Draft report




Download 0.62 Mb.
bet8/12
Sana07.04.2017
Hajmi0.62 Mb.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12
294 The Vice-Chair enquired as to whether the Delegation of the United States of America had any reservations on the inclusion of some other UN entities in the report.
295 The Delegation of the United States of America was not sure whether it perfectly understood the intervention by the Delegation of Algeria. The document would simply provide information on how other agencies were reporting on their contributions. It did not in any way mean that information gathered from the survey would be the way that WIPO would report on the MDGs. It would simply provide information on how other agencies were reporting on their contributions to the MDGs, and not information on how they may be changing their programs or altering their goals. The Delegation did not have a problem if delegations wanted to look at some other UN development agencies. However, for the purposes of looking at examples of reporting on contributions, the most relevant agencies would be the other technical agencies that also had very specific mandates and goals.
296 The Vice-Chair noted the point made by the Delegation of the United States of America that the document would provide information and WIPO should not necessarily follow the reporting mechanisms of other organizations. The Vice-Chair recalled that the Delegation had also suggested the inclusion of an executive summary in the document. She enquired as to whether the revised document could be submitted to the 14th session as it required further work, research, engagement with other agencies, redrafting and translation into five languages.
297 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, stated that it was not strongly opposed to the idea. The Group echoed the comments made by the Delegation of the United States of America which were also included in its previous intervention. The mandates of specialized agencies such as WIPO were completely different from those of development agencies such as UNDP, UNCTAD and others. It may be an excessive burden for the Secretariat to gather information that may not be directly applicable to WIPO.
298 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, drew attention to recommendation 40 of the DA, “to request WIPO to intensify its cooperation on IP related issues with UN agencies, according to Member States’ orientation, in particular UNCTAD, UNEP, WHO, UNIDO, UNESCO and other relevant international organizations, especially the WTO in order to strengthen the coordination for maximum efficiency in undertaking development programs”. The request for WIPO to work with UN agencies and other relevant organizations was already included in that recommendation. This was important as the recommendations guided the work of the Secretariat on all issues, including the MDGs. The Group hoped the Secretariat could get the document ready for the next session. However, it could wait until the 14th session if this was not possible.
299 The Vice-Chair stated that it would not be feasible for the Secretariat to present the document in the next session. It was agreed that the document would be ready for the 14th session, given that there were no objections from the floor.
300 The Delegation of Indonesia referred to the comment made by Group B on WIPO’s mandate and aligned itself with the statement made by the Delegation of Egypt on behalf of DAG. The Delegation reiterated that the UN was a coherent system. The relationship between the MDGs and WIPO must be viewed in that context.
301 The Vice-Chair closed the discussions on this item given that there were no further observations from the floor.

Consideration of document CDIP/12/INF/2 Rev. – Study on Patents and the Public Domain (II)
302 The Secretariat informed the Committee that one of the co-authors of the study, Dr. Neil Wilkof, from Dr. Eyal Bressler and Company, was present and would introduce the document.
303 The Consultant (Dr. Wilkof) introduced document CDIP/12/INF/2 Rev. The Study on Patents and the Public Domain (II) focused on the relationship at the micro level between the patent system and the public domain. The authors sought to better understand how individual actors in the public domain behaved in making choices over using or not using exclusive patent rights and how that affected the public domain. Three distinct approaches were employed to analyze those actions. The focus was on a rich and freely accessible public domain. The study was divided into three parts. A heuristic framework for the analysis was provided in Part I. Contrary to what might be expected, the potential contribution by the patent system to the public domain occurred not only when a registered patent expired. It also took place prior to the completion of the full statutory term. The possibility for patent arbitrage of the public domain by countries in which no patent right was sought, and the potential of such arbitrage to contribute to national innovation, especially in developing countries, was also discussed and should be followed up. In Part II, the study focused on non-practicing entities (NPEs) and how their respective business models enriched the public domain. NPEs were entities that owned patents but did not make use of them. The study discussed five categories of potential NPEs, namely, patent assertion entities; patent aggregators; non-competing entities; patent intermediaries; and universities and research organizations. Part III described patent practices of entities more broadly and considered the potential impact of patent management on the public domain.
304 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that the study clearly demonstrated that for over 100 years, the patent system was a rich source of publicly available information. It contributed tremendously to the creation of a rich and accessible public domain. The Delegation acknowledged the study's conclusion that the overall relationship between patents, innovation and a rich and freely accessible public domain was complex and nuanced. The study was useful in understanding the public domain and how various actors and factors affected it.
305 The Representative of the TWN stated that the study was based on the theoretical premise that a rich and accessible public domain was a result of the disclosures in patent documents. In other words, an increase in patenting would automatically result in an expansion of the public domain. However, the concept of the public domain also included areas where IPRs were not applicable or enforced. The study did not take this into account and simply assumed that knowledge embodied in a patent disclosure contributed to the public domain. The concept of global patent arbitrage referred to in Part I of the study was based on the premise that a developing country could effectively capitalize and use an invention which was in the public domain in its jurisdiction, and also develop improvements to the invention which could also be exported abroad. However, very few developing countries had the means or the necessary technological base or capacity to successfully exploit the invention or to make those improvements. The lack of patents from developing countries in the developing world reaffirmed this. Moreover, firms in developed countries strategically applied for patents in selected developing countries where innovative capacity existed. Thus, firms in developing countries with some innovative capability would be prevented from making use of the knowledge. The study should be revised and improved to address the barriers to fostering a rich and accessible public domain. It should, in particular, address how the public domain could be explored in resource poor settings. As pointed out, patent information in itself was not sufficient in this regard. It should also examine how patent flexibilities could be fully utilized to foster a rich and accessible public domain.
306 The Consultant was not sure if he fully understood the first limitation and would like it to be clarified. On the second point, the authors appreciated the fact that there may be limitations in many countries in terms of the ability to use the public domain effectively. However, over time, the number of countries described as resource poor in that regard, may indeed become less resource poor and make greater use of the information. In any event, perhaps one of the challenges was to get that information out to resource poor countries in a more efficient way, at least for that to encourage potential use within their given jurisdictions.
307 The Representative of the TWN stated that the definition of public domain did not seem to take into account that IPRs may not necessarily exist in some areas. The Representative would like to know if this aspect of the public domain was taken into account in the study. The premise of the study was that contributions to the system would increase with more patent disclosures.
308 The Consultant stated that if that was helpful, the authors would be pleased to consider it in a revised text.
309 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that the study was sufficient and would not favor any revisions to the study.
310 The Chair closed the discussions on the study given that there were no further observations from the floor.

Consideration of document CDIP/12/INF/3 - Scoping Study on Strengthening and Development of the Audiovisual Sector in Burkina Faso and Certain African Countries
311 The Secretariat (Ms. Croella) introduced the Scoping Study on Strengthening and Development of the Audiovisual Sector in Burkina Faso and Certain African Countries. The study was the first output of the Project on Strengthening and Development of the Audiovisual Sector in Burkina Faso and Certain African Countries. It was prepared by Messrs Bertrand Moullier and Benoit Muller, external experts on the audiovisual sector with field experience in Africa. The Secretariat drew attention to an error in the English version of the document. Mr. Muller was an Audiovisual Sector Expert and a member of the Geneva bar. He was not an Information Technology and Services Expert from Belgium as mentioned in the document. The study provided an evaluation of the current role played by IP in the financing, production and distribution of audiovisual works in the three countries participating in the project (Burkina Faso, Kenya and Senegal). It provided an assessment of IPR based transactions related to the
film-making process, assessed challenges and proposed solutions for the further effective use of IP in this field. Part one described what can be referred to as the “international standard” in copyright-based transactions in the audiovisual sector. Part two provided a snapshot assessment of the structural and copyright issues in the audiovisual sectors of those three countries. The experts met with the national project coordinators to carry out their work. They addressed a questionnaire to and interviewed a number of key stakeholders, both government officials and audiovisual entrepreneurs, in the respective countries. Part three contained conclusions and recommendations aimed at assisting the WIPO Secretariat and Member States in the scoping of project actions and deliverables, leveraging international experience to the practical benefit of local needs. The Secretariat believed that the study assisted beneficiary countries to learn more about the positive role which IP could play as a legal instrument to raise funds for the production and distribution of audiovisual works. Mechanisms such as the pre-sale of distribution rights were yet to be fully recognized, understood and used in the beneficiary countries. They could be extremely helpful in the production and commercial exploitation of audiovisual works in Africa and international markets. The Secretariat stressed that the study was a reference document for the implementation of activities under the project.
312 The Consultant (Mr. Moullier) referred to the first part of the study and stated that it provided an overview of the various techniques used by film makers worldwide to turn their creative visions into films. Copyright and related rights were not the only methods for doing so. A combination of techniques was employed to produce a film and to distribute it through national and international networks. For instance, the pre-sale mechanism was a pivotal and strategic tool used by producers and film makers. The study provided specific examples of how things worked on the ground. The consultants believed that film makers in Africa would like a legitimate distribution infrastructure that was cogent enough about the IP framework to meaningfully engage with them to bring funding into projects through transactions based on copyright and related rights. A legitimate distribution framework would allow for a meaningful model for return on investment. A film was a very expensive undertaking. The fixed costs were very high. A meaningful distribution framework could allow a film to return sufficient revenues to provide certain residuals to the talent involved in the film and leave enough for the producers to recycle revenues into the development of a new creative project. It could take up to five years for a film to be ready to attract financing.
313 The Consultant (Mr. Muller) stated that it had not been easy to evaluate the current role played by copyright in the audiovisual sector in the three beneficiary countries. The consultants had tried to be as objective as possible. Interviews were held with the main stakeholders in those countries. It appeared that copyright was frequently a theoretical concept for those involved in the audiovisual sector in Africa. If copyright was only a theoretical concept, it was not really playing its role. It should make it possible for audiovisual works to be exploited commercially. The consultants observed that a “digital revolution” was taking place in Africa. Broadband provided access to audiovisual content. Films were increasingly produced in digital form in Africa. Thus, issues pertaining to the digital environment should be thought about. A bottom up approach was required to examine and address the specific needs of the economic players in the audiovisual sector. The workshops to be organized under the project would assist in examining the issues and the experiences of other countries to assist these countries to develop policies to meet their respective needs.
314 The Delegation of Burkina Faso recalled that three pilot countries (Burkina Faso, Kenya and Senegal) were designated for the first phase of the project. WIPO was committed to assist them to implement the project which was officially launched on February 26, 2013 as a side event during the Pan African Film and Television Festival (FESPACO) in Ouagadougou. Training workshops and onsite training on collective negotiation of rights would be organized under the project. It would be evaluated at the end of the pilot phase. Burkina Faso had hosted the FESPACO festival since 1969. It was considered as the showcase for African cinema. The sustainability of the African audiovisual sector was important for development. However, the role of IP was not well understood. The Delegation believed that the project would enable Burkina Faso to develop a sustained framework for the audiovisual sector based on improved professional structures, markets and regulatory environment, while enhancing the strategic use of IP as a key tool to support the development of the audiovisual sector. It would enhance the understanding and strategic use of the IP system as a key tool to foster production, marketing and distribution in the African audiovisual sector. The dissemination of new technologies allowed independent film makers to enter global markets. The African audiovisual market faced considerable challenges. It was very fragmented. Mechanisms were required to create wealth and remunerate creativity. The project would assist in the development of the African audiovisual sector through technical assistance and the strengthening of institutional capacities to enhance understanding of the role of copyright in the audiovisual sector among all stakeholders. As a pilot country, Burkina Faso was aware of its project responsibilities. It would fully play its part and do everything possible to ensure that the project was a success and for the conclusions and recommendations of the study to be implemented.
315 The Delegation of Kenya welcomed the study. It found the analysis to be thorough and well researched. Its authorities were considering the key findings of the study. The recommendations were useful. Legal and policy reforms were being considered to ensure that the project was successful and sustainable. The curriculum recommended by the consultants was very useful and practical in the context of the forthcoming workshops under the project. Some of the recommended interventions such as state support were at the advanced stage of being rolled out in Kenya. The Delegation disagreed with some of the comments that copyright was a strange factor in the film sector in Kenya. Cultural issues prevented the use of some mechanisms.
316 The Delegation of Senegal stated that the study was one of the first activities under the project. Senegal had a particular interest in the project. The Minister of Culture participated in the launch during the FESPACO festival in February. Senegal’s audiovisual sector was very rich in creativity. It had earned numerous awards in recent years. However, Senegal faced challenges in the development of the sector, particularly in the financing and distribution of works. The study was very useful as it highlighted, in an objective manner, priority areas where the project could provide effective assistance in order for the expected results to be achieved. There were many shortcomings which led to the limited use of copyright in the exploitation of audiovisual works; insufficient knowledge of copyright in relation to contracts, production and exploitation; limited capacities of professionals to use copyright; and insufficient knowledge in terms of the use of new technologies and techniques to produce and distribute films. The project should help to fill the gaps in order for its objectives to be realized. Senegal had an adequate legislative framework for copyright. The government would like to support the development and financing of the audiovisual sector in Senegal through revising certain copyright practices, particularly with regard to collective management and the digital environment. The Delegation endorsed the recommendations contained in the study and welcomed any additional deadlines granted by the Committee for the achievement of this project for which Senegal had great expectations.
317 The Delegation of Brazil made some comments on the study. It was delighted that the Brazilian system was referred to as a successful experience in the deployment of fiscal incentives to finance the private production of audiovisual works. However, the Delegation highlighted that more than half of the financing of audiovisual works was through state funding. Today, tax policies were a secondary source of financing in Brazil. The study recommended the ratification of WIPO internet treaties as a measure to strengthen copyright protection in the digital environment. However, there was no substantive analysis of the impact of ratification on these African countries. Burkina Faso and Senegal had already acceded to the WCT and WPPT. Kenya had substantive national legislation on technological protection measures. More information was required to evaluate the impact of ratification of the WCT and WPPT. The study also suggested that countries should implement notice and take down policies as a measure to fight piracy in the digital environment. However, there was no multilateral consensus to endorse this policy model. Notice and takedown policies were subject to criticism by many stakeholders, especially internet users. As there was no international consensus on the efficiency and legitimacy of this policy model, such policies should not be introduced in the project.
318 The Delegation of Switzerland found the study to be interesting and useful for the implementation of the project. The project was important. This was a crucial time in Africa, particularly with the transition to the digital age, as indicated in the round table discussion the day before. The project was timely in that regard. It was important for the necessary resources, both human and financial, to be mobilized as soon as possible in order for the project to proceed. The Copyright Law Division had been very busy with important treaty negotiations and there were resounding successes. However, it was also important for such projects to proceed in order for other results to be achieved, particularly in the countries that were beneficiaries of the project.
319 The Delegation of the United States of America agreed that the study was very high quality work. It read with great interest, the analysis of film financing and licensing models. In its discussions on capacity building with developing countries, requests for assistance in the areas of film financing and practical licensing skill development were often received. The Delegation supported further work following the path laid out by the study's authors, and if the project ultimately had a sustained impact in Burkina Faso, Kenya and Senegal, it would look forward to possibly expanding the project to additional interested Member States. The Delegation referred to the side event organized by Switzerland the day before and stated that it really gave life to the project by bringing a director from Burkina Faso to discuss his own experience. It looked forward to future work in this important area.
320 The Delegation of Azerbaijan stated that an evaluation of the current role played by IP in the financing, production and distribution of audiovisual works in the three pilot countries was very important. The proposed solutions for the further effective use of IP would be useful to all countries. Such studies were important in order to effectively use international experience to assist countries to address their own specific needs.
321 The Chair invited the Secretariat to respond to the questions and comments from the floor.
322 The Secretariat referred to the comments made by the Delegation of Brazil and stated that the scope of the project was limited to professional development, training and the strengthening of relevant institutional capacity and infrastructure. Thus, issues such as liability were not included. The comments would be taken on board in the shaping of further actions and initiatives to be implemented under the project. The Secretariat reiterated that it had requested for the project to be extended by six months due to initial delays as a result of the Copyright Law Division’s involvement in the preparation of the diplomatic conference in Marrakech earlier in the year. The Secretariat welcomed the extension of the project. The comments that were made would be taken into consideration in the implementation of the project.
323 The Consultant (Mr. Moullier) referred to the comments made by the Delegation of Brazil and stated that he recognized that the Fundo Sectoral was a substantial contributor to financing in Brazil. Fundo Sectoral was not mentioned in that section of the study as it concerned tax concessions and tax breaks. However, the authors recognized its importance in the overall picture.
324 The Chair closed the discussions on the study given that there were no further observations from the floor.

Consideration of document CDIP/12/9 - Implementation Proposal on Possible New WIPO Activities Related to Using Copyright to Promote Access to Information and Creative Content
325 The Chair recalled that in the 11th session, the Committee discussed the Feasibility Assessment on Possible New WIPO Activities Related to Using Copyright to Promote Access to Information and Creative Content (CDIP/11/6). The Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare a more detailed implementation plan, including information on financial and human resource implications. Document CDIP/12/9 contained a detailed implementation plan for the six activities proposed in document CDIP/11/6, including an estimate of the human and financial resources required. He invited the Secretariat to introduce the document.
326 The Secretariat (Ms. Croella) recalled that the copyright component of the Project on IP, Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs), the Digital Divide and Access to Knowledge led to the preparation of the study on Using Copyright to Promote Access to Information and Creative Content. It was discussed at the tenth session of the Committee in November 2012. Following the discussion, the Member States requested an assessment of the feasibility for WIPO, within its mandate, to engage in new activities that could potentially assist Member States to achieve their development goals in the areas covered by the study. A Feasibility Assessment on Possible New WIPO Activities Related to Using Copyright to Promote Access to Information and Creative Content” (document CDIP/11/6) was prepared by an external consultant. It contained a list of potentially appropriate activities that WIPO could undertake for each of the three areas previously identified. The document was discussed during the 11th session of the CDIP in May, and Member States requested the Secretariat to prepare a more detailed implementation plan, including information on financial and human resource implications to be considered at this session of the Committee. Document CDIP/12/9 and its annexes contain a detailed implementation plan for the six activities proposed in document CDIP/11/6, including an estimate of the human and financial resources required.
327 The Delegation of Brazil, speaking on behalf of DAG, attached great importance to the continued debate on copyright and development in the context of the implementation of possible new WIPO activities related to using copyright to promote access to information and creative content. It understood that this item could remain on the agenda for future CDIP sessions. With regard to the activities to be implemented by WIPO, the Group suggested a change in Annex V of the document. In the section entitled, “Brief Description of the Activity/Initiative”, the sentence, “Model provisions and material useful in providing legislative advice would be produced to address requests of Member States”, could be amended to read as follows, “Model provisions and material useful in providing legislative advice would be produced taking into account the different legal systems and levels of development to address requests of Member States". The change provided for a more country specific approach in addressing the development aspect of this activity. Speaking in its national capacity, the Delegation supported the discussion of implementation of activities in relation to copyright and access to information and creative content. On proposed activity 1, Pilot Project on Creation of a Centralized Database in order to make IP-Related Education and Research (E&R) Resources Available on an Open Access (OA) Basis, the Delegation suggested that the project should not be restricted to OA resources. It should allow for a broader approach. Brazil was ready to contribute to the implementation of this activity.
328 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that the paper clarified the proposed activities. As a threshold matter, the Delegation suggested that the Committee narrowed down from the six proposed activities to a few that were most likely to provide sustained impact. With respect to proposed activity 1, the Delegation believed the impact of this activity may be limited because it focused on three Member States with local institutions that provided IP-related education and research resources. It would be interested to know if the Secretariat was aware of any demand from Member States with local institutions that provided IP-related education and resources for this type of assistance. With respect to proposed activity 2, the Delegation appreciated WIPO's leadership in the Inter-Governmental Organizations (IGOs) Working Group on Copyright Licensing. It seemed that work was nearing completion. Using the Creative Commons license should provide a path forward for additional IGOs that were seeking to implement new copyright policies. The advantage of using a Creative Commons license was that even non-copyright experts could select and implement a license agreement that was customized for their needs. While it did not wish to micromanage the Secretariat's work, it was unclear to the Delegation why WIPO would require 20,000 Swiss francs for staff travel for this project. Many IGOs were located in Geneva and in-person travel to visit those not located here may not be necessary in the digital age. It would be interested to hear from the Secretariat why that particular need was mentioned in the report. With regard to proposed activities 3 and 4, the Delegation could support actions by WIPO to increase the awareness of open source licensing as an important source of innovation, including through WIPO technical training. However, as the Delegation had previously noted, any treatment of the subject should be balanced and objective and present a spectrum of views, including discussing potential risks associated with the use of open source software by developing countries and LDCs. With respect to proposed activity 5, the Delegation would support, in principle, the suggestion that WIPO should provide additional information to Member States on how they might implement policies for access to public sector information. However, it highlighted DA recommendation 1 which stated that technical assistance should be demand driven or otherwise requested by Member States. The Delegation would strongly support such technical assistance to any interested Member State but would first seek assurances that demand exists for the targeted activity. Although the proposal contemplated the creation of a set of model provisions or policies, the Delegation suggested that WIPO work on an interactive basis with interested Member States to examine their options on a case by case basis. As noted by the Delegation of Brazil, it should be country specific. Substantive copyright issues, including the development of any normative model provisions, should be addressed at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). Furthermore, the three approaches to public sector information outlined in the underlying study were sufficiently detailed to provide WIPO and interested Member States with appropriate models for implementation at the national level. Convening a conference, as suggested in proposed activity 6, may be premature. In order to take full advantage of this type of conference, interested LDCs would need to be in a position to implement new provisions or policies on public sector information. Member States may be better served if the Secretariat were to provide country specific, demand driven assistance that was consultative and interactive.
329 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, referred to activities 1 and 2. It seemed that WIPO would be required to create, collect and hold a substantial volume of information and enable the public, both professional and non-professional, to obtain easy access. It was not clear how the implementation of these activities and the application of open licenses to protected works would affect the rights of copyright holders. It was also unclear whether the project would be held on a voluntarily basis for Member States or what the next steps might be. In this regard, the EU and its Member States needed some further assurance before being able to endorse activities 1 and 2. With regard to activities 3 and 4, these could be further considered by WIPO as a means to enhance awareness and understanding of open source software through balanced and objective treatment of its advantages and disadvantages, including consequences of the use of open source software in relation to security issues and maintenance. With regard to activities 5 and 6, they noted that further consideration of the exact scope of activities and their future budgetary implications was required.
330 The Representative of Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) drew the committee's attention to an initiative that was jointly convened by UNESCO and WIPO in 1976, namely the Tunis Model Law on Copyright for Developing Countries. The Representative took note of the core objectives of the project. First, to gather information and explore the potential of the copyright system, its flexibilities and different models for managing copyright for enhancing access to knowledge. Second, to conduct an interdisciplinary evaluation of opportunities for WIPO, within its mandate, to engage in new activities that helped Member States achieve their development goals through enhancing access to knowledge. As part of the future implementation of this project, the Representative proposed that WIPO undertake a scoping study to ascertain the feasibility of producing an update of the Tunis model law adapted for the digital environment. The 1976 model law, drafted by experts at the behest of Member States of WIPO and UNESCO, sought to provide a Berne-consistent template for developing countries that could accommodate both common law and civil law traditions. It addressed some of the most important issues in copyright such as the protection of traditional cultural expressions, and limitations and exceptions to rights such as those in Section 7 on "fair use", Section 3 on works not protected, Section 10 on the limitation of the right of translation and proposed language on the treatment of domaine public payant in Section 17. It provided a foundation for the protection of authors' rights, including extensive provisions on licensing of works and enforcement of rights. Although the 1976 model law was useful, much had happened in the last 37 years and it seemed appropriate to consider an update of this soft law provision. In considering possible revisions, the Representative recommended that WIPO examine the areas where a model act would be particularly useful. For example, the implementation of copyright limitations and exceptions that addressed the special concerns of developing countries and which took into account new developments in international law, including the norms contained in the WTO TRIPS Agreement, the WIPO Internet treaties and the Beijing and Marrakech treaties. Among other topics, there would be an opportunity to draft model provisions that would address copyright limitations and exceptions for education and research, including institutions such as libraries and archives that support education and research; distance education delivered cross border; access to orphan copyrighted works; more timely exceptions for translation; and systems of liability rules to address a variety of concerns regarding access to cultural works consistent with addressing the legitimate interests of suppliers of knowledge and cultural works. In this regard, Article 44.2 of the TRIPS Agreement and the WTO TRIPS exception for LDCs provided possibilities for new ways of implementing copyright exceptions, including some of the approaches explored in the proposals for exceptions put forth by the African Group in the SCCR.
331 The Chair invited the Secretariat to respond to the comments from the floor.
332 The Secretariat (Ms. Woods) stated that although this particular set of projects could involve many different WIPO divisions, it would be presumably led by the Copyright Law Division which was tasked with overseeing the preparation of the study. The document expanded on the recommendations made by an outside expert in a study requested by the Committee. The Secretariat had attempted to provide further details on the potential projects and their potential costs. The Secretariat would take on board the interesting suggestions for expanding some of these projects even further. However, there would be a need to consider whether it was within the scope of the original instruction of the project as well as questions concerning the resources for taking on these projects. On the point made about providing model provisions versus specific legislative assistance, the Secretariat emphasized that its approach for many years had been to provide assistance to Member States on a country by country basis. Legislative advice would be provided to address specific requests by Member States. Some general work would be done on how the topics could be addressed within civil law and common law systems. Beyond that, any specific application would look at the specific circumstances of each Member State. The Secretariat routinely did this and would continue to do so. It sought the Committee’s guidance on whether there was consensus to move forward or if further work was required to develop any of the projects.
333 The Chair would like the Committee to think about activities where there could be a consensus in order to give clear guidance to the Secretariat on work to be done in the coming months.
334 The Delegation of Spain referred to proposed activities 1 and 2. The objective and scope of these activities should be clearer and more detailed. It was not clear whether they would contribute to balanced legislation and affect the balance in the copyright system.
335 The Secretariat believed the question concerned how the first two activities would affect the overall balance in the copyright system and how they should potentially be perceived by legislators. The overall goal of the project was to provide broader information on open access and open licensing. It was not really trying to make any decisions or to direct legislators as to how they would want to view such resources. In fact, many of these types of activities may not even be seen much at the legislative level, although activity 5 did contemplate the possibility of incorporating some aspects into legislation. However, the creation of a centralized database, looking at open licensing as an aspect of resources produced by international organizations and the possibility of using the Creative Commons license were really just about providing information on, or taking advantage of one option out of many in the system of using copyright. For instance, the use of the Creative Commons license within the copyright system was supposed to be a streamlined approach that was clear and understandable even to those persons who were not copyright experts. This was done in many different contexts. As mentioned in some comments, there was already some progress on this among IGOs. The idea was to provide easy access to information, for instance using it on websites. Similarly, the database would provide information on resources that were available. In general, these two activities would provide information and mechanisms for streamlining the availability of information on open access and licensing systems.
336 The Chair would like to know if there were activities where there was broad consensus among Member States as clear guidelines were required by the Secretariat. He invited the Secretariat to assist the Committee on the way forward.
337 The Secretariat observed that in some cases delegations were perhaps not ready to state whether they felt there was a consensus, and for others perhaps there were questions. The Secretariat could make a further effort to narrow down the proposals for the next meeting. On this occasion, it was asked to provide information on all the proposals. That was done. Perhaps at the next meeting, it could suggest some to start with and request for the Committee’s approval. Member States could then let the Secretariat know if they would like further action on other proposals.
338 The Delegation of Algeria noted that there seemed to be differences between the proposals made by Mr. Musungu (document CDIP/11/6) and the Secretariat, particularly in relation to activities 1 and 2. Thus, the Delegation agreed that some time should be given to delegations to examine the Secretariat’s document. Perhaps the Secretariat would like to revise it and provide further information, taking into account that there were sometimes significant differences with the activities proposed by Mr. Musungu.
339 The Chair closed the discussions on this item given that there were no further observations from the floor.

Consideration of document CDIP/12/INF/6 – Study on the Use of Utility Models in Thailand
340 The Secretariat (Mr. Fink) briefly introduced the Study on The Use of Utility Models (UMs) in Thailand. This was one of the country studies undertaken in the context of the Project on IP and Socio-Economic Development (document CDIP/5/7). UMs were often described as a form of IP that was particularly suitable to the innovation needs of low and middle income countries. However, evidence to support that policy recommendation was rather scant. Thus, the study tried to gather empirical evidence of the impact of UMs in Thailand. It was conducted in Thailand as UMs were introduced there in the late 1990s. It had more than 10 years of experience and data that could be analyzed for this purpose. That was also why the Thai Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) under the Ministry of Commerce expressed an interest in this activity.

341 The Secretariat (Mr. Raffo) reiterated that the study was requested by Thailand, in particular, the DIP. The study was undertaken in close cooperation with the DIP and the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI). It was prepared by two consultants from the TDRI. UMs or petty patents as they were called in Thailand were a recent development in the country. The use of this form of IP differed among countries. The study was an opportunity to understand how and whether local users would use this instrument. The country study in Thailand had two main parts. The current study described the implementation and use of UMs in Thailand and explored the potential challenges faced by the Thai IP system in relation to this new policy instrument. It was based on IP data. The second study was more analytical and would be presented in the next CDIP session. It would examine the data in the context of the economic performance of the types of firms that were using UMs. Thus, it was important to keep in mind that the current study did not necessarily reflect the economic impact of UMs. The study focused on the following four questions - How had users received the new UM regime? Were UMs the best fit for Thai innovators? To what degree had UMs complemented other IP forms? What were important challenges for the development of Thailand's UM system? The study indicated that the introduction of UMs in Thailand was quite successful in terms of implementation and use. However, there were also some challenges for the IP office. UMs were rapidly adopted in Thailand. On average, annual growth was 25% since its introduction in 1999. Users were starting to use the IP instrument. Most of them were Thai residents. It could be argued that most were startups or SMEs although applications were mostly made by individuals. It was adopted across industries. It should be noted that most of the Thai users were using the IP system for the first time. This indicated UMs complemented other forms of IP. However, it was difficult to assess the quality of the inventions through IP data. One of the challenges for the IP office was a considerable increase in its backlog. Resource limitations accounted for a good part of the application backlog. This resulted in long pendency times. Thus, although the use of this IP instrument was quite successful in Thailand, there were some challenges for the IP office. As mentioned earlier, the impact of UMs on the economic performance of firms would be examined in a separate study to be presented at the next CDIP session.


342 The Delegation of the Republic of Korea stated that the study indicated UMs could serve as a useful instrument. These studies could show the importance of a national IP strategy based on a country’s social and economic conditions.
343 The Chair closed the discussions on the study given that there were no further observations from the floor.

Consideration of document CDIP/12/INF/4 - Study on Intellectual Property and Brain Drain – A Mapping Exercise, and document CDIP/12/INF/5 - Summary of a Workshop on “Intellectual Property, the International Mobility of Knowledge Workers and the Brain Drain”
344 The Secretariat (Mr. Fink) introduced the documents. The Secretariat stated that these were the concluding activities of the Project on Intellectual Property and Brain Drain. The mapping study described the mobility patterns of knowledge workers over the 1991-2010 period using information on inventor nationality and residence in Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications. The Secretariat believed it was an important empirical contribution to understanding, in a very narrow sense, the international mobility of inventors, and more broadly, the international mobility of high skilled professionals. The study described inventor mobility patterns around the world. Summaries were provided for different regions. The study also compared the data with other migration datasets. PCT data added value as it was detailed and collected on an annual basis. This was very useful, especially when compared with other datasets such as census data which was collected every 10 years. The inventor mobility data provided information on a relatively concrete category of high skilled workers compared to the broader categories of tertiary skilled workers found in migration databases. The empirical findings were summarized in the study. The database was available on WIPO's website. There was great interest in using the data for research on migration. That was an important contribution of the project. The Secretariat turned to document CDIP/12/INF/5, “Summary of a Workshop on Intellectual Property, the International Mobility of Knowledge Workers and the Brain Drain”. As outlined in the original project document, the purpose of the workshop was to bring together experts on the topic of skilled migration and the topic of IP to discuss the possible links between IP and brain drain. The academic participants were selected on the basis of their research. Efforts were made to achieve a regional balance in terms of the participants. International organizations with interest and expertise in matters of international migration were invited to the workshop. The program and list of participants were annexed to the document. The workshop was divided into three parts, namely, studying the international mobility of high-skilled workers: data availability, stylized facts and IP data for migration analysis; IP and the international mobility of skilled workers: a framework of analysis; and innovation, knowledge diffusion and the international mobility of knowledge workers. The discussions were summarized. The document reflected the opinions of the participants, which were not necessarily the Secretariat’s views on the topics discussed. The Secretariat highlighted some of the conclusions. There was wide consensus among workshop participants that an important “first-order” relationship between the IP regime of countries and their inflows/outflows of skilled people was unlikely. If any empirical relationship between the two emerged, it was probably governed by the level of development and employment opportunities of countries. Ascertaining a relationship was conceptually challenging as the IP regime of countries was at the level of institutions and the decision of an inventor or other high-skilled worker to emigrate was at the level of the individual. Despite the overall skepticism, IP may well play an indirect role in determining migration outcomes. There was quite a bit of interest, especially among the migration experts at the workshop, in the newly available PCT inventor migration database. Some experts expressed great interest in continuing with the work. Some participants recommended that WIPO engaged in research to disambiguate the likely cultural origin of inventors using their names and surnames, in order to characterize who were the inventors and their migratory background. In parallel, some participants highlighted the importance of conducting surveys of inventors. Survey evidence could help characterize inventors and their patenting practices, provide evidence on the reasons inventors migrated and a better understanding of how inventor migration affected home and host country innovation outcomes. Finally, surveying inventors directly could also help in understanding whether there was any relationship between IP protection and the international migration of this subclass of skilled workers. There were also a number of suggestions on the potential development role of high skilled migration and how that could be further explored. There was great interest in studying the behavior of firms and their hiring policies, and how that related to the migration decisions of inventors and migration flows in general. There was also a lot of interest in return migration and how it related to knowledge diffusion and innovation in the home countries of the migrants.
345 The Delegation of the United States of America believed the study contributed to the overall understanding of high skilled migration. The report noted that the new PCT-based database of inventor nationality and residency created for the study was able to meaningfully capture the phenomenon which was of growing importance, specifically, the migration of inventors. The Delegation believed that the new tool would be useful going forward. It encouraged the Office of the Chief Economist to continue engaging in research efforts on these issues, in particular, as they related specifically to innovation and IP. The Delegation referred to the summary of the workshop in April 2013. It was clear that this issue had only been lightly studied and that WIPO was adding value to the discussion through its implementation of the CDIP Project on IP and Brain Drain. The CDIP was contributing some value to this area by moving the project forward. The Delegation noted with interest that the workshop participants focused, in part, on the potential positive aspects of high skilled migration for the sending country. The summary noted that potential feedback channels can turn brain drain into a gain for the origin country, namely, through return migration with skills acquired abroad, human capital accumulation and diaspora supporting home country development. The Delegation agreed this was something that could potentially benefit from further analysis. In general, the Delegation was appreciative of the work done by the Chief Economist.
346 The Delegation of Algeria expressed some views on the study. Although the study was aimed at presenting a simple mapping exercise whereby PCT data was used to provide an overview of the migratory patterns of high skilled workers, there was an underlying assumption that the lack of strong IP rights in a country may encourage inventors to migrate to countries which provided for strong IP protection. Although this notion was not explicitly stated in the study, the migration of inventors from developing countries to predominantly developed countries with higher standards of IP protection may point wrongly to this conclusion. Immigration was a complex phenomenon. It was extremely difficult to attribute a particular factor to the brain drain phenomenon. For example, significant brain drain happened due to the migration of students to gain skills and technological knowledge in institutions in developed countries. The lack of IP protection did not seem to be a significant factor behind the brain drain. Conversely, the lack of such technological knowledge in their home countries was a significant factor behind the decision. The mapping exercise did not adequately consider the return of many members of the diaspora to establish industries in developing countries despite the lack of strong IP protection. Thus, this area could be further explored.
347 The Chair invited the Secretariat to respond to the comments.
348 The Secretariat referred to the comments made by the Delegation of Algeria and stated that the workshop tried to address the possible links between the IP regime and migration patterns. The result was fairly inconclusive. With regard to the mapping study, it was made clear in the initial discussion and the project document that this was a purely descriptive exercise. It was not intended to lead to any policy conclusions, especially with regard to the IP system. The Secretariat was concerned that the study gave the impression that was mentioned by the Delegation of Algeria. Perhaps the Delegation could identify some of the elements. It would be glad to meet with the Delegation to discuss them. The Secretariat reiterated that the intention was to conduct a mapping exercise and draw empirical patterns of migration behavior, and not point to any policy conclusions.

Consideration of document CDIP/12/5 - WIPO General Assembly Decision on CDIP related matters, and document CDIP/6/12 Rev. – Proposal for a CDIP New Agenda Item on Intellectual Property (IP) and Development
349 The Chair recalled that during the WIPO GA meeting, the issue of the implementation of the coordination mechanisms was discussed, in particular, the report by the relevant WIPO bodies and the inclusion of the third pillar of the CDIP's mandate in the Committee’s agenda. The GA's decision was reproduced in document CDIP/12/5. Document CDIP/6/12 Rev contained a Proposal for a CDIP New Agenda Item on IP and Development submitted by the Delegation of Brazil on behalf of DAG during the sixth session of the Committee. Due to a lack of agreement, the Committee had postponed a decision on the document. At its 11th session, the Committee agreed to continue the discussion at this session. By way of a communication dated November 18, 2013, addressed to the Secretariat, the Delegation of Egypt, on behalf of DAG, had submitted a Proposal for a CDIP New Agenda Item on IP and Development-Related Issues (document CDIP/12/11). An initial exchange of views had taken place on this issue in the informal consultations.
350 The Delegation of Brazil, speaking on behalf of DAG, introduced document CDIP/12/11. The document built on the discussions in the previous six sessions. It took into account the concerns raised by some delegations. The proposed new agenda item on IP and development related issues would implement the third pillar of the CDIP’s mandate. Some issues were proposed for discussion under the agenda item. First, a report on the discussions at the WIPO Seminar Series on the Economics of IP. The seminars addressed several issues that could be of relevance to the discussion on IP and development. For example, there was a presentation the previous month on “the Impact of TRIPS on Patenting in Latin America: the Different Performance of Residents and Non Residents”. Second, the matter of innovative technical cooperation and capacity building in IP. Member States would be invited to present their national experiences on bilateral cooperation for discussion. Third, WIPO’s contribution to the UN MDGs. Fourth, information on present and future work under the IP and Global Challenges Program (Program 18 of the 2014/2015 Program and Budget). According to the draft Program and Budget for 2014/2015, Program 18 “addresses innovation and IP at the nexus of interconnected global issues, in particular Global Health, Climate Change and Food Security”. Thus, Member States would benefit from information provided on the activities developed by the Secretariat under this program. Fifth, preparation for conferences and/or seminars on IP and development. Other issues may also be included for future work under the new agenda item, subject to approval by Member States in the previous session. The Group had waited two years for a decision on the implementation of the third pillar of the CDIP’s mandate. This subject was of utmost importance for developing countries. Sharing experiences and discussing the links between IP and development were the only ways to achieve good outcomes and shared solutions for common challenges for development.
351 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, welcomed the GA’s decision which requested the CDIP to discuss these issues and make recommendations to the GA in 2014. The discussion was on two matters. The first dealt with the third pillar of the CDIP’s mandate, as mentioned by the Delegation of Brazil on behalf of DAG. The Group supported all the elements of the proposal and would like the Committee to adopt the proposed new agenda item. The second segment of the GA decision required the Committee to discuss the Coordination Mechanism. Consensus was not reached on two points. The first was on the list of committees that should be part of the Coordination Mechanism. To date, the PBC and the CWS did not report on their contributions to the implementation of the respective DA recommendations. The Group would like all WIPO committees to be part of the Coordination Mechanism. The second point was on the reports submitted by committees on their contributions to the implementation of the respective DA recommendations. Thus far, the reports were compilations of statements made by Member States. The Group would like the committees and the Secretariat to prepare substantive analytical reports on the contribution of each committee to the implementation of the DA. Simple compilations of comments by Member States did not fully reflect the decision by the GA. The Group would like a final decision to be taken. All WIPO committees must report on their contributions. The reports should be substantial and analytical.
352 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, appreciated the efforts to address its concerns. However, as the proposal was only introduced and made available in written form one or two days before, there was not enough time to examine the proposal in detail. Nevertheless, the Group made some preliminary comments on the proposal in a constructive spirit in order for the discussion at the next session to be more fruitful, keeping in mind that the GA decision requested the CDIP to report to the GA in 2014 and the Committee had one more session before then. The Group remained convinced that the overall role of the Committee was to discuss specific issues on IP and development. Therefore, specific and concrete issues on IP and development could be discussed without the establishment of a new agenda item which covered the role of the Committee as a whole. That was what the Committee had done thus far and should continue to do. Two of the four suggested sub-items under the proposed general agenda item on IP and development-related issues had already been dealt with. The Committee had intensively discussed the preparations for the conference and all seminars on IP and development as well as WIPO's contribution to the UN MDGs without the establishment of a new agenda item. The mandate given by the GA decision in 2007 could be achieved through discussion, as was done on those issues, and not through the establishment of a new agenda item. With regard to sub-item 3, namely, information on present and future work under the IP and Global Challenges Program (Program 18 of the 2014/2015 Program and Budget), the Group stated that its position was clear. It was satisfied with the current briefing method for Program 18 and saw no need to establish a new agenda item for that purpose. The Group saw no need to add an item on the agenda with exactly the same general title which would only be repetitive of the core role and objectives of the Committee. The Group reiterated its commitment to continue to fully implement the mandate of the Committee by reflecting and further discussing specific individual issues in respect of IP and development. With regard to the Coordination Mechanisms and Monitoring, Assessing, and Reporting Modalities, the Group continued to believe that these were applicable to the relevant WIPO bodies, and not all WIPO bodies. That was crystal clear from the language. Relevancy was decided by each body by itself.
353 The Delegation of South Africa aligned itself with the statement made by Brazil on behalf of DAG. The Delegation supported the revamped proposal by DAG for a new CDIP agenda item to deal with the third pillar of the CDIP’s mandate. The proposal was there since the sixth session. In the last session, it was agreed that other Member States could also contribute to the proposal. Since then, the DAG decided to revamp its proposal and to come up with new ideas on how the Committee could move forward with the discussion. The Delegation supported the idea.
354 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, took note of the WIPO GA decision on CDIP related matters. The CDIP had made great progress in implementing the DA recommendations, as highlighted several times by the Director General. By definition, the core objective of the CDIP was to discuss IP and development. The Committee had been successful in doing this. In this regard, the Committee fully delivered on its mandate. Therefore, they saw no purpose in adding an item on the agenda with the precise same objective and which would only repeat the main title of the Committee. Having said that, the EU and its Member States emphasized that they were always open to discuss specific agenda items related to individual issues in respect of IP and development. With regard to the Coordination Mechanism, much time had been spent by the CDIP and other bodies in discussing the implementation of this mechanism. They noted that there were different interpretations of the meaning of the term “relevant WIPO bodies”, and reiterated their position that the WIPO bodies should themselves determine whether they were relevant for the purpose of the Coordination Mechanism. A protracted discussion on this topic would take time away from more concrete and meaningful discussions on CDIP projects.
355 The Delegation of the Czech Republic, speaking on behalf of CEBS, reiterated its position on the creation of a new standing agenda item on IP and development. It maintained the view that the primary role of the Committee was to discuss IP and development related issues. The addition of the new agenda item would not only repeat the title of the Committee but would also suggest that the CDIP existed to discuss issues other than IP and development. Nevertheless, the Group stood ready to discuss any issues covered by the Committee’s mandate. On the issue of the Coordination Mechanism, the Group noted that the Committee had been discussing it extensively for over three years. It shared the opinion of other delegations and groups that the coordination mechanism was correctly implemented and there was no need for the issue to be repeatedly taken up by the Committee. It was high time for the discussions to be concluded and to focus on substantive work. The Group continued to support the position that the committees themselves should determine whether or not they were relevant for the purposes of reporting on DA recommendations. The list of relevant bodies should only include committees which dealt with substantive IP issues, namely, ACE, SCT, SCP, SCCR and IGC. Committees such as the PBC, Coordination Committee and the CWS should not be included in the list as their work was either related to the running of the organization itself or its mandate only covered technical issues and not IP as such.
356 The Delegation of Bangladesh, speaking on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, stated that the CDIP was a permanent committee mandated by the GA to discuss issues related to IP and development. Thus, it was concerned at the lack of proper implementation of all three pillars of the CDIP’s mandate. The Group referred to the principles and beliefs that led Member States to come up with the idea of the DA in 2007. They believed that IP and innovation were beneficial as tools for enhancing economic growth and social development, taking into account the specific needs and situation of a country. Its members would like the establishment of a regular opportunity to discuss the issue of IP and development at the CDIP on general terms, in addition to the existing focus on project and recommendation based discussion. The Coordination Mechanism was unanimously agreed to by all Member States to enhance coordination among different WIPO committees in the field of development activities. In this context, the Group reiterated that the decision on the Coordination Mechanism was not yet settled with respect to the PBC and the CWS which were very important committees for the realization of DA goals. The Group’s members were individually ready to actively engage in the discussion on this issue in future.
357 The Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago, speaking on behalf of GRULAC, stated that the implementation of the third pillar of the 2007 GA decision was of utmost importance to developing countries. So far, the DA recommendations provided the only framework to discuss and decide on IP and development issues. Nonetheless, new issues, debates and ideas on the relation between IP and development should also be taken into account. On this point, the Group stated that it was time to take stock of the concerns raised in the past six CDIP sessions and urged Member States to adopt a decision in this regard. The IP and development debate could be kept on the agenda on an ad-hoc basis for further discussion at the next CDIP session.
358 The Delegation of Germany supported the statements made by the delegations of Japan and Lithuania. The inclusion of a general agenda item on development and IP would not add any meaningful value. The mandate of the CDIP stated that the Committee was to discuss development and IP related issues. That was what it was doing, for example, when it discussed the international conference. The Coordination Mechanism was implemented. The mandate stated that coordination should only take place with respect to relevant bodies. This clearly implied a restriction to those bodies that substantially dealt with IP issues. Thus, the PBC and the CWS were excluded.
359 The Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that in 2007, the WIPO GA adopted forty-five DA recommendations and established a dedicated committee, namely, the CDIP, to implement those recommendations. The GA decision gave the CDIP a mandate with three elements. As agreed, discussing IP and development-related issues was part of the committee's mandate. The Delegation raised its concerns with regard to the Coordination Mechanism. Member States had yet to come up with a resolution on the bodies that should form part of the Coordination Mechanism. The recommendations of the DA should be an integral part of the work of the CWS and the PBC. The Coordination Mechanism was important for mainstreaming the DA into all WIPO bodies. The absence of the CWS and the PBC raised serious concerns. The Delegation hoped that a solution would be found as soon as possible. Two of the three elements of the mandate given by the GA were reflected in the Committee's agenda, namely, develop a work-program for implementing the 45 adopted DA recommendations; and monitor, assess, discuss and report on the implementation of all recommendations adopted. The implementation of the third pillar of the CDIP’s mandate should be fulfilled by undertaking a clear debate on IP and development. According to its mandate, the Committee should make recommendations to the GA. It would not be able to make recommendations to the GA in the area of development-oriented norm-setting without discussions on IP and development. It was time for the Committee to engage in discussions on the objective of its creation and its future. The CDIP should assess the tangible benefits of its creation for developing countries and explore whether the Committee and its work had met the expectations of developing countries. In 2010, DAG submitted a written proposal (document CDIP/6/12 Rev) for a new CDIP standing agenda item on IP and development related issues. The Delegation strongly supported the proposal by DAG for implementing the third pillar of the GA decision in 2007.
360 The Delegation of Brazil, speaking on behalf of DAG, thought the new proposal would satisfy the concerns raised in the other sessions. Some delegations questioned the value of the proposed new agenda item. Thus, a way forward could be to include this item on an ad-hoc basis in the agenda for the next CDIP session. The Committee would then be able to make an informed decision on whether or not to include it as a permanent item on the agenda. The Committee had discussed this topic for a long time and should be able to make a decision.
361 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, could not be convinced of the proposal for the agenda item to be included on an ad-hoc basis in order for the Committee to make an informed decision. This was because it would not provide a logical answer to the concern which was mentioned in its previous intervention. Thus, the Group could not live with that solution at this moment.
362 The Chair invited the Delegation of Brazil to respond to the statement by the Delegation of Japan.
363 The Delegation of Brazil, speaking on behalf of DAG, stated that it tried its best to understand why this item was not acceptable. Some developed countries did not see any need to further discuss development and IP. However, it was a pressing need for developing countries. The Member States had agreed on that when they decided on the mandate of the Committee. The proposal added value. For example, when the Committee discussed the WIPO seminar series, the discussion that was already taking place would be brought to the knowledge of Member States and they would be able to participate in the debate. This matter had been discussed for a long time. A decision was needed. To show flexibility, perhaps the Committee could go along with the proposal by the Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago for the IP and development debate to be included as an item, not a permanent item, but as an item in the agenda of the next CDIP session. The Committee could then make an informed decision in that session as to whether the new agenda item added value to its work.
364 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, reiterated its commitment to continue to fully implement the mandate of the Committee by reflecting and further discussing specific individual issues in respect of IP and development. The Group reiterated that the Committee had actually discussed two of the four items listed in the proposal at this session. Thus, the Group could make an informed decision. The session dealt with two individual issues without the general agenda item proposed by DAG. Thus, individual items could be discussed without the general agenda item. This was enough for the Group to make an informed decision. In order for it to be convinced of the need for a general agenda item to accommodate each sub-agenda item, logic was required to justify the necessity for that general agenda item. The Committee had discussed individual items at this session without the need for such an agenda item.
365 The Delegation of Switzerland referred to the new proposal by DAG and stated that the basic problem which existed at the beginning continued to persist. The Delegation reiterated that it was not against implementing the third element of the CDIP’s mandate. The Committee had already done so and was continuing to do so. It would suffice for delegations to propose specific subjects and items which could be taken up by the Committee. If a general agenda item was included, even if it was done only once just to see how it worked, the Committee would not know what was within. It would still be in the original situation. Delegations could prepare specific proposals for specific subjects. If there was agreement, the Committee would deal with them. There was no point in having an agenda item with a general title. Delegations did not know what would be done under that title. They would just continue to discuss the general title. That would not be an efficient and effective way to work. The Committee already had a great deal of work.
366 The Chair invited the Secretariat to read out a draft decision paragraph on this item, given that there were no further observations from the floor.
367 The Secretariat (Mr. Baloch) read out the following, “The Committee discussed document CDIP/12/5 and CDIP/6/12 Rev. Divergent views were expressed by the various delegations. As mandated by the Assembly, the Committee decided to continue discussion on this issue at CDIP/13.”
368 The Delegation of Brazil, speaking on behalf of DAG, sought clarification on whether the draft decision paragraph covered both issues, i.e. the coordination mechanism and the third pillar of the CDIP’s mandate.
369 The Chair stated that it was on both because the last part of the mandate by the GA stated the following, “requests the CDIP to discuss these two matters during its Twelfth and Thirteenth Sessions, report back and make recommendations on the two matters to the General Assembly in 2014”.
370 The Delegation of Brazil, speaking on behalf of DAG, found it really frustrating that after six sessions of trying to improve the discussion on IP and development, some delegations still believed that it did not deserve a rightful place. The Group had a proposal on the table. Some views were expressed on a few of the items. However, one of the items was not opposed. It could not see why the new item could not be included in the agenda for the next session. As mentioned by many delegations, the Committee had already started discussions on the MDGs and the international conference. Discussions on these items would continue in the next session. It did not understand why the Committee could not discuss these subjects under the new agenda item. The Group took note of the comments made on Program 18. The proposal did not involve the creation of a new reporting scheme. It merely requested information from the Secretariat. According to the draft Program and Budget for 2014/2015, the IP and Global Challenges Program “addresses innovation and IP at the nexus of interconnected global issues, in particular Global Health, Climate Change and Food Security. The focus on this intersection is guided largely by Member States as noted, inter alia, in the DA. These three subject areas have been chosen because developing countries face particularly acute challenges in these domains and because solutions from innovation-driven initiatives are feasible.” The Group could not see why these items and inputs from the WIPO Seminar Series on the Economics of IP could not be discussed at least once under the proposed new agenda Item. The experience would allow Member States to make an informed decision.
371 The Delegation of the United Kingdom believed that the draft decision paragraph was a fair summary of the situation. In light of the divergent views and the need to move forward in this session, the Delegation could go along with it.
372 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, shared the disappointment and frustration expressed by DAG. The Group proposed that the draft decision paragraph be amended to include a reference to the GA decision. In this context, the last sentence could be amended to read as follows, “In accordance with the decision taken by the GA in 2013 on CDIP related matters, the Committee will continue the discussion on these issues with a view to finalize the discussion on these matters”.
373 The Delegation of the United States of America referred to the intervention by the Delegation of Algeria. The GA decision stated that the CDIP should report back and make recommendations. It did not state that the Committee would finalize the discussion. The Delegation was happy with the actual GA language. Thus, the decision paragraph could state the following, “with a view to report back and make recommendations on the two matters to the General Assembly in 2014”. This was in accordance with the language in the GA decision.
374 The Chair stated that the draft decision paragraph would be revised to take into account the views that were expressed. He adjourned the meeting and informed delegations that the drafting committee would engage in informal discussions from 6pm to 9pm. Although some ground was covered, he felt that the pace was painstakingly slow, with delegations wanting to see their language reflected. If they continued on that path, not much progress would be achieved. Thus, he invited delegations to engage constructively in the drafting group. The main objective was to achieve consensus on the TOR.



Download 0.62 Mb.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12




Download 0.62 Mb.

Bosh sahifa
Aloqalar

    Bosh sahifa



Draft report

Download 0.62 Mb.