of the members?

Edward Kwakwa, Legal Counsel:
Yes. Permanent NGOs would be invited automatically but no NGO would be given ad hoc observer status without agreement of the Committee.

I have a question concerning the wording of Art 1 concerning the rules of the committee. Does this mean all rules provided for in the WIPO procedure? Then in these circumstances, would it not be a good idea to discuss the attributions of the committee?

Edward Kwakwa:
The WIPO General Rules of Procedure apply to this Committee, supplemented by these two additional rules. All we have done here is to follow standard practice.


For consistency, in Rule 1 in Annex, could we put "Rules of Procedure" in "", to conform with other reference to same document in "".

I see no further requests for the floor. I see that the committee agrees with the rules of procedure and take it as agreed that rules of procedure in para 7-9 accepted.

We move to Item 5 on the agenda. May I remind participants of the decision of the WIPO GA: "For the first meeting of the committee, the present chair of the PCDA shall prepare initial docs including a draft work program. It should address inter alia...budget for future meetings.."

Accordingly I have held three meetings with the Regional Coordinators plus others, and four or five meetings with WIPO Secretariat, to prepare these initial working documents.

These initial working docs were made available outside the room this morning. One doc contains info on some activities that have been implemented or planned.
This constitutes a preliminary report on the 19 recommendations classed as immediately actionable.

The other doc contains a list of activities that should be taken up by WIPO to implement the remaining 26 proposals.

The info provided relates to nature of activity, geographical focus, and partners.

I must emphasize that no assessment has yet been done of the financial and personnel implications of these proposals. That will be done by next session of Committee in July 2008.

Member states may already be in possession of some or all of these documents.

Let me give some guidance on how I would deal with this agenda item. I am wiling to listen to comments and adjust, if need be.

I propose that we shift the meeting into informal mode when we discuss the activities.

This would facilitate the free exchange of views without having the Secretariat burdened with task of reporting what everyone said and of reporting all the details.

[GH: It also means that the NGOs - who might blog about it - will be required to leave the room]

I propose that we use my initial doc as the basis of the discussion.

It always makes sense to have one document that we can adjust as we go along, rather than three or four or six. This proposal does not preclude amendments provided orally from time to time. This is a work in progress involving several divisions of WIPO.

I hope we are clear that this is a work in progress and it requires an interaction between the members and the Secretariat. It is an iterative process and we have to find the most efficient process to proceed.

Thirdly, I would propose to conduct all meetings in this room, unless we feel that more efficient to proceed with meetings of Regional Coordinators plus two as we did last year.

My preference would be to deal with everything in the forum so that everyone can hear what is said.

Fourth, I am proposing that we address the 26 items, rather than the 19, in order to give the Secretariat maximum time to assess human and financial resource implications before July for the 26.

It is the 26 items that we need to progress more urgently so that the Secretariat can work on human and financial resource implications. So I propose working on them, and that we leave consideration of 19 items for later time.

[GH: This assumes that there is full agreement on how the 19 recommendations are being implemented - i.e. that the current WIPO activities in respect of these are all that should be done to operationalize these recommendations. That seems questionable]

Of course I won't deny you your coffee breaks at 11:30 and 4:30.

All that I have said is to encourage some efficiency. The floor is open for comments on the method of working.


On the method of work that you have just proposed, would like two clarifications:

1. Can you provide added information on our work in informal mode, and what that means for our discussions and the documents?

Specifically, what exactly do you mean by informal mode, and the discussion and documents that may be submitted to us in the course of these proceedings?

2. You suggested that we start with the 26 proposals, not the 19. Could you tell us what are the expectations and objectives to be submitted to the Committee on these two sets of proceedings? Are we changing just the order, or is this a change in the work program and expectations for the submissions? Would be helpful to understand for developing work plan in July.

Chair: The informal mode is meant to minimize or avoid. Let me start the other way around. It is intended to allow for free exchange on the issues. Sometimes members are more reluctant in their statement if there is a record of that statement.

Some times the nature of the discussions where we are moving towards consensus is divided between process and the decision. More useful to focus on the decision, and not the process for making progress.

As I said burden on Secretary to record all discussions in detail.

If you can relax the requirements for the recording and reporting, I think we can be more efficient to get to the decision on how we implement these proposals.

Just a suggestion on efficiency, in freeing members, to engage in discussion. Must note that this would mean no recording of discussion, statements, but open to having a combination of both formal and informal mode of proceeding.

I am proposing that we do it all informal. (Only) The decision of the meeting would be recorded and formal.

I spoke of two sets of docs. The doc I produced as the initial working document [on the 26 recommendations] and the report of where the Secretariat has reached on the 19 adopted proposals.

You recall that the GA approved accelerated implementation of those 19, so that document is more of a progress report. We would want to look at that report. The significance of your question is that in July there would be an enhanced version of that document.

That is a report to you. If you need to discuss it, we shall. But my recommendation is that we focus on the 26, because they require more time to assess human and financial resource implications.

So I suggest we deal with 26 first, and deal with the 19 later, and later could be in July.

[GH: So it is a done deal on how the 19 will be implemented because WIPO is already doing all that needs to be done, and NGOs are about to be asked to leave the room again?]

Will there be an official document submitted to the committee? Can my delegation submit these documents to our capital?

Important to have precise recommendation on precise document. Or are we expected to proceed ex abrupto?

How are we going to proceed then? How are we going to implement the proposals or are you going to guide us as to the results to be achieved?

The launching pad are the docs that were made available outside the room this morning under a covering letter that proposes that the initial working document should be one dealing with 26 proposals, and makes reference to the other 19.

I'm proposing that the launching pad be the official docs, the initial working docs as laid on the tables this morning that speaks to the 19 and 26 proposals.

I hope that clears up one aspect of your concern.

In terms of how we do our work, we are back to the question of formal and informal again.

I am willing to hear some other views on the formal/informal approach.

You will recall that last year when we worked in the PCDA a lot of our work was done in informal mode in small groups, upstairs, but all our decisions were taken formally in this room. So the idea of formal/ informal mode to progress matters is not new to this group.

However, let me repeat that any formal decision must be made in this room.

The decisions that we are required to start making this week, are having assessed the work items as proposed in this document, that we agree that these are the activities that can be, and way that these proposals should be, implemented.

We are interested in working on implementation of 45 proposals agreed. Can be flexible on order, starting with 26, but would like opportunity to provide comments, and hear from all Member States on implementation of 19 proposals.

The problem that we have on the template and proposed working plan is that we don't understand the difference between the 19 and the 26, from the General Assembly decision.

Chair: In a sense there is no difference between the 19 and 26. So long as they add up to 45. There is a difference however in that these 19 move forward rapidly as there is not a lot of work required by the Secretariat. We separated the 19 out of the 45 because they did not require additional human and financial resource implications I hope I haven't suggested that the 19 are forgotten.

I am suggesting that we work on 26 first, and that working document on 19 is more a progress report. In July a progress report would be more precise and fuller, but that does not mean that we should not in the meantime, look at any of the issues you want to discuss on the 19.

I will at every opportunity make the point that the 26 do not take higher priority than the 19.

US: on behalf of Group B.

We would like to ask a couple of questions with respect to the work plan.

We see where you are coming from and appreciate that we are working within mandate of GA to accelerate implementation.

We have a question about comments pertaining to the 19 that were deemed susceptible to implementation.

As Argentina noted, there are comments from a number of Member States on the 19 proposals. May be more useful for Secretariat to hear those now, rather than in July, particularly as those proposals are already being implemented.

For practical purposes, if these proposals are already being implemented, it would be useful to hear about them now.

Do you propose going through proposals one by one, or by clusters?


I do intend proposing that we go through the proposals one by one, but I am open to any comments on what be more efficient. Whatever will achieve full participation and good results, and efficiency.

Would not want to come to second session in July and feel that we had not progressed far enough. I was asked this morning if we proceed item by item, and get to 10th, can we go back and consider issue on earlier item?

Always two views on this. We are dealing with a package of items that have impacts on and interactions with other proposals. Willing to entertain going back where necessary and avoid doing so if not necessary.

Also, practical considerations, there are several different divisions of WIPO involved, and would not want to burden them, ensure opportunity for which staff from which divisions need to be drawn in. To facilitate planning for that, I am proposing that we do it item by item.

Let us say that we will provide some time to do the 19 proposals this week. I did not mean to imply only in July. I would love to see some progress on the 26 proposals.


Would like to acknowledge extensive work done by Secretariat for this meeting, reflected in matrix of proposals with detailed comments alongside.

To address the issue raised by Argentina, very important for my delegation. Willing to be flexible about work, but not to the extent where it starts to prejudge or change the nature of the decision of the General Assembly. Even though GA decision divided the proposals, it was not intended that the 19 proposals would not be discussed in this committee.

My delegation understands that the work program addresses all 45 recommendations.

The 19 are relevant for the 26. I can understand that what defines the 26 is that the Secretariat may feel that there may be additional financial and human resource implications, but there cannot be substantive differences between two sets of proposals.

In 19 there are proposals that we would want to cross reference in discussion of the 26.

This cross-reference needs to be done and we have made some suggestions [in the matrix in the document submitted by the Group of Friends of Development, circulated this morning] But if we start to make a strict sub-division, we keep the two sets of proposals apart. This is not what we intended.

The 19 should affect all WIPO work.

This cross-referencing is an essential part of the interventions of Brazil for this meeting. I want to be able to make sure I can make interventions on 26 that cross-reference 19 without being and I do not want to be challenged by another delegation that we can only discuss the 19 proposals in July.

Chair: I have no difficulty in discussing the 19 or if we spend the whole week discussing the 19 but God help us when we come to July and we still have 26 proposals to discuss.

The cross referencing may be suggesting we deal with 45 proposals all at one time. But problem magnifies itself. I think we need to focus on proposal by proposal, even if there are cross-references to other proposals.

But if in addressing proposal 2, there is need to cross reference to proposal 45, then that is fine so long as agree that we have to address one item at a time. Otherwise difficult to assess progress and to complete our work by July.

Am willing to consider hearing comments on how to work in smaller groups. Perhaps Brazil could come back with suggestions on that.

I have broken my first promise on having a coffee break at 11:30. If we can clear issues requiring Legal Counsel we can then break for 15 minutes.

Edward Kwakwa:

I would like to draw your attention to procedural and organizational matters CDIP/1/2

This is on procedural and organizational matters. Don't mean to reopen question of procedures, but just to address comment previously made, has been brought to my attention that the French, Spanish and other language versions may not be the same as the English text that we have.

The Secretariat will replace one phrase to synchronize the language versions with the English. (by replacing with "est. constitute par")



Recommends proceeding cluster by cluster.


We are fine with the item by item approach but would like Secretariat to provide more info in matrix in document circulated - an explanation, description, intended effect and evaluation for each item. Perhaps could be included in revised matrix for next meeting. There has not been enough time to consider the material provided.

Chile (as RC on behalf of GRULAC):

We congratulate the chair. Thank you for complete documentation you have prepared.

On behalf of Chile:

We would like to discuss the 19 recommendations this week.

At some time, perhaps devote one day to this during this session.

We decided that we would not give priority to one set of proposals and we do not believe that one set should fall to the Secretariat. Our idea is that Secretariat should have only made suggestions for 19, since some of them are declarations of principles.

Would like to have one day to discuss these 19 proposals and revise document before July to incorporate comments from that discussion.


We could use a combination of what is recommended by the delegation of India; take a cluster by cluster proposal. The 45 proposals have equal weighting, in other words, there are no proposals that are more important than others.

So one solution would be to suggest to room that we start with the 26 proposals, considering that the other 19 proposals also have to be considered, the only way to do this is by consideration as clusters.

We would be losing a lot of time if we look at 19 then 26. We go through each proposal. The fact of going through the proposals by cluster would allow us to do this quickly. In terms of order, I suggest that we start with the 26 proposals first.

Romania on behalf of CEE and BS:

Any beginning brings with it new challenges. Determinant element of CIPD is for whole group to accept basis and guiding principles of committee.

The fundamental goal of this committee is to strengthen the development dimension by addressing link between IP and development while strongly supporting the mission and role of WIPO as a specialized agency of the UN.

In relation to the work programme, we think that agreement on the 26 recommendations will be first substantive work of committee. Have submitted comments to Chair. Look forward to discussion.

In my national capacity, we agree to start with 26 proposals but we are flexible to start with the 19 proposals.

Chair: Let me express hope that next interventions will be focused on procedure. Have proposed a solution and have had enough input on suggestion.

We have had a long time to prepare for this Committee, Perhaps would have been more useful to have time divided up. Those 19 that have been prepared by Secretariat could be started first.

If we had received these documents in advance of the meeting, things would have been easier. But since that wasn't the case, I think we need to review the 19 proposals, and then move on to the 26 proposals.


Thanks delegations who have made comments on 19 proposals, but that doesn't prevent us from considering the 19 proposals because have had opportunity to provide comments. So support suggestion of delegation of India, supported by Mexico, to go cluster by cluster.

Chair: We end on a good note, we go cluster by cluster.

We don't need to distinguish between two groups of proposals, other than to cross-reference, so that Secretariat can get input for preparation of its work.

Chair: There are a number of ambassadors in the room who would like to make opening statements. Let's start with Regional Coordinators, then IGOs then NGOs

Algeria: obo African Group:

Believes that implementation phase is as, if not more, important than negotiation phase.

Implementation should serve to strengthen institutional capacities, and scientific information.

Needs to take account of interests of developed and developing countries. could serve as catalyst for process of develt in countries concerned.

Such a system would promote research and technology transfer

In view of the multiple implications of IP, first, we should have national strategies for IP and strengthen communication between national IP offices and universities and institutions.

The African Group would ask second of all with regard to assistance in legislation, while expressing satisfaction with the cooperation with WIPO, African countries should be able to benefit fully from WIPO in the review of IP laws. Developing countries should be able to benefit from the flexibilities in the TRIPs agreement, when at same level of development.

All systems should include rules that respect national policies of each country in order to make up legal gaps in anti-trust practices.

Third of all, African group would like to ask for better use of tools, such as
TM, GI, GR, for local tools for export

Finally, the AG proposes the following actions:

1. Provide support to R&D centres for the protection and marketing of research results
2. Capacity building in terms of technology transfer. Research centres and SMEs should have access to databases for patent searches.

3. Partnerships between universities and research centres

Traditional medicine.

We are pleased that the sector of cap building and tech assis is included in the 19 proposals.

Would launch appeal for financial and human resources to be increased to provide for effective implementation

The role currently played by the secretariat in regards to activities of implementation of the development agenda deserves consideration. This group underscores the need to strengthen the structures of the secretariat.

Singapore (obo Asia Group):

The importance of the Development Agenda is clear from the intense negotiations over last few years

Establishment of CDIP offers a significant opportunity to extend the development agenda to all aspects of WIPO's work.

We welcome the proposals that have been submitted.

As gp of DCs Asia Gp is invested in success of DA. If CIPD functions as intended, we will be able to make important strides in the DA.

Chair: Argentina, I am sorry, I am advised that according to original plan, we must allow the Regional Coordinators to speak first

US obo Group B:
On behalf of group B. thanks secretariat for hard work in preparing documents.

Develt is one of most important challenges facing world today.
Can bring important and meaningful benefits for all. We welcome the establishment of the CDIP to monitor and discuss.

Gp B looks forward to participating cooperatively and constructively in developing work plan for implementation of 45 proposals.


We were happy to see that progress made during 4 PCDAs

Not only has a permanent body been created, but also it has penetrated the rest of WIPO's activity.

Congratulation on establishment of CIPD and hope t that the establishment of the committee will help in the implementation of the 45 proposals.

Throughout past meeting on Development Agenda noted the relationship between IP and Development. Discussions are developing in depth.

Needless to say that dvet is most important problem facing DCs and international community. UN institutions most look for solutions. Only by promoting develt through innovation can progress.

IPR system, by protecting inventions and technical innovations. It has liberated the creativity of the people and set up endless motivation.

The effect of knowledge on development is increasingly important

At the same time, taking into account the level of development of countries,
Balanced approaches that take into account interest of both sides,
Ensuring the comprehensive implementation of the development goals and adequate policy space is a question to be taken seriously by WIPO and this committee.

One should not ignore the varied conditions and level of development of a country.
Protection of rightsholder should be in balance with public inertest. And protection of innovation should be in unison with idea of technology transfer.

As a developing country, China attaches great importance to IP and development.
Has had experience with IPR benefiting its social and eco devlt. Should leave more space for IPR domestic policy to enable harmonious devlt.

Hope that MS will make continuing efforts at inclusive and cooperative efforts

WIPO, being a specialized agency in IP, is duty-bound to help development in countries and contribute to a harmonious world.

My delegation is happy to see the attitude of openness and inclusiveness and we hope that all MS will make joint efforts and seek common denominator. We are committed to a constructive attitude and will actively take part in the development agenda.

TC: It is 13.07 and I must apologies to the interpreters.

Lunch break

Adjourn now, resumption at 3pm. Argentina, followed by Slovenia.

Slovenia: EU coordination meeting at 2.15pm
US (Group B): coordination meeting at 1.45pm


3:25 am


Agree with Africa Group, Believe that implementation stage is as important as negotiation phase.

Want to see DA mainstreamed into specific WIPO Committees. Have contributed issues paper with suggested implementation proposals.

Believe that two meetings not sufficient time to consider issues.

Budgetary issues.



6 points:

1. Implementation is culmination of 4 yrs hard work. Must move us closer to more equitable and fairer IP

2. Two sides to the coin. Provide adequate IP protection. Public policy concerns equally impt. IP not just tool for protection for innovation but tool for creating level playing field for all nations

3. Process both for GVA and national IP strategies. Having an IP strategy would be v helpful. Call on D'd Countries for helping hand with this

4. The docs presented by Sec serve as basis of work plan devlt

5. Issues we are interested in are A2K and T, GR, TK. and TT. WIPO has responded promptly to TA requests. WIPO DA goes beyond this, must bring together all stakeholders in implementation.

6. IP now a cross cutting issue being discussed at WTO, UNCTAD, WHO etc. Pay close attention to discussions to create policy coherence. Issues require global partnership, foster trust, to achieve mutual goals.


Allows us to have fairer IP system. Protect IP rights and protect our people.

We support the statements made by the African Group and FOD and we confirm our desire to cooperate in a constructive manner. I would like to thank the Secretariat for having organized the work of the committee.

South Africa:

The DA is a cross-cutting process and is part of the process leading the reform of international IP system, with expectation that balance in IP system will emerge over time.

Understand that the Secretariat is already undertaking some of the activities identified since DA process started. Most embodied in 19 recommendation. Need to reorientate and refocus those activities to maximize their development impact

On the reform of technical assistance and capacity building programs, we expect that development considerations would continue to be mainstreamed in technical assistance and capacity building programs. The design, delivery and evaluation of assistance and capacity building programs needs to be premised on specific principles.

Three part framework:
1. There would be an agreed general framework to guide the design, delivery and evaluation of activities in this area. A clear framework established by WIPO Member States would provide important platform, against which recipient countries, donor countries, academic researchers, the media, civil society, industry and other stakeholders would constructively critique and evaluate WIPO activities

2.Enhanced transparency would lead to improved accountability in terms of efficiency in resource allocation and utilization.

3. This framework could help recipient MS to better structure their Tech ass requests to WIPO. Would help increase the ownership of recipient Member States in design, delivery and evaluation phases of programs.

Norm-setting means that mandatory pre-negotiation procedures would afford opportunity for more robust debate to clarify objectives, scope and content of proposed treaties than before. While may take longer before treaty formulation can begin, would reduce incidences of breakdown in treaty making negotiations after many years.

These principles likely to play important role in increasing transparency of WIPO treaty-making as well as general accountability leading to strengthening of WIPO and improvement of legitimacy, to benefit of WIPO Member States and other stakeholders.

On tech transfer, several measures could be explored by developed countries:

- Developed countries could consider incentives to firms transferring technologies to DCs of same type used in developed countries for firms that transfer technologies to less developed regions in a country

- Incentives to encourage enterprises to train scientific, engineering and management graduates from DCs, to allow their knowledge to be used for development of technology. Would have beneficial impact on promotion of devlt through multiplier effect.

Encouraging that evaluation and impact assessment framework for WIPO activities would emerge through DA. WIPO would be expected to develop an annual review and evaluation mechanism to assess development orientation of all programs and activities, including technical assistance and capacity building. Review would contain specific benchmarks and indicators. WIPO's capacity to perform objective assessment of impact of its activities on development would need to be strengthened.

Poland (obo CEE and Baltic States):

Switzerland: We have before us the difficult task of implementing the 45 recommendations. We have two documents that contain a lot of proposals. We will limit ourselves to general comments today. WIPO must continue to make its valuable contribution to IP; it is not an end in itself but a means to strengthen devlt.

However, WIPO's resources are not unlimited. One essential element is missing from WIPO Sec's matrix- the budget. Future plan must indicate who is responsible for implementation and timelines. It would be useful to supplement the docs with an annex. Would be useful to know this before embarking on new work plan.
Need ongoing spirit of cooperation.


Would like to continue to take active role in this new committee.

I will make general observations.

In connection with IP and development which will give positive opportunities to sustain economic growth. IP is an asset.

Japan is convinced that IP has a capacity to serve as a tool for economic growth and we think it is important for a country, esp a developing country, to utilize IP rights for profits and then investing for the next innovation.

1. Innovation
2. Protection
3. Utilization cycle to create a national brand

We believe that Japan can make a constructive contribution to such a cycle.
Japan contributes 2.5 CHF every year to WIPO, the largest contributor of a member state, about 3,000 people so far. Planning to increase its contribution to WIPO. Hope that this will allow for actions to be taken under this committee.

Existing programs should be used efficiently and effectively.

We hope that this discussion will produce fruitful results.


Establishment of this committee is important step to deal with fundamental rights of DC's, and facilitating TT related to industrial property to DCs in order to accelerate economic and social devlt

Yemen: We congratulate the chair and we support the 45 proposals.

US (in own right):

Thank you to WIPO Secretariat for producing documents on 19 and 26 proposals.

These documents which provide rich detail on the extensive WIPO programmes will prove to be an invaluable resource for the committee.

Over the last three years, the US has been actively and constructively engaged in the discussion of WIPO's role in development.

It is important to keep in mind certain fundamental principles that could serve as a useful guide to this committee.

1. Implementation of the proposals must be done in a manner fully consistent with WIPO's mandate and with the specific mandate given to this Committee by the 2007 WIPO General Assembly.

2. The committee must take care to implement all the adopted proposals in way that is fully consistent with WIPO's regular budgetary procedures with special attention paid to those proposals, which may involve additional financial or human resource requirements needed to implement those proposals.

To that end, we look forward to receiving that additional data on financial and human resource implications from the Secretariat.

The Work Plan cannot be completed until we receive that data.

3. As the chairman suggested, as we read the preliminary working docs for this committee, the work before this committee is great. Therefore it is important to establish priorities as it advances in its challenging work with the long-term goal of bring the full benefits of the IP system to every corner of the globe.




Looking forward to working constructively with Chair, Secretariat

Australia has always been a strong supporter of WIPO DA and has from own resources supported technical assistance in Asia Pacific region.

Has had success in working in partnership with WIPO in provision of tech assistance.

Looking forward to developing work plan and mechanism for effectively overseeing and evaluating its implementation, including establishment of appropriate budget.


We look forward to substantive discussions.

United Kingdom:

The UK supports the statements of Slovenia on behalf of the EU and the US on behalf of Group B.

UK has participated constructively in past PCDA discussions and remains committed to the future process. It is vital that the work plan contains as much relevant information as possible.

Should also include inter alia:

-Connections between the work plan
-Expected outcomes
-Forecast of human and financial resources

Means of evaluation
Means of review
Timeframe for delivery, evaluation and review

Looks forward to entering into discussions with Member States to find ways in which the requirements can be met.

The successful completion of the provisional committee reflects the trend of the WIPO


Want to raise that WIPO DA is a point of divergence for history of WIPO as UN specialized agency.

Brazil will continue to be constructive through faithfully elaborated work plan that reflects far reaching agreements made in process of negotiation.

4:30 Break

5:00 restart

Special Commissioner has expressed concern about impact of IP on HR.

Suggests Committee should consider use of Human Rights Impact Assessments in implementation of this recommendation.

African Union:

Implementation is even more important than negotiations.
We are trying to examine all problems so that we can protect the objectives of the WIPO. To ensure a mutually beneficial partnership.


Library Copyright Alliance (LCA):

The LCA represents the interests of 5 major library associations.

Encourage member states to consider that growth of knowledge is the key to development. Work should encourage broadest possible dissemination of knowledge in societies. WIPO Technical assistance should include local libraries and capacity building. Balanced approach to IP protection. Supporting robust public domain, exceptions & limitations. Access to Knowledge and Technology.


Mr Chairman, may I first congratulate you on your election and I wish
you success in steering the work of this new Committee.

Electronic Information for Libraries is an international foundation that
enables access to knowledge by library users in developing and
transition countries by negotiating fair licences with commercial
publishers for electronic resources, supporting the development of
strong national library consortia, building capacity in copyright issues
and sharing knowledge on alternative models, such as open access
publishing and open source software for libraries.

We welcome the adoption of the 45 agreed proposals at the General
Assembly in 2007 which, we believe, heralds an era of new dialogue on
the relationship between intellectual property and development. We
welcome the establishment of this Committee to develop a work programme
for the implementation of the adopted recommendations and to monitor and
report on progress. We are grateful for the opportunity to contribute to
the work of the committee; we believe that NGOs have demonstrated that
we can provide a positive contribution to the discussions through our
practical experience and specialist knowledge.

We agree with the comments of the distinguished delegates of Brazil,
Chile and South Africa with regard to the 19 proposals for immediate
implementation. We believe that the proposals may warrant further
scrutiny during this week.

For example, in proposal number one, that technical assistance shall be
development-oriented and demand driven, it is important that planned
activities reflect the purpose and spirit of the Development Agenda. For
example, we believe that seminars in the copyright field should
represent the interests of all stakeholders including libraries and the
public interest. Regional and national programmes should give equal
weight to flexibilities such as exceptions and limitations, and the
value of the public domain.

We support recommendations 8 and 9 to take into account the priorities
and special needs of developing countries in WIPO’s technical assistance
programme and to make available advice on the understanding and use of
flexibilities contained in the TRIPS agreement.

If, for example, an LDC deems it a priority is to increase the number of
trained doctors and nurses in order to achieve its Millenium Development
Goals to reduce child mortality and to combat HIV/AIDS and malaria, it
might wish to boost its education and training sector. One strand of
this policy might be to ensure that there are appropriate and adequate
exceptions and limitations in national copyright law to support
education and libraries, upon which students in developing countries and
LDCs entirely depend for their learning materials.

We would be glad to provide expertise, through the technical assistance
programme and in accordance with the principle of transparency in
recommendation four, on any priorities within our competence that a
Member State may have e.g. ensuring access to knowledge when copyright
laws are being updated for the digital environment; ensuring that
adequate provisions are in place to facilitate major national projects,
such as digitizing national cultural heritage.

Mr. Chairman, we have been following the discussions for the last three
years. Our members in 50 developing and transition countries are
heartened by the progress made thus far, and we look forward to a
fruitful discussion and to making a positive contribution to the work of
this committee.

Thank you, Mr Chairman



March 3-7, 2008

Mr. Chair, congratulations on your election.

I speak on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and its 12,000 individual members.

EFF commends Member States for their hard work over the last three years and the spirit of cooperation that has led us this far. This week’s discussion of how to implement the 45 recommendations is being closely followed by a diverse community outside Geneva because crafting balanced IP rules that serve the needs of all the world’s citizens is a matter of global importance.

EFF has participated in all of the Development Agenda meetings. Today we wish to comment on four sets of recommendations that impact WIPO’s activities. In the interests of time, we will address all sets of proposals together.

First, we support the recommendations for WIPO to promote norm-setting that is protective of a robust public domain, and which deepens the analysis of the implications and benefits of a rich and accessible public domain [Recommendation B16]. A rich and robust public domain is both a source of creativity for future literary and artistic endeavour, and the essential foundation for education, scientific knowledge and innovation. We also support recommendations for norm-setting to safeguard Member States’ national sovereignty in the area of exceptions and limitations appropriate for countries’ level of development and public policy priorities, and take into account potential flexibilities in international IP agreements [Recommendations B20, B17, B22].

WIPO can play a key role here by:
- producing guides for Member States on how they can protect the public domain and existing copyright exceptions and limitations against encroachment by overbroad legal protection for rightsholders’ technological measures;
- providing information about mechanisms to make public domain works readily identifiable, and
- by conducting a survey of the different types of approaches taken by Member States to facilitate access to, and effective use of orphaned copyrighted works.

In addition, WIPO could provide Member States with information about the benefits for innovation, education and scientific research of promoting Open and Public Access policies, such as that adopted in January 2008 by the U.S. National Institutes of Health which requires publicly funded scientific research to be deposited in the online PubMed Central public repository, to promote access to, and encourage building upon existing research. WIPO could undertake a study of the various Public Access policies being considered in the US, Europe, Australia and Canada, to assist Member States to identify how they can best use public investment in scientific research to promote innovation.

Second, we support the call for WIPO to initiate discussions on how to facilitate access to knowledge and technology for developing countries and LDCs to foster creativity and innovation and to facilitate IP-related aspects of ICT for growth and economic, social and cultural development [Recommendations B19 and B27]. Access to knowledge requires access to new innovative ICTs that promote open knowledge sharing such as robust content hosting platforms, Internet search engines, collaborative tools such as wikis used to create the online global encyclopedia Wikipedia and robust mobile content delivery devices. It is essential that national and international copyright laws provide an environment that is conducive to technology innovation and human development. This requires mandatory exceptions and limitations to copyright rights, analysis of the impact of overbroad TPM regimes on technology innovation, and tailored limitations on liability for ICT developers and network intermediaries. This is crucial both for students, universities and libraries, which must rely on the Internet and ICTs to make effective use of national copyright law exceptions and for the creation of innovative technologies that offer new opportunities for distance education, capacity building and development.

We recommend that WIPO convenes an Open Forum with representatives from the technology industry, educational, and ICT for Development communities to analyze current IP-related obstacles to technology innovation, infrastructure growth and use of ICTs consistent with the development goals of the UN system and bridging the development divide [Recommendations B22 and C24].

Third, we welcome the recommendations for use of evidence-based studies for norm-setting and policy development [Recommendation D35] and strengthening WIPO’s capacity to perform objective assessments of the impact of its activities. [Recommendations D38, D33]. Given the controversy surrounding legally-enforced TPMs for broadcasters in the recent discussions in the SCCR, we believe that all parties would benefit from an independent assessment of the economic and social costs of implementing such new obligations.

Finally we support the adoption of concrete measures to ensure transparency in WIPO’s technical assistance and norm-setting activities [A5]. We are aware that WIPO’s technical assistance program utilizes a model copyright law that currently has a number of deficiencies, particularly in relation to technological protection measures. The WIPO model copyright law is no longer available for review on WIPO’s website. As part of the commitment to transparency embodied in recommendation A5, we expect that the WIPO model copyright law, and working documents containing interpretations of the flexibilities that exist under TRIPs , will be made available on the general access section of the Technical Assistance website described in the Secretariat’s matrix. We firmly believe that allowing public evaluation of non country-specific technical assistance documents will strengthen WIPO’s capacity to meet the needs of all its Member States, and lead to creation of balanced intellectual property laws that facilitate development for all the world’s citizens.

Thank you for your consideration.?

Gwen Hinze
International Policy Director


We would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election.

The adoption of 45 proposals covering a wide range of areas in WIPO shows that much work needs to be done to orientate WIPO towards a pro-development approach.

I am going to focus my statement to the cluster of technical assistance and norm setting.

Proposal one mentions that technical assistance will take into account the priorities and the special needs of developing countries especially the LDCs.

It would be useful to know what kind of methodology or tools are used to identify needs and priorities. There is currently very little information on this.

What we do know is that WIPO when providing legislative assistance has been proposing about 8 laws on different categories of IP, patents, trademarks, unfair competition, lay-out designs and others, all bundled up into one Act. This is not only to developing but also to least developed countries although LDC have the flexibility at least until 2013 to implement TRIPS.

The approach taken by WIPO would be fine for countries where there is some capacity but from our experience many developing countries have much difficulty in assessing the development complexities of IP legislation, what more of 8 separate pieces of legislation bundled into one Act.

This approach, does not in our view respond to specific needs and development priorities.

Thus there is a need for more information and certainty as to how proposal 1 would be implemented.

Second issue is transparency in provision of technical assistance. In this regard I would like to make two proposals

-- templates/precedents used as a basis for providing legislative assistance to developing and least developed countries should be made available on WIPO's website. We have found that several of the precedents used by WIPO to provide legislative assistance contain provisions that go beyond the TRIPS Agreement and could amongst other things hinder access to medicines.

--Full information such as the agenda, names of speakers, participants lists, documents distributed, outcomes of all the events where WIPO is the organizer or co-organiser or sponsor should be made publicly available on the website as soon as possible.

Currently there is very little information available online pertaining to the numerous national, regional and other events organized by WIPO.

In the area of norm setting

We are supportive of the Friends of Development suggestion to incorporate recommendations, 15, 16, 17, 21 and 22 as an annex in the rules of procedure of SCT, SCP, IGC and SCCR.

We also think that the DA presents opportunities for WIPO to explore areas such as open collaborative projects and access to knowledge

Thank you.



KEI Statement to the WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual
Property (CDIP)

March 3, 2008

Thank you Ambassador. As this is the first time Knowledge Ecology
International is taking the floor, please let me congratulate you upon
your election to the chair. Today everyone agrees that the WIPO
mission is not simply about expanding intellectual property rights.
Topics such as access to knowledge, the implications and benefits of a
rich and accessible public domain, and strategies for dealing with
abuses of rights, or other measures to protect the public interest,
are part of the agenda. So too will be thoughtful evaluation of new
methods of supporting creativity and invention, including those that
rely upon openness, sequential innovation, and collaboration.

With respect to recommendation 19 on access to knowledge, we welcome
the Friends of Development suggestion to “organize an open forum for
discussion” inviting relevant international organizations and non-
governmental organizations. Innovation and development are predicated
upon access to knowledge. The original Friends of Development proposal
in 2004 called for an “elaboration of a treaty access to knowledge and
technology”. We believe an open forum would be a welcome first step.
Additional measures should include discussions within the SCCR, SCP
and CDIP, of the possible areas where global norms on access to
knowledge would be appropriate and consistent with the mission of
WIPO. Next week the SCCR will be looking at the topic of limitations
and exceptions in the field of copyright, and the conversation about a
potential treaty on access to knowledge and technology should benefit
from this important discussion. For example, it may be interesting for
WIPO to consider global norms to facilitate access to orphaned
copyrighted works, or to facilitate the development of cross-border
services for the visually impaired, or for distance education, three
areas where the SCCR could do substantive work.

We welcome the adoption of recommendation 36 which calls upon WIPO to
“exchange experiences on open collaborative projects such as the Human
Genome Project as well as on IP models” particularly in view of the
letter (7 July 2003) from academics, civil society and the private
sector to WIPO requesting the organization to convene a meeting on
open and collaborative projects.

We hope that WIPO creates a forum on the control of anticompetitive
practices in both the patent and copyright fields, and considered also
problems of implementing Article 40 of the TRIPS agreement.

Much of the development agenda discussions concern the issue of impact
assessments. KEI recommends that the WIPO Secretariat survey member
states on the systems they now use to undertake impact assessments and
economic analysis in the area of intellectual property legal norms and
practices. Our suggestion is that WIPO create an economics bureau that
can respond to research requests from member states. The member states
should frame the research questions, and the responses from the
economic bureau should be objective, and subject to peer review.

Thank you for your consideration.


International Federation of Film Producers Association

Associates itself with coalition statement of 13 creative industries, available outside.
As eg of creative industries' capacity building and tech and final cooperation will be screening special showing of Film "El Bano del Papa" - joint Uruguay/ Peru/ Brazil/ French production team tomorrow night.



Discussion about how discussion will proceed tomorrow. Cluster A involves 14 rec. May be chaotic. Proposes instead that do it by cluster but alternate between group of 26 and group of 19. ie A proposal in group of 26 and then A proposal in group of 19, then A proposal from group of 26 etc. But welcome to cross-reference between groups' proposals.

Will then ask three groups who have presented inputs (GFoD, Korea, CEBS) to present their input. Can cross ref to other proposals (in 26 or 19) or in WIPO's matrix.

Once done for 26, then do one from the 19 group.

In each case, you are free to cross-reference where you see a connection.

Then we will open for input from members generally and discussions as you see appropriate. When we have exhausted that, and the Sec will make notes as to where adjustments need to be made, they will also make notes for questions for the other divisions. These gentlemen cannot answer all the questions, they have to refer to other experts.

I hope that we can have at least your initial approval of each adopted proposal as we discuss to minimise having to come back to issues.

I will not say that agreement is sealed and that we cannot ever come to a proposal but I would discourage you from doing that.

As confusing as that sounds, I hope that it gives some indication of how we can address these issues tomorrow.

One other approach, if necessary, we will move to committees. Issue raised by Brazil and other MS. If we think this process is not moving to a productive result, as we did in the PCDA, and one group not coming together, we will move to committees, as we did in the PCDA.

Any comments on how we can try to do this work tomorrow?

Slovenia (obo EU): Provides an excellent basis for our discussion this week. The EU is concerned however that it may not be possible to draw hard conclusion on given items before us. You referred to the word "finalize" in step 5 of your approach. There has not been time enough for us to engage in consultation with our members.

There seems to be insufficient detail in the material before us. For example, the GA decision calls for a draft work programme that include budget detail. Thus your approach is productive and workable but it is directed more towards creating a draft work programme, and that would be considered a draft work program distributed to MS in good time before the next meeting.

In addition EC and MS wants to make clear prior to beginning our discussion tomorrow, CIPD mandate under (b) is to produced Work Plan that is intended for submission to the GA.


We are not elaborating a draft program but foundations of a work programme that will be basis for our work.

Agenda item six refers to future work. In our previous intervention, we pointed out that this meeting is a historic landmark.

We cannot in 4 days, try to complete our program but we don't want it to be a draft program. We believe that what we are building is a plan that also includes method of work.

It would be more appropriate to say that we are complying with agenda item six
Under agenda 5 we will have the opportunity to see how the work progresses.


Last time I asked someone else to sort out the messy bits and I came in and closed the deal. Now I have to sort out the messy bits.

I admit that this is messy.
I am prepared to start something. If it doesn't work efficiently and effectively, then we change it, that is the sensible thing to do.

We want to do some work informally between March and July.

The question about the human and financial resources, early in my intervention this morning, I indicated that this Secretariat has to work with other Secretariats in other Divisions within this bldg and also with all of you.

We're going to build this work on an interactive basis. A lot of what you see in the docs have not yet benefited from substantive inputs from you. We are starting tomorrow to deal with basic inputs.

Based on those inputs, the Secretariat will make adjustments as necessary.

Maybe I should not have said that we should reach agreement on each proposal.

But I did say that if we have to come back to it, we will. We will work on the basis of "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."

But we need to see progress.

Mexico is right that this is a component of the work program. I am not very concerned with words, but I know that for some people, words are everything. Whether we agree that this exercise is creating a draft or a final program, then I am happy. We know what we agreed. This Secretariat needs to work with other Secretariats and you.

I think that Mexico is right, that for some of this stuff we need to return to the GA for approval.

If exceeds current budget allocation, may have to revisit in July when have more data on Secretariat's human and financial resources to implement.

Now I just want to be clear that on what we said this morning - deal with 26 and 19 together, and chaotic to deal with 14 proposals in cluster A, we will deal with one from one group and one from next. Then give GFoD, Korea, CEBS opportunity to provide input.

Then we open the floor to the rest of the membership to get questions, and get relevant Secretariat in the room to answer questions.

Chair: It's 6:04 pm. Please be very quick.

India: Going through the last recommendations of the GA is to immediately implement. If the mandate of the committee is to monitor and oversee, the mandate implies that we discuss the contours of the proposal

Once we have the scope, contours of program, then we see what financial and human resources required to implement it, and go back to General Assembly if needed to supplement resources.

To my mind, it is expected for us to discuss and finalize the proposals before us. Once we have that, the Secretariat can look at the financial and human implications. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to agree the proposed activities.

If we divide into committees, we'll then discuss them. What I am saying is that we have these basic proposals before us.

Algeria on behalf of the African Group: There are a few things that are not clear to me. I think we have a very clear mandate from the GA.

Trust where you are leading us. There is no way to prefer which way to do this.

I'm waiting for us to get into the exercise to see how things will develop.

Think that on well-defined proposal it is not going to be possible to have discussion and come to conclusion. We may work on the 45 proposals for 4 or 5 years. We are going to agree on the activities and may want to add some.

We are now going to consider 19 in one, and 26 one by one.

This was all clear to me at outset, but after different interventions, not so.

Slovenia on behalf of European Community:

If I understand the intervention of Algeria, we could move with understanding that instead of word "agreement" we agree to use instead closure of discussion on that issue.

There seems to be some disagreement on what has to go back to the GA. I would like to clarify that before we get into the substantive discussions.

Chair: Let us conclude in the morning. I am sorry that we have to stop this discussion now. I apologize to the interpreters for running 15 minutes over time and hope that we can get to resolution fairly quickly and move to substance. Those who are here early tomorrow morning, we can talk, and hope that level of understanding and agreement has moved by our morning session.

Meeting announcements:

Africa Gp: 9am in Room B
Russian Fed - ECEC - 9:30 coord
Grp B 9:30
EU coord at 9
Asia Gp: 9:30

End 6:16 Adjourned until 10 am on March 4, 2008

WIPO Committee for Development and Intellectual Property
First Session

Day 2, 4 March 2008

Notes taken by:

Teresa Hackett, Electronic Information for Libraries [TH]

Gwen Hinze, Electronic Frontier Foundation - gwen at eff dot org [GH]


[NOTE: This is not an official transcript. It's our best effort at
providing a faithful set of notes of the proceedings. Any errors and
omissions are unintentional and regretted.]

Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law)
Except where indicated in relation to specific text in the following
material, the person or persons who have associated their work with
this document (the "Dedicator") hereby dedicate the entire copyright in the work of authorship identified below (the "Work") to the public domain.
Dedicator makes this dedication for the benefit of the public at large
and to the detriment of Dedicator's heirs and successors. Dedicator
intends this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in
perpetuity of all present and future rights under copyright law, whether
vested or contingent, in the Work. Dedicator understands that such
relinquishment of all rights includes the relinquishment of all rights
to enforce (by lawsuit or otherwise) those copyrights in the Work.
Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work
may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified,
built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial
or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not
yet been invented or conceived.

Meeting starts at 11am [scheduled 10am]

[GH: A double-sided document with flowcharts summarizing process for how to consider the 45 recommendations was distributed this morning. Note that it indicates change from yesterday's agreed process, which was alternating between group of 26 and group of 19 proposals after each proposal discussed.

Minus graphics new flowchart basically says:
- Proposals will be considered one by one and cluster by cluster;
- We’ll move through all the proposals in the particular cluster in the group of 26 recommendations
- Then all the proposals in that cluster in the group of 19 immediately implementable proposals
- Secretariat will introduce proposal one by one, and run through their proposed activities listed in the table in initial working document.
- Then GFoD, Korea and Group of Central European and Baltic States can discuss their written submissions if they want to
- Discussion of that
- then Chair will provide summary of what adjustments to be made to original working document.]


We are obviously starting later than we had proposed but I hope that it will not affect our work because we are only now starting to consider substance. Before we do so, I would like to focus on how we will work before July. I have circulated two 'pictures' that summarizes the process we could agree upon.

I hope you have looked at the 19. We have to agree on process for working between the 19 and 26. I suggested we work on 26, but there was discomfort about leaving behind the 19. So then we proposed moving between clusters. Yesterday I suggested one by one, alternating clusters.

There is a more plausible way. We go through all cluster A proposals in the group of 26, then all cluster A proposals in 19. We will deal with proposal one at a time. I would expect that there will be cross-references between the two groups. If I don't hear objections, I will proceed on this approach.

So when we finish the 5 recommendations in Cluster A from the 26 recommendations, we move to the recommendations in Cluster A in the group of 19.

Slovenia (obo EU):
We have a question on last of these. No objection on proceeding by clusters.

On textbox on chart that says "CDIP broadly agrees on proposed activities as suitably modified following discussions, and requests Secretariat to assess Human and Financial requirements, before the July session."

Question: are you expecting agreement on each item [and what type of agreement]?


These are comments that we would like to make to assist our work, after reviewing document on 19. We would like to add a column on proposed activities. Just a question of clarity.

Chair: Slovenia, I will come back to you.

To Argentina, this new column, I had suggested yesterday that we could amend my document or we could add a column. I hope that amending the column that currently exists in my document will be ok with you. We will not preclude any input. We will agree on what is amended. This initial working document is a work in progress.

Brazil: I t think the intention of Argentina's proposal is to make it clear what new activities are proposed by MS. The column information on activities is the same thing we had in the Manolo doc when we discussed the 100+ proposals.

There is a lot of info on work currently going on in WIPO that are not necessarily proposals for activities for the 45 proposals.

It would be interesting if we can just focus on concrete proposals in the context of the 45 recommendations. It is interesting to see what the Secretariat is doing - particularly in relation to regional meetings -as background information but they are not exactly proposals for the programme of work.

If we have a clean new column where we extract proposals made by the Sec and MS and we start adding this to a new column that would be the basis for the work, then we will see where we are going.

Otherwise I think we will lose a lot of time simply to have to make comments on the things that are described as ongoing activities.

Quite frankly, I would rather avoid having to make extensive comments on ongoing activities and would rather focus on our programme of work.

[Ed note: and that way the WIPO Secretariat does not set the work plan for the 19 proposals and validate current work as being development-oriented]

Switzerland: I think that Argentina and Brazil made interesting suggestions on the columns. I agree that in order to develop the doc into a real working plan, it needs revision.

It is our feeling that this document we received from you is a very valuable doc on what WIPO is currently doing and what WIPO could do. I do agree with Argentina and Brazil that to make this into a work plan, we do need some changes, we need to add future plans (I would not call them new projects)

We probably need further columns on budget, further milestones, who is carrying out specific actions. We need to take time this week to have discussion on how to organise this doc in order to make it a working plan.

Whether in small group or in this meeting. Happy to give you guidance on this.

Chair: let me ask Secretariat to comment.

Sheriff Saadallah:

Let me remind you of the mandate given to the Secretariat. We were to prepare a preliminary implementation report. There was no indication that we needed to prepare a work programme, nor a budget as has been suggested by Switzerland.

The mandate was that we would give a preliminary report on the implementation of the 19 proposals. There was never an idea to prepare a work programme to implement the 19 proposals.

We decided that the 19 were implementable because they did not require financial or human resources, so we never had idea to have to prepare a budget as Switzerland has suggested. We were asked to prepare a preliminary report. This is exactly what we have done.

I think there is a difference between what is now proposed and the mandate. But if there is a requirement by Member States to create a new column to indicate some of the future activities, we can do that, that would not be a great change but it will take time. I want to go on record to say this is not what we were mandated to do.

[Ed note: discussion between Chair and two WIPO Secretariat members on podium]

Chair: My apologies. I hope you will understand that when new issues proposed I have to consult, particularly with those who have to do the work.

On this subject of the additional column, you have heard the Sec explaining their task.

Some of the activities that are listed by the Secretariat are future activities. They are flexible about moving these into a new column.

More significantly, when we hear the discussion on the 19, it will become clearer to us what is required in this new column.

What goes in there will be from two sources:

1. Future activities from what is currently in column
2. Things proposed by Member States.


To follow up on the proposal by the Slovenian delegation, we wanted to propose minor clarification to last bullet point in last box of flowchart.

Broadly agrees [on][that these] proposed activities as suitably modified following discussions [and requests][would be sent to the] Secretariat...

Would read:
"The CDIP broadly agrees that these proposed activities, as suitably modified following discussions, and would be sent to the Secretariat to assess Human and Financial requirements, before the July session".

Mexico: I was going to refer to the doc that accompanies your letter,

I was going to propose in first box on Clarke road map on 26 proposals, change to "agreed proposals".

The proposals have already been adopted by the GA; we are only revising them, to send on for a financial and human resource implication assessment. As the US says, this has to be reflected in the "Clarke roadmap" document.

We are thinking about a long-term programme for the 26 proposals so as to have a human and financial evaluation at the end of this process.

Chair: The point is well taken.

Slovenia: We thank the US for their revised wording.

Brazil: I think your suggestion on how to go about elaborating the 3rd column is doing exactly what we intended.

Would like to make additional comment on issue of 26 versus 19. I think there is a gentlemen's agreement that there may be additional financial or human resources implications for 26 but not in principle for 19, but there was to be no other difference in understanding between these two groups of proposals.

I would like to suggest on the 19, for example, a lot of the information provided by the Secretariat is ongoing activities undertaken before the 45 recommendations were agreed.

May be useful for Secretariat to comment on some of the activities, explain how the DA translates into a change for these activities.

Not necessarily just to say that these activities comply with DA - to give a DA compliance certificate to those existing activities. It is not the intention to give them a certificate of DA compliance and then to go home.

We need to have an ongoing discussion on how they can be better adapted to the spirit of the DA as agreed by the GA.

After discussion, Secretariat could come back once better understanding of human and financial resource implications assessed

Do not have problem with working on 26 first, or 19 first. Key: It is not just a matter of transferring ongoing activities into the work process; we must analyze these activities in the light of the DA. Need to reflect on the ongoing activities.

The end box would be the new column. Don't have problem with adding new column such as that suggested by Switzerland.

Chair: part of the process is to monitor and evaluate as we go on.

Need to put in our future work that need process for evaluation. We are flexible enough to include everything in the mandate.

Tunisia: We have spent almost 1.5 days discussing our approach. We think this is a bit excessive. I support the delegation of Mexico.

To respond to comments from US and Switzerland, I don't see why we should spend long days spending time on working on recommendations that have already been agreed by the GA and then end up handing over text to Secretariat as if nothing had happened. We are here to work. We should set ourselves clear goals. The minimum goal should be striving for agreement on recommendations that we can come up. I don't think that we should preempt the recommendations.

If all we are going to do is hand over text to Secretariat then we should go home and see what they think.

Chair: I hope I didn't give you the impression that your deliberations this week are not necessary. The Sec has a role to play, but the work program is supposed to be created by elaboration between the Member States and Secretariat. I hope that this is not a misunderstanding

Australia: I would like to support the intervention of Brazil and Switzerland.

We have a task of oversight. We need to have sufficient information to do so. We
Need to talk to Secretariat about what we want to achieve that.

Chair: Let me plead with you to finish this discussion, which has been useful to clarify on where we are and get to the work that we have to do. I would just like us to get started on the substance.

Italy: I refer to the intervention by the Tunisian delegation and their worry about the proposed amendment on the last bullet point in your work plan. We think their concern is fair.

On the basis of the gentlemen's agreement referred to earlier, it could be subject to additional human and financial resources, so just fair to send to Secretariat to see what additional resources needed, before our meeting in July.

The preoccupation is fair but the language you are proposing is fair as well.

Tunisia are you ok? Then we are agreed.

Brazil, you gave this document a great title: Flex-o-gram. Let's use that. Yesterday you expressed concern re 19 but have today shown flexibility.

We will start with Cluster A in gp of 26, then move to the 19. The first item is item 2. then moved to the group of 19.

Before we do so I want to go back to the preference I expressed yesterday

I expressed a preference to do this process in informal mode. I was informed that it is normal practice within WIPO that during informal discussions that IGOs and NGOs are not included.

However, Member States have expressed view that participation of IGOs and NGOs is important in this process and that they would not want to see them excluded.

In order to avoid setting a precedent that will affect other committees in WIPO, I have decided that we will remain in formal mode.

However, in order to encourage the flexibility and freedom of expression of Member States in their deliberations, we have decided that report that comes out of this session will only be abridged, not the usual verbatim report that comes out.

We remain in formal mode but we behave as if we are informal in terms of freedom of expression and the reporting will take the middle mode, and will not include "statement made by Member A," unless the member so expresses.

I must respectfully ask of the NGOs that since I am bending over backwards to accommodate you, that you will respect the informality of the process, and that you will not record or publish statements by members in any sessions this week.

I ask that NGOs keep their part of this bargain and do not expose and attribute statements by members.

Switzerland: I understand that we will not formally record statements of MS but will formally record decisions made.

Chair: yes

Brazil: is my understanding that Brazil's proposal re 19 from yesterday is agreed. We had also made suggested changes to the bullet point in last box:

" agreed changes as necessary"

"CDIP comments on activities being implemented in light of the adopted proposals with changes as necessary".

Mexico: we made a clarification regarding agreed recommendations - "clusterwise discussions on agreed recommendations"

Chair: that's accepted.

Algeria: how is the proposal going to read?

Chair: "CDIP broadly agrees that these proposed activities as suitably modified following discussions would be sent to Secretariat to assess human and financial resource implications"

Brazil: my suggestion for your last box in your flexigram is that it should capture the possibility for other proposals on activity, not just those provided by Secretariat.

Chair: Brazil, can you provide language?

Brazil: Idea is that CDIP can make its own proposal. I would suggest "its own new proposals for activities" so that we avoid the word "agreement". I would like to avoid discussion about whether these new activities have financial or human resources implications, I think we agree that they will not, but idea is to give the committee the space to make its own proposals

Sheriff: it is important to differentiate between two things: the mandate, it is the mandate of CDIP

To go back to what Australia suggested, it is the right and mandate of CDIP to look into these activities. Not useful to discuss the mandate. These are the terms of ref of the committee. If we are going to start to discuss the mandate of the committee in this chart, this is not helpful.

Even in the most extreme of cases, Member States can simply request that certain activity be discontinued or not taken.

I think it is already in the mandate of the committee, I don't think we should spend time here trying to change it.

Chair: OK, let's have a delayed coffee break. Hopefully we can settle this matter quickly. I will speak to Brazil on language.

Jamaica and Chile on resumption, break for 15 mins.

12:04 Break for coffee.


Chile: our understanding is that there had to be a work plan for the 45 recommendations. There would be a prelim work plan for the 19 but there would still be a work plan. That is why we suggested that there should be an equivalent doc for 26. Want to be clear that 45 recommendations need to have work plan, so can have proposals for new activities for 19.

Chair: agreed. Let me propose language:

Bottom Box, middle bullet point

CDIP reviewed and commented on activities being implemented in light of the adopted recommendations, suggested changes AND CONSIDERED NEW ACTIVITIES.

Middle Square right, penultimate bullet

"Consider new activities"

Jamaica: Add, "send on for assessment of human and fin resources"


Chair: understood. Agreed. Any comments? Early lunch.

Meeting adjourned 12:47pm for lunch break


[Ed note: The meeting reconvened in informal mode after the lunch break on Day 2, March 4, 2008. In accordance with the request of the Chair, we are not reporting on the discussions in the informal sessions during this week. We will report on the final outcome of the meeting.]


Related Issues