W ORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION · CDIP /3/9 Prov.2 page 4 General S tatements 13....

WIPOE

CDIP/3/9 Prov.2

ORIGINAL: English

DATE: November4, 2009

WORLD INTE LLECTUAL PROPERT Y O RGANI ZATIONGENEVA

COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT ANDINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (CDIP)

Third SessionGeneva, April 27 to May 1, 2009

REVISEDDRAFT REPORT

Prepared by the Secretariat

1. TheThird Sessionof theCDIP washeld from April 27 to May 1, 2009.

2. ThefollowingStateswererepresented: Afghanistan,Albania, Algeria, Angola,Argentina,Australia,Austria, Azerbaijan,Bahrain,Barbados, Belgium,Bolivia(PlurinationalStateof), BosniaandHerzegovina,Botswana,Brazil, BurkinaFaso,Burundi,Cambodia,Cameroon, Canada,Chile,China,Colombia,Congo,CostaRica,Côted’ Ivoire,Croatia, Cuba,Cyprus,CzechRepublic,Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,Democratic Republic of theCongo,Denmark,Dominica,DominicanRepublic, Ecuador,Egypt, El Salvador,Finland,France,Germany,Ghana,Greece,Guatemala,Guinea,Haiti,Holy See,India, Indonesia, Iran (IslamicRepublicof), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica,Japan,Jordan,Kenya,Kuwait, Latvia,Lebanon,Libyan ArabJamahiriya, Li thuania,Luxembourg,Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius,Mexico,Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar,Netherlands,Nigeria,Norway,Oman,Pakistan,Paraguay,Peru,Philippines,Poland,Portugal, Qatar,Republicof Korea, Republicof Moldova,Romania,Russian Federation,Saudi Arabia,Senegal,Serbia, Singapore,SouthAfrica, Spain, Sudan,Sweden,Switzerland,SyrianArab Republic, Thailand,TheFormerYugoslavRepublicof Macedonia,Trinidad andTobago, Tunisia,Turkey, Ukraine, UnitedArabEmirates,UnitedKingdom,UnitedStatesof America,Uruguay, Uzbekistan,Viet Nam, Yemen,ZambiaandZimbabwe(110). Palestinewasrepresentedin anobserver capacity.

3. Thefollowing intergovernmentalorganizations(IGOs) tookpartasobservers: AfricanUnion (AU), Arab LeagueEducational,Cultural andScientific Organization (ALECSO),CaribbeanCommunity(CARICOM), Commissionof theEuropeanCommunities(CEC),

CDIP/3/9Prov.2page2

EurasianPatentOrganization (EAPO), EuropeanPatent Office(EPO),FoodandAgricultureOrganizationof theUnitedNations(FAO), Leagueof Arab States(LAS), Organizationof theIslamicConference(OIC), PatentOffice of theCooperation Council for theArabStatesof theGulf (GCC), SouthCentre,UnitedNationsConferenceonTradeandDevelopment(UNCTAD), theWorld HealthOrganization(WHO) andtheWorld TradeOrganization(WTO) (15).

4. Representativesof thefollowing internationalnon-governmental organizations(NGOs)tookpartasobservers: AssociationIQSensato(IQSensato), Centralesanitairesuisseromande(CSSR), Centrefor InternationalEnvironmentLaw (CIEL), Civil SocietyCoalition (CSC),CompetitionandTax Law (MPI), CropLife International, Electronic Frontier Foundation(EFF),Electronic Informationfor Libraries(eIFL), EuropeanDigital Rights (EDRI),EuropeanLaw Students’ Association(ELSA International), ExchangeandCooperationCentrefor Latin America(ECCLA), Federationof Industriesof theStateof Rio deJaneiro,FreeSoftwareFoundationEurope(FSFEurope), Ibero-Latin-AmericanFederationofPerformers(FILAI E), IndigenousICT TaskForce(IITF), IngénieursduMonde(IdM),Institutefor Policy Innovation(IPI), International Association for theProtection ofIntellectualProperty (AIPPI), International Center for TradeandSustainableDevelopment(ICTSD), International Chamberof Commerce(ICC), International Federation ofAssociationsof Film Distributors(FIAD), International Federation of PharmaceuticalManufacturersAssociations(IFPMA), InternationalFederationof ReproductionRightsOrganizations(IFRRO),InternationalFederationof thePhonographicIndustry (IFPI),InternationalFederationof Film ProducersAssociations(FIAPF), InternationalHotel andRestaurantAssociation(IH&RA ), International PublishersAssociation (IPA), InternationalTrademarkAssociation(INTA), InternationalVideo Federation (IVF), KnowledgeEcologyInternational(KEI), Library CopyrightAll iance(LCA), Max-PlanckInstitute for IntellectualProperty,Organizationfor anInternational Geographical IndicationsNetwork (oriGIn) andThird World Network (TWN) (34).

5. Representativesof thefollowing national NGOsalsotookpartas observers: Chamberof Commerceof theUnitedStatesof America (CCUSA)andFundação Getulio Vargas(FGV).

AgendaItem 1: Openingof thesession

6. TheDirectorGeneralof WIPOopenedthesession. Welcoming theparticipants,theDirectorGeneralemphasizedtheimportanceof theDevelopmentAgendaandinvited theMemberStates’ involvementin takingtheDevelopmentAgendato furtherstage.TheDirectorGeneraltheninvited theCommitteeto considerAgendaItem2 dealingwith theElectionof officers.

AgendaItem 2: Electionof officers

7. Followingaproposalmadeby theDelegationof Germanyandsupported by theDelegationof Serbia, speakingonbehalfof theRegional Groupof CentralEuropeanandBaltic States,AmbassadorTrevorClarkof Barbadoswasunanimously electedastheChairoftheCommitteeandMr. MohamedAbderraoufBdioui of TunisiaandMr. JavierAlonsoMorenoRamosof Spain, asVice-Chairs.

CDIP/3/9Prov.2page3

8. Followinghis election,theChairthankedtheGroupof Latin American andCaribbeanStates(GRULAC) for havingsupportedhim for theposition of theChairfor thethird time,oncefor theProvisional Committeeon ProposalsRelated to aWIPODevelopmentAgenda(PCDA) and subsequentlyasChairof theCDIP. HealsothankedtheDelegation of Germanyand GroupB for formally proposinghim as theChair. TheChair mentionedthatthere existedconcernsabouttheslow paceof theDevelopmentAgendaimplementation after manyyears ofits discussionsat WIPOandtheneedfor thedelegationsto movetheprocessforward. TheChairhopedthatthehardwork during thesessionwouldbringWIPOcloser to thegoal ofimplementation of theadoptedrecommendations. Beforeseeking theformal adoptionof theAgenda,heproposed thatdueto largenumberof issuesto beconsideredduring thesession,therewas aneedto focusondiscussingfurtherwork with regardto theimplementationof theadoptedrecommendations. TheChairproposedthepreparation of a “Summaryby theChair”to beadoptedat theendof theSessioninsteadof thedraft report. He remindedthemeetingthattheusualdraft reportwhichwouldbepreparedsubsequently by theSecretariat wouldcontaintheinterventionsmadeduring thesessionsandwouldalso includetheChair’sSummary. Hestatedthatthedraft report would becommunicated to thePermanentMissionsof MemberStatesandwouldalso bemadeavailable to Member States, IGOsand NGOs inelectronic form on theWIPOwebsite. He invitedwrittencomments on thedraft report to becommunicatedwithin threeweeksof its issuance.Thereviseddraft reportwould thenbeconsideredfor adoptionat thebeginningof thefourthsessionof theCDIP. With respecttotheAgenda,theChairproposedthatthestatementof theDirector Generalbefollowedbygeneral statementsafterAgendaItem 4, namely“A ccreditation of Observers” . He alsofeltthatit wouldbeimportantthatthead hoc observershadtheopportunity to listento theDirectorGeneralandthegeneralstatements which hehopedwould befew andconcise.

AgendaItem 3: Adoptionof theAgenda

9. TheDelegationof Egypt,while congratulating theChair, soughtto amend theAgendaItem8 to bereadas“discussions oncoordination mechanisms andmonitoring,assessingandreporting modalities” sothatit reflectedthemandategivento theCommitteeby theGeneralAssembly.

10. TheDelegationof theRepublicof Korearequestedthat consideration of documentCDIP/3/7whichcontainedaproposal from theRepublic of KoreabeconsideredunderAgendaItem7.

11. TheChair decidedto accepttheproposedamendments and invitedtheSecretariattointroducedocumentCDIP/3/6relatingto theaccreditation of Observers.

AgendaItem 4: Accreditationof Observers

12. TheSecretariat, in introducingdocumentCDIP/3/6,recalled that theRulesof Procedureof theCDIP providedfor anad hoc accreditationof NGOs. TheSecretariat informedthatWIPO hadreceived two requests, thefirst from theConfederationof Industriesof theStateofRio deJaneiro (FIRJAN),andthesecond from theCentral Sanitaire Suisse Romande (CSSR),for ad hoc accreditation. With noobjectionsfrom thefloor, thetwo NGOsweredeclaredasaccreditedandinvitedby theChairto join themeeting.

CDIP/3/9Prov.2page4

GeneralStatements

13. Addressing theCommittee,theDirector Generalstated thatthepresenceof a largenumberof participantsin themeetingwasa testimonyof theimportance that MemberStatesattachedto theDevelopmentAgenda.TheDirector Generalreiterated his personalcommitmentof theimplementationof theDevelopmentAgenda.He felt that theDevelopmentAgendapresentedanexcellent opportunity to mainstreamdevelopmentinto allactivities of theOrganization. Describing theefforts of theSecretariat, theDirectorGeneralstated thatWIPOhadsoughtto identify theprinciplesthatwere to beapplied to all of theactivities of theOrganization.On theotherhand, theSecretariat proposed to implementaction-orientedactivities by varioussectorsof theOrganization. By seekingto involve thevarioussectorsof theOrganization,theentire Secretariat wasbehindtheimplementationoftheDevelopmentAgenda.TheDevelopmentAgendawouldalsobeintegrated in theOrganization’sbudget for thenext Biennium. This approach wouldensureacollectiveeffortof thewholeSecretariatfor theimplementationof theDevelopmentAgenda.

14. Referring to theconcernsexpressedby somethatthemainstreaming of theDevelopmentAgendamight result in its dissipation, theDirector GeneralinformedthattheDevelopmentAgendaCoordinationDivisionworkingunderhis direct supervisionwasthesinglepoint of responsibility within theOrganization. TheDirectorGeneral then expressedthehopethathis explanationwouldallayall theconcerns.

15. As regardstheprojectbasedmethodologyproposed by theSecretariat for theimplementation, in particularof thefive recommendations, theDirector Generalstatedthatthis wasabeginningof a processfor implementation of thoserecommendations. Eachprojecthad a life cycleandwouldbeimplemented throughaninteractive processwith regularfeedbackprovided to theMemberStates.This mechanismwouldprovideanopportunityfortheMember Statesto evaluate,assessandmonitor theimplementation andalsoto seehowtheseprojectswereimplementingtherecommendationsandwhatelseremainedto bedone.

16. As regardstheestimatedbudgetof eightmillionsSwissfrancsfor theimplementationof thefive recommendationsincludedin theProgramandBudgetfor 2009,theDirectorGeneralinformedtheCommitteethatin orderto ensurethatthefigureof 8 mil lion Swissfrancswasfull y respected,WIPOhadexceptionally – with respectto thosefiverecommendations– not takeninto account thefull costof thehuman resourceswithin theOrganizationthatwereto bedeployed. Hestressed thatshould thecostof theinternalhumanresourcesthatwerebeing usedbedisregarded, thentheamountin respect to thefiverecommendationswould cometo some7.9mill ion Swissfrancs.On theother hand,if thecost of humanresourceswasincluded, thentheamountwould cometo a figureof some10.3million Swiss francs.With respectto futureprojects,for reasonsof transparency,it wasWIPO’s intentionto reflectin thebudgetthefull costto theOrganization of theimplementation of anyprojector recommendation. In thefuture, thecostof humanresourcesthatweredeployedinternallyin theimplementationof therecommendationsof projectswouldbereflectedin thebudget.TheDirector General addedthat theprocessof deployinghumanresourceswithin theOrganizationto theimplementation of thevariousrecommendationsandprojectsof theDevelopmentAgendawasbeingundertakenthrough theprocessof strategic realignment.Theprocessof strategicrealignmentwould in turnbeafinite processandat thatstagethenecessity for MemberStatesto considerthedeploymentorengagement of newfresh humanresources with respect to futureprojectswouldarise. InWIPO’s preliminaryconsultationswith theMemberStates,quiteaconsiderableamountof

CDIP/3/9Prov.2page5

discussion hadtakenplacewith respectto thequestion of reportingandevaluation. TheDirectorGeneralwelcomedtheproposal madeby several delegationsthatheshouldreport totheCDIP annually on theimplementationof principles. Hestated thattherewere certainprinciplesthatweredirectedimmediatelyto theSecretariat, such astheprinciplesrelating totechnicalassistanceandcapacity-building. Therewere equally principles thatMemberStatesweredirecting to themselvesasthecollective membershipof theOrganization. TheDirectorGeneralsaidthata recommendationto urgetheexpedition of thework of theCommitteeonTraditionalKnowledge,GeneticResourcesand Folklore (IGC) wasaprinciple thatlay in thehandsof theMemberStatesto implement. TheDirectorGeneral welcomedthesuggestionthatheshould reportto MemberStatesannually on their implementation. With respecttoprojects, theprojectmanagershehadappointedfor eachof theprojects would reporttoMemberStatesin theCDIP. In thatregard,hedrewtheattentionof theCommitteeto thenecessityondecidingon astructuredperiodically reporting processthatsatisfied theneedsand desiresof MemberStates. Thethird categorywhichhadbeenidentified with respecttotheDevelopmentAgendafor its implementationdealtwith activi ties which wouldbeundertakenthrough theregular programand reportedannually to theCDIP. TheDirectorGenerallookedforwardto aconstructiveengagement on theDevelopment Agenda,andfeltthatastagehadbeenreachedwhereall ideasfor theDevelopmentAgendawouldbetranslatedinto anactionableprogramfor theOrganization.

17. Onbehalf of theMemberStates, theChair thankedtheDirector Generalandinvitedcommentsonhis statements. TheChairin particular referred to theAgendaItem7 andtheproposed Thematic Projectapproach andinvitedquestionsfor theDirector Generalinparticularon thosesubjects.

18. TheDelegationof Argentinafelt that thecosts of humanresourcesdeployedto theprojectsfrom theexistinghumanresources of theOrganization shouldnot beincludedin theproject budget. TheDelegationfelt that, while thehumanresource requirements couldbeindicated in theprojectproposals, theinclusionof costin theDelegation’s opinionshouldnotbe included. TheDelegation, however, did not wish to openadiscussion on this matterat thattime.

19. TheChair theninvited generalstatementsandrequesteddelegationsand regionalcoordinatorsto bebrief in their statements andto providewith writtencopiesto theSecretariat for its inclusionin therecordsof themeeting.

20. TheDelegationof Sri Lanka,speakingonbehalf of theAsianGroup,expresseditsconfidencein theleadershipof theChairandappreciatedtheSecretariatfor preparing detaileddocumentsandin particulartheextensivebriefingsessionsheld beforethemeeting. TheDelegationalsoappreciatedtheeffortsof theDirector Generalfor his personalinterestandcommitmentto theDevelopmentAgendaandhopedthattheMemberStatesandtheSecretariat wouldwork togetherin makingprogresstowardstheearly implementationof alltheDevelopmentAgendarecommendations. Onbehalf of theAsianGroup,theDelegationalsowelcomedthenewapproachproposed by theSecretariat by identifying therecommendationsin two broadgroups, namely principles andactionables and furthergroupingof thesimilar recommendationsunderdifferentthemes. Furthermore, theGrouphoped thatfinancialallocationswouldbemadeavailable for theeffective implementationoftheserecommendations. TheDelegationsuggested themainstreaming of thoseprinciplesinthework of all thecommitteesof WIPOasthemosteffective wayto achieving theresultstomeettheexpectations of theDevelopmentAgenda. TheDelegation, while appreciatingthe

CDIP/3/9Prov.2page6

proposals madeby theSecretariatfelt that theproposals couldbefurtherimprovedandthatindividual membersof theAsianGroupwouldbemakingspecific suggestionsasthediscussion unfolded.

21. TheDelegationof CostaRica,speakingonbehalf of GRULAC, thanked theChairandtheWIPOSecretariat for theeffortsmadein drafting thedocuments andholdingtheinformalconsultationsthatprecededtheevent. TheDelegation felt thatthemeetingsfacilitatedanextensiveandproductiveexchangeof ideaswhich madeit possible to start theSessionin aspirit of positive dialogueandabasisof acommonunderstandingof theconcernsandneedsof delegations.TheDelegationexpressedits concernthattheSpanishversionof somedocumentshad been circulatedlate,which limitedadetailedanalysis of theproposalsbythosein chargeof following up thetopicsin their capitals. TheDelegation recognized theSecretariat’s effortsin formulatinganewmethodof work. It recognizedtheimportanceofactiveandconstructive participationof themembersandvaluedtheproactive andpositiveactionof theSecretariatto facilitatetheprogress. Theideaof Thematic Projects wasanewmethodof work andGRULAC waspreparedto collaboratein that process. ForGRULAC, itwasessentialto guaranteecertainbasicconditionsin thedevelopmentof theThematicProjects. First, theSecretariat,whenpreparingThematic Projects, shouldmaintain thecontentand thewording of theoriginal recommendationsadopted by theCommitteeandthereshouldbeno reinterpretationof therecommendations. Second,in thedevelopmentandimplementation of projects, theamendmentsthat Membersmakeduringthemeetingsof theCommitteeshouldbeincluded. Third, thefact thattheproject wascompleted shouldnotmeanthat theimplementationof therecommendationsis complete. Fourth, if theprojectsonly implementedpartof therecommendations,additional projects or activitieswouldbeformulatedto implementthoserecommendationsfull y. Fifth, thereshould besufficientbudgetary fundsto guaranteetheimplementationof theThematic Projects. TheDelegationreiteratedGRULAC’s interestin agreeingon thecoordinationmechanismswith othercommitteesanddecision-makingbodiesin WIPOto help effectively implementtherecommendationsof theDevelopmentAgenda. GRULAC consideredthat theDirectorGeneralshouldreportannuallyto theCDIP on theimplementation of therecommendationsthatrequiredcoordinationamongdifferentWIPO committees. Finally theDelegationrepeatedthattheorderof analysisof therecommendationsdid not imply anypreferenceorpriority amongrecommendations. TheDelegation repeatedtheGroup’sinterestin thedevelopmentof follow up andassessmentmechanismsof an appropriatenatureandurgedtheSecretariat andtheChairto continuewith theconclusiveandtransparentdialoguethathadbeendevelopedsofar.

22. TheDelegationof Bangladesh, speaking onbehalf of theleast-developedcountries(LDCs)Group,greatly appreciatedtheleadershipandcontribution of theChairin theadoptionof theWIPODevelopmentAgendaandtheconsequentwork in theCDIP towardsitsimplementation. TheLDCswerecommittedto thecontinued supportof theChair’sendeavorsto forge consensusin theCDIP andmoveits work forward. TheDelegationalsoexpressedits appreciationto thecommitment of theDirectorGeneral to addresstheinterestsof LDCs relatedto intellectualproperty(IP) andhis proactive role in suggestingnewwaystofacilitatethe implementationof theWIPODevelopmentAgenda.TheDelegation alsothankedtheSecretariatfor theextensivebriefingprovided to themembersof thegroupon themattersthatwouldbe takenupby theCDIP, whichhadhelpedthembetter understandtheissuesandthestakesinvolved. In particular,theGroupthankedtheLDCs Divisionof WIPOfor their continuedsupportto theLDCs. TheDelegation alsocommentedon two specificissues, first thenewproject-orientedapproachproposedby theSecretariat to expeditethe

CDIP/3/9Prov.2page7

implementation of theWIPO DevelopmentAgenda. TheLDCs Groupsaw somepotentialmerit in suchanapproachasit might acceleratetheimplementationof theDevelopmentAgendaandfelt thattheCDIP should explorethatapproach. Second,theLDCsGroupwasencouragedby theproposalfor theholdingof theDonorsConferencefor mobilizingextra-budgetaryresourcesfor WIPOtowardstheimplementation of, in particular,Recommendation2 of theDevelopmentAgendathatcalledfor theestablishmentofTrust-Fundsor othervoluntaryfundswithin WIPOspecifically for theLDCs. Whilecontinuingto accordhighpriority to financeactivi tiesin Africa throughbudgetaryandextra-budgetaryresourcesto promote,inter alia, thelegal, commercial, cultural andeconomicexploitationof IP in thosecountries, theGroupstronglybelievedthatthis shouldbethemainrecommendation to beaddressedthroughthis initiative whichhad alsobeen proposedindocument CDIP/3/INF/2 AnnexI. In that context, theDelegationcalledupontheWIPOSecretariat to establishassoonaspossible theWIPOmulti-donorFunds-in-Trust(FIT) for theLDCs.

23. TheDelegationof Senegal,speakingonbehalf of theAfrican Group,warmlycongratulatedtheChaironhis re-electionwhich confirmed theappreciation of theway inwhich hehaddirectedtheCommittee’s work. TheDelegation alsocongratulated theVice-Chairs andexpressedits pleasurefor thefact thatoneof their MemberswasaVice-Chair. TheDelegationthankedtheSecretariat, undertheleadership of theDirectorGeneral, for having preparedtheworking documents which werebothvery detailedandwellstructured. TheGroupstressedthatall thenecessarystepsshould betaken by WIPOtoensure thattheagreementwhich led to theadoption of the45 recommendationsresultedin themuch expected economic,socialandcultural development andit led to acultural change inWIPO. Furthermore,theimplementationof theDevelopment Agendashouldstrengthentheroleof MemberStatesin driving theOrganization. An effective implementation without anyprioritization wouldcertainlycontributeto theachievement of theMil lennium DevelopmentGoals(MDGs). TheDelegationinformedtheChair thatduring thethird sessionof theCDIP,theGroupwouldbemainlyconcentratingon two points,namely, thenew methodologyproposed by theSecretariaton thebasisof Thematic Projects andthecoordination ofactivities betweentheCDIP andotherWIPObodiesfor thefollow-up andassessmentof theDevelopmentAgendaimplementation. In respect to thenew approachandtheprojectsproposed by theSecretariat, theAfrican Groupconsideredthem aspositive. However,theGroupwishedto reiteratetheimportanceattachedto thecontentsof therecommendationsandto theneedfor not affectingtheir scopeby grouping themintoThematic Projects. TheDelegationstressedtheneedfor coordinating all effortsto achieve theobjectivesof therecommendationsevenafterprojectshadbeencompleted. Regarding theotherimportantpoint on theagenda,theGroupstressedtheimportanceattachedto a coordination mechanismbetweentheCDIP andtheotherWIPObodies. Consequently theAfrican Groupwouldbeopento all ideason thesubject.For asuccessfulandsustainable implementation theDevelopmentAgendaanumberof conditionsshouldberespected; First, technicalassistancefor theelaborationof regionalandnational strategiesfor development. Second,strengtheningof humanresourcecapacity-buildingat everylevel andthefinancingof all thoseactivitiesfrom theregularbudget. TheDelegationwelcomedtheconvening, beforetheend of 2009,ofadonorconference.On behalfof theAfricanGroup,theDelegationalsoproposedthatthefollowing threeaspectsbe takeninto consideration: fi rst, thesocio-economic developmentplanssecond,theneedfor finding abalancebetweenthevariousdifferentinterestsinvolved,i.e.,theinterests of Governments, theprivatesector, andtheconsumers;and third, respectfortheprinciplesdiscussedandadoptedby MemberStatesfor thatpurpose. Theimplementationof therecommendationsshouldmakeit possible to achieve, inter alia, efficient useof theIP

CDIP/3/9Prov.2page8

systemin thecontext of formulationof government policiesandthedevelopment ofeconomic,socialandculturalpoliciestakinginto accountthevariouslevels of development.TheDelegation felt thatin orderto bea leaderfor economic, social andcultural development,theassistanceof WIPO in theareaof IP shouldbeprovidedin aclearly definedframeworkwith clear identification of theneedsandpriorities of thebeneficiarystates in linewith theirnational objectives anddevelopmentplans. TheDelegation appreciatedthattheDirectorGeneralfor givingpriority to asuccessful implementation of theDevelopment Agenda.

24. TheDelegationof theCzechRepublic, speakingonbehalf of theEuropean Community(EC)andits 27MemberStates,congratulatedtheChair andall thedelegationsfor thegoodwork doneduring theprevioustwo sessionsof theCommittee, thesubstantial progressmadein the implementationof the45 recommendations, andtheactionplanthat representedaclearcommitmentof all thedelegations. It expressedits gratitudeto theWIPO Secretariat for theessential contribution providedduringthe work of theCommittee. As developmentwasoneof themostimportant challengesof thetime,WIPOhadaspecific mandate to promotedevelopmentin thefield of intellectualpropertyrights (IPRs). TheDelegationstatedthatitwasawareof theimportanceof ensuring thattheIP system met theneedsof WIPO membersand users.TheCommitteeshouldkeepmomentumandcontinueto moveforward toachievingconcrete results. It consideredit essential to maintain theconstructive spirit whichhad beenbuilt upduringthepreviousyears to furtherdevelop awork programfor theimplementation of theadoptedrecommendations. In thatregard,it appreciated theprogressachievedandwaspreparedto examine theproposals already beingimplemented. ItwelcomedthenewThematicapproachpresentedby theSecretariat in order to speedup theimplementation processandlookedforward to discussing theproposedprojectscontainedindocumentsCDIP/3/4 andCDIP/3/4Add. TheDelegationalso informedthattheEC andits 27MemberStateshadalreadystarteddiscussionsconcerning thecoordination mechanismsandreporting modalities. TheGroupassuredall thedelegationsthatit remained committedtodiscussing thevarious pointsof theAgendawith anopenmind andconstructive spirit, andlookedforwardto continuingits cooperation to makeprogresswith respect to themandatethattheGeneralAssemblyhadgiven.

25. TheDelegationof Yemen,while stating that it spokeonbehalfof theArabGroup,congratulatedtheChairandthetwo Vice-Chairs andappreciatedtheSecretariat’s work forpreparingthedocumentsandthesupport it providedto MemberStates,in particularto theArab Group. TheDelegationstatedthatit wouldhavepreferredto receive thedocumentsinArabic languagemore in advancesoasto beableto read themproperly. With regardto theproposal of theSecretariatandthemethodology to implementtherecommendationsof theDevelopmentAgenda,it believedthatit wasa goodstepforward. TheDelegation, however,stressedtheneedto ensurethatthethoughtbehindeachof thoserecommendations wasimportant,andthatwhile analyzing theThematic Projects, it should beensuredthattheyweresuccessfullyimplemented.TheDelegationalsostressedtheneedto ensurethattheefforts intheimplementationof therecommendationsweresuccessfulandthat themeasuresadoptedwere efficient. TheDelegationstatedthattheArabGroupsupportedthework of theCommittee. TheGroupbelievedthatthenecessary financingshould comefrom theregularbudget. Therewasalsoa needto continueto exchangeopinions, work in a transparentframeworkand hoped thattherecommendationswereactually implementedto serve theinterests of all MemberStates.TheArabGroupexpressedtheneedfor theArab Bureautohavemoreassistancein termsof financialandhumanresourcesfor theDevelopmentAgendato bedisseminatedthroughouttheArab-speaking world. TheDelegation alsobelievedthat

CDIP/3/9Prov.2page9

theDevelopmentAgendashouldbemainstreamedinto all of WIPO’s work andthis wasthereasonwhy theGroupcalledon theDirector Generalto crownthework with success.

26. TheDelegationof Serbia,speakingonbehalf of theRegionalGroupof CentralEuropeanandBaltic States,acknowledgedthegreateffortsalreadyinvestedin thepreparationand elaborationof theWIPO DevelopmentAgenda. TheWIPO Development Agendareflectedin a goodmanner theneedsof thedevelopingcountriesandLDCs, and therealizationof its goalsshouldfacilitatetheIP to becomeoneof theleadingmeans to enhancethetechnological progressandeconomic developmentof thosecountries. In thatsense,theGroupwantedto underlinethattheWIPODevelopment Agendashouldhelp alsothecountrieswith economiesin transition. TheGroupsupportedtheposition thatthelist of45 recommendationsshouldremainintactandthatthereshould benoprioritizationamongthem. TheDelegation expresseddisappointment thattheprocessof theimplementationofthoserecommendationshadmoved forwardveryslowly andthereforecommendedtheDirectorGeneral’s initiative to introducethenewThematic Approachwhich, in its view,would improvetheefficiencyandcoherencein implementing therecommendationsof theDevelopmentAgenda. It believedthatsuchanapproachwouldmaketheDevelopmentAgendaconceptmorecoherent,transparentandeasierto understandandfollow. TheDelegationhopedthattheproposednewapproach would, in thecourseof themeeting,initiateasubstantivediscussionon thevariousissues.

27. TheDelegationof Chinacongratulated theChair onhis re-election andthankedhim andtheSecretariat for all theeffortsmadefor themeeting. TheDelegation waspleasedto seethattheSecretariathadmadedetailedprojectplansin order to maketheimplementationof theagreedproposalsmore effective. It hopedthattheeffective implementation of thoseprojectswouldbenefit developingcountries, includingChina,andin particular LDCs whichwouldtruly benefit from them. Giventheglobaleconomic situation, it wasonly by promotingdevelopment,respectingcreationandstimulating theoverall creativit y thattheycouldtrulyadvancetheeconomicandculturaldevelopment. Encouragingandprotecting inventionandcreationcouldplayanimportantrole in promoting development. However, theprotectionofIP shouldnot impedethetechnicalassistanceto developingcountries, especially LDCs,inparticularwhenit cameto newtechnologiessuchasIP protection andpublic health, sincethosetechnologieshada certaindegreeof public interest. WIPO,as aspecializedagency oftheUnitedNations(UN) responsiblefor IP issues, had theduty to providean effectiveplatform for MemberStatesto exploredevelopmentmodelsthatcorrespondedto eachcountry’s situation. With theeconomicdownturn, WIPOshould makeeffective efforts inorder to ensurethatdevelopingcountries, especially LDCs, couldmakebetter useof theIPsystem, in orderfor IP to playa truly positive role in stimulating theeconomic growth. TheDelegationwaspleasedto seethatin previousmeetings,all Member Stateshadmadegreatefforts andshown anopen,cooperativeandinclusivespirit. TheDelegation expressedhopethatthatthespirit wouldcontinueduringthatsession, andin thespirit of seekingcommonground,all shouldmakejoint effortsin orderto reachconsensusasto theimplementationofall proposals,sothatall memberscould truly benefit from theimplementation. At thesametime, theDelegationwould, asusual,participateactively in thediscussionsof that session,inapositiveandconstructivespirit.

28. TheDelegationof RomaniacongratulatedtheChair for his re-electionandtheVice-Chairsfor their election,andalsocongratulatedtheChairandtheSecretariatfor theexcellent work doneduringthetwo previoussessions. TheDelegation acknowledgedthecontributionof thedelegationsto thesubstantial progressmadein implementing theaction

CDIP/3/9Prov.2page10

planscontainedin the45 recommendations.TheDelegationexpressed its special thanksandcongratulationsto theDirectorGeneral for theproactive andpersonalinvolvementin thenewapproachof theDevelopmentAgenda,making it possible for theCDIP to makeprogressandto go further. TheDelegationof Romaniaattached greatimportanceto thework developedwithin CDIP andintendedto assistdevelopingcountries in takingadvantageof IP in theireconomicevolution andin raising awarenessof developmentissues connected with IPR. Intheend,its cooperativework hadto ensurethattheIP systemmettheneedsof all WIPOmembers. Facing thenewtechnologicalchallenge,theGovernmentof Romania,recognizingthepotential contributionof IP to theeconomic growth of thecountry, decidedthattheIPpolicy andstrategyfor thenextfive yearswould bedrawnby theMinistry forCommunicationsandInformationSociety, which wouldcoordinatetheRomanianCopyrightOffice andthePatentOfficeactivities. Theeffici encyof theRomanianIP system wouldbebasedon thegreentechnology, education, raisingof awareness,researchanddevelopment(R&D) in ahealthy environment.Lastly, for thesubsequentfive years,R&D wouldbefundedby theGovernment,with averysignificant investment. Thestudyof copyright-basedindustriescontribution to Romania’s economy,realizedwith thetechnical andfinancialassistanceof WIPO, hadbeenreleasedpublicly in theRomanian version in February2009. Itshoweda5.55percenttotal contributionin 2005,thelastyear of thesurvey,stimulatingtheinterest in theapplicationof theresultsandin thecontinuation of thesurvey. Romaniawascommittedto continuing thepositiveandconstructivediscussionsin orderfor theCommitteeto achieveconcreteresultsandmoveon to a furtherstage.

29. TheDelegationof Egyptcongratulated theChair andtheVice-Chairs on theirelectionand thanked theChairfor all theeffortsin thepreviousandcurrentsessions. TheDelegationalso thanked theSecretariatfor providingthemwith thedocuments. It supportedthestatementmadeby theDelegationof Senegalonbehalf of theAfri canGroupandthestatementmadeby theDelegationof Yemenonbehalf of theArab countries. Statingthatthethird sessionof theCDIP wasanewphase, theDelegation hopedthatit would beveryproductive, focused on theconceptof development, linked to general policies while bearinginmind thechallenges. Therewasalsoaneedto takeintoaccountthedifferent levelsofdevelopment.As it wasthefirst time for theCommitteeto meetsinceMr. FrancisGurry hadbecometheDirector General, theDelegationpaid homageto all his efforts andalsothankedtheSecretariat. TheDelegationstatedthattheGeneral Assemblyhadgiven theCommitteeacertainmandatewhichshouldbefollowedup. TheCommitteeshould look at theprogressachievedanddiscussedduringmeetings,compile reportsandtakestockof coordinationmechanismsit hadput togetheron theissueof development. It wasaninclusivemandate,inother wordsanddecisions basedonMemberStates,wereMember-Statesdriven. Giventherecommendationsthathadbeenadoptedfor theDevelopmentAgenda, theCommitteemusttaketheappropriatemeasuresfor activitieswhich shouldconsiderthevaluesand theprinciplesthathadbeenmentionedandto thework of theSecretariatandtheactivitiesproposed by all MemberStates. TheDelegation stated thatthis wasthecornerstonethatwouldallow all to build upall therecommendations,put themin placeandthis wasthereasonwhy therewasaneedfor sufficienttimeto carry out thework properly. TheDelegationhadcloselyexamineddocumentCDIP/3/INF/1, “Proposed MethodologyforImplementation of theDevelopmentAgendaRecommendations” , as well asall of theproposals madeby theSecretariaton theThematic approach that would allow themtoimplementanumberof recommendations.TheThematic Projectsmethodology wasaninteresting approach. However,theDelegation felt thattherewasaneedto ensure thatit didnot changethecontentof therecommendationsor reclassifiedthemon thebasis of ThematicProjectsapproach. Thefact of linking themshouldnot affect thecontentof theindividual


recommendations. Thus,theDelegationbelievedthattheprinciples andactionsshouldnot beseparated.This wasthereasonwhy it believedthatMemberStates couldenrich theseThematicProjectssothattheconcernsof Member Statesweretaken into consideration.TheDelegationlookedforwardto discussingcoordinationmechanismsin theCommitteein lightof its mandateandlook at thingsin ahorizontal andcross-cutting manner. TheDelegationstated thatthework of theothercommittees of WIPOshould betakeninto consideration,thereshouldbea link, a communicationbetweentheCommitteeandotherWIPObodies,andthus,during its discussion, it shouldtalk aboutthefollow-upof theexaminationof therecommendations. It wasthosemechanisms thatwouldallow theCommitteeto mainstreamdevelopmentundertheDevelopmentAgendaandto ensurethat it wassuccessful in its efforts,and that thewholeprocessbemember-driven,taking into accountthework of theSecretariatand the interestof all stakeholders.It wasanapproach thatshouldbebasedonahorizontalapproach, in otherwordsthosemechanisms shouldincludea follow-up in aninclusiveandopenmanner. TheDelegationalso thankedandcongratulated theformer team in chargeofcoordinatingtheDevelopmentAgenda for its excellent work andthanked furtherthecurrentteamat thehelm. All thework donesincetheadoptionof therecommendationsby theGeneralAssembly hadallowedthemto pavethewayto wheretheycurrently foundthemselves, theDelegationconcluded.

30. TheDelegationof Kenya extendedits warmgreetingsto themembersof all delegationsand staff of theInternationalBureaupresentandsupported thestatement read by theDelegationof Senegalon behalfof the Afri canGroup. It congratulatedtheChairfor hisre-election asChair of that Committeeandexpressedits gratitudeto theDirector General andtheSecretariat for preparingthedocumentation for themeeting. TheDelegation of Kenya,asadevelopingcountry,supportedtheThematicProjectapproachto implementation andrealizationof theDevelopmentAgendaandemphasizedtheimportanceof concreteandmeasurableprojects. It tookkeeninterest in thepreservationof thepublic domain,particularly thecomponentsrelatingto patents and traditional knowledge(TK). It wasanticipatedthatthepreservationof thepublic domain wouldaddresstheissuesof bio-patentsand bio-piracy. TheDelegationtook thatopportunity to inform theCommittee thataTK unithad beenestablishedat theKenya Industrial Property Institute(KIPI) with theco-objectivetoestablishaKenyandatabaseonTK andexpressionsof folklore. It reaffirmedtheneedfor theDirectorGeneralto annuallyreportto theCDIP on theimplementationof theDevelopmentAgendaandto takepolitical responsibilityfor actionable recommendations. TheDelegationlookedforward to beinganactiveparticipantandbeneficiary of theDevelopmentAgendaprojects.

31. TheDelegationof Brazil congratulatedtheChair for his election to presideoverthatCommitteeandthankedtheDirectorGeneralfor his intervention. TheDelegation alsothankedtheSecretariatfor preparingtheworkingdocument andreiteratedBrazil’scommitmentto theDevelopmentAgendaandits effective implementation. It reiteratedthattheCommitteeshould always bearin mind thattheDevelopmentAgendawentbeyondtheelaboration of thework program. TheDevelopmentAgenda, constituting a muchbroaderconceptof across-cuttingnature, wasabodyof principlesandnormswhichshouldbemainstreamedintoWIPO andinto theIP system.TheDelegationsupported thesuggestion bytheDirectorGeneralto reporton theimplementation of principlesannually, andremindedtheCommitteethatdevelopmentshouldnot beconfinedwithin thelimits of thesaidCommittee,but rathermainstreamedinto all WIPOactivities. It was timeWIPOactedconsistentlywiththeoverall goals of theUN systemby strikinganadequatebalancebetween theinterestof theprivatesectorononehandandtheinterestof theconsumers, of thepublic in generalon the


other hand. TheCommitteehadastrategicrole in thespreadof acultureof developmentwithin WIPO andits bodies.TheCDIP hadbegan its third sessionwith thechallengeofcomingupwith amethodologyto deliveractionsandactivi ties for theDevelopmentAgendarecommendations. Suchamethodologyshouldbevery pragmatic thoughit should not losethetrackof the45 recommendationsasapprovedby theGeneralAssemblyin 2007. TheDelegationrecalled thattheagreementreachedon the45 recommendationsencompassed sixoverarchingclustersof equalimportancefor thesuccessof theDevelopmentAgenda. In thatregard, it believedthat theCommitteehadfolloweduntil then aworkpath that wasinclusiveand legitimate. Theprevailingwork methodof theCDIP allowedMember Statestothoroughlydiscussall recommendationsandto agreeon therelevantactivities. Thematicprojectsor anyotherwork methodshouldnot prevent Member Statesfrom discussingthe45 recommendationsandagreeingon their implementation. In linewith theDevelopmentAgendaprinciples, forthcomingstrategyfor theestablishmentof thework programshouldbeviewedunderamember-drivenprocess.WIPOwasdrivenby members,andmembers hadtoremaincommittedto implementing not only a few aspects of theDevelopmentAgenda,buttheDevelopmentAgendain its entirety. TheDelegation wasof theopinion that thework andthediscussionheld in thatCommitteeshouldtakeinto accountthework of other WIPObodies. Similarly, other WIPObodiesshould take into accountthework of theCDIP. Themechanismsfor inter-committeecommunicationshadto bedynamic and efficient in thestreamlining of theDevelopmentAgenda into WIPOactivi ties. It thereforefavoredmodalitiesandmechanisms thatwould allow such a relationship, thusgiving theCDIP theimportantrole it deserved. TheDelegationof Brazil wasfull y committedto work in thesessiontowardssubstantialprogressin theimplementation of theDevelopment Agendaandwasmorethanconfidentthat, undertheableguidanceof theChair theCDIP would achieveconcreteresults regardingits work program.

32. TheDelegationof Moroccoexpressed its pleasurewith there-electionof theChair andtheothermembersof theBureau.The Delegation alsoexpressed its satisfaction with theDirectorGeneralof WIPOwhohaddonesuchtremendouswork sincehehad takenuphisoffice ashead of theOrganization.TheKingdomof Moroccowasgreatly pleasedwith hisvision,his leadership andwelcomedtherestructuring thathewas undertaking,hiscommitmentto theDevelopmentAgenda,his awarenessof theproblemsandobstaclesthatthedeveloping countriesfaced,whichconfirmed thetrustMoroccohadplacedin him. TheDelegationalsoexpressedits satisfactionon thework carriedout by theSecretariat,andthequality of thedocumentstheyhadprovidedfor themeeting. TheDevelopment Agendawasan issuethatwasvery importantto theDelegation for severalreasons,fi rstly becauseMoroccowasadevelopingcountry, andsecondly becauseMoroccohad to play apioneerroleat WIPOto promotethattopic, to move it forward andto give it content, theresponsivenessof thedevelopingcountriesthatwasbasedonaconsensus.Moroccowasfirmly convincedthatIP wasavector for developmentin developing countries. Forall thesereasons,itbelievedthattheissuewasvery important,aswasthemeeting that they had convenedfor theDevelopmentAgenda.TheDelegationsupportedthestatements madeby theDelegationofSenegal onbehalf of theAfrican Group, andby theDelegationof Yemenonbehalfof theArab Group. Thethird sessionof theCDIP wasmeeting in averydiffi cult economicclimatebut, despite thatcontext,theDelegationbelieved thatthestepsonamultilaterallevel takenrecentlygavethereasonfor optimism,for examplepromotinganemergingmarket andstepstakenby developing countrieslatelyandstepstakenby theWorld Bank andtheG20. ThosemeasuresreassuredtheDelegationthatsolidarity between theNorthandtheSouthwasoneofthenoblestmeasuresto stoptheseriousnessof thecurrenteconomic andfinancial crisis thattheywerefacing, andthatmadethedeveloping countries sufferthemost. This wasthereason


why it liked to seethesecountriesplayakeyrole duringthecrisisto finda wayoutparticularlybasedonsolidaritythatwasseenin theCommittee. For LDCs anddevelopingcountries,this wouldbethroughtheDonor Conferenceplanned for theendof thatyear. TheDelegationhopedthatfor thateventall themembersandtheotherstakeholderswould jointheirefforts to makeit a success. The Delegation remindedthemeeting thattheobjectiveoftheconferencewasto collectfundsto financecomplimentaryassistance to LDCs. However,it wascrucial to recall that depending on theprovisionsof Recommendation 2, WIPOshouldcontinueto give priority to financing activitiesin Afri ca,usingextra-budgetaryresourcesaswell asthosefrom theregularbudget. Theimplementationof theDevelopmentAgendawoulddependon thoseresources.However, theimportanceof theextra-budgetaryresourcesand the reservewasvery important. TheDelegation pointed out threeother reasonsto beoptimistic in termsof achievingtherecommendations: firstly, themonitoringand thefollow-upof theimplementationof therecommendations,thatwasmember-driven;secondly,thereelectionof theChairat theheadof theCDIP which did not happenby chance,his effortsbeing crucialin achieving thesuccessof theDevelopmentAgenda; thirdly, thehighestlevelof managementof theOrganizationwascommitted to theDevelopment Agenda.TheDelegationsaidit wasverypleasedby thestepstakenby theDirector Generalfor theimplementation of theDevelopment Agendathat hehad clearly expressedvery convincinglyearlier thatday. For all thosereasons,theDelegation wasconfident aboutthefutureandsuccessof theDevelopmentAgendaandthatthesessionwouldbeanimportantstepforward.During thesession, theCommitteewouldbecalled on to examineanewmethodologyfor theimplementation of theDevelopmentAgendabasedonThematic Projectsconsidering whichfocusedondeliverableoutcomesin aclear timeframe. TheDelegation supportedthenewapproach. It, however,remainedopento other proposals with aview to improvingthemethodology. TheDelegationbelievedthatthefinancial crisis shouldnot necessarilybeanobstaclefor theDonorConference. On thecontrary, it shouldbeanotherreasontoconsolidatesolidarity betweenMemberStatesand to re-mobilizeeven furtherWIPO,itsbodiesandits membersto give a rich andrealcontentto theDevelopment Agenda. Itthereforesupportedthenewmethodologyandwascommittedto therapidachievementof allof therecommendationsof theDevelopmentAgenda.

33. TheDelegationof India congratulatedtheChair for his ablechairmanshipandexpressedconfidencethat,asin thepast, hewould ably guidethat week’s deliberations.TheDelegationalsothankedtheDirectorGeneralandtheSecretariatfor thedetaileddocumentationprovidedandfor theextensiveconsultationsheldprior to themeeting,stressingthat theDevelopmentAgendaof WIPO wasahistoric achievementfor theOrganization,thatfundamentallytransformedthegoalsandtheorganizationalcultureofWIPO to bring themin consonancewith its stated mandateasaspecializedUN Agencythatsupportedthesocio-economicdevelopmentof its MemberStates. As oneof thecountriesthathad playedapivotal role in formalizingtheDevelopmentAgenda,theDelegationwasheartenedto seethattheagendawasin its implementationphase.While theDelegationhadeveryreasonto beproudof whatit hadcollectively achieved, therewasalsoaneed to realizethelong journeyto betravelledandthattheDevelopment Agendawasfar from actualization.Indeed,it devolvedon everyMemberState to honorthesingularachievements of thepredecessorsby ensuringthattherecommendationsof theDevelopmentAgendadid notsimply remainhighsoundingprinciplesonpaper. To transformtheminto reality, therewasaneedto identify specificactivitiesandevolveeffective work programsthat realized thespiritbehind therecommendations.Therewasaneedfor vigilant scrutiny andmonitoring of theimplementationsas well ascontinued, honestand robustappraisals of whathadbeenachievedand whatremainedto bedone. In doingso,all had to beconsciousthatthestartingpoint of


thatexercisewasalwaysthespirit of theeventual outcomeenvisagedby eachrecommendation. Giventhattheoverallobjectivesof all therecommendationswereessentially thesame,whichwerelong-termnational social andeconomic development,therecommendationsdefinedspecific timeframeandentailedsomeoverlapping. Therefore,theyhad to beconsciousof thefact thatit might beconvenientthattheimplementation of eachrecommendationcould not simplybeminimizedandnarrowed downto fi ll statedprojectsobjectives. Therewasa needto recognizethattheprojects,objectivesand outputswere justan elementor astepforwardtowardrealizing theoutcomeenvisagedin therecommendation.In thatsense,astheDirectorGeneralhadrightly pointedout, it wasthebeginningandnot theend. Therewasalsoaneedto recognizetheproject format as a facilitatingmanagerialtool,an efficient implementationmethodology, andthesumandsubstanceof therecommendationitself. In thedeliberationsin thecourseof the week, theDelegation hopedthattheCommitteewould focus primarily on thesubstanceof howbestto achieve thedesiredoutcomeof eachoftherecommendations underdiscussionrather thangetdistractedby any particularimplementation methodology or formatwhichwould form asecondarystep. OncetheCommitteehaddeliberated andapprovednew work program, adequateresourceswouldhaveto bemadeavailable for theearlyandeffective implementation. Carewould alsohaveto betakento ensurethattechnicalassistanceandotheractivi ties which alsohadassociatedpersonnelcostsalreadyundertakenby WIPOunderits regular budget, werenot budgetedunder theDevelopmentAgenda.While evaluating theproject-based approach,it wasimportantto askto whatextenttheprojectoutputsweretranslatedinto thelargeroutcomeenvisionedin therecommendationsandwhatmore remainedto bedone. Similarly, therewasalsoaneedto monitorandevaluateto what extenttheprinciplesin theDevelopmentAgendahad beenmainstreamedinto everyaspectof WIPO’s work, andnot just in theprojectoutput,but also in WIPO’s norm-settingactivities, thestudies undertakenby WIPO,theconferencesand seminars organizedby WIPO,themandateof its SecretariatandtheMemberStates.While thosemight not beaseasil y quantifiable asproject outcomes,it wasimperativethatcontinuedinternalandexternalmechanismsevolved, takingintoaccountperceptionsofstakeholdersandserving asaconstructive input intopolicy-making. In theDelegation’sview, thatwasof centralimportancegiventhattheheart of theDevelopment Agendalay intheprinciplesandnormsandthekeyto successof theDevelopmentAgendalay in itssuccessfulmainstreaming.In thatregard, theDelegationwelcomed theproposalmadeby theDirectorGeneralto reportannuallyto theCommitteeonmainstreaming theDevelopmentAgendaprinciples. TheDelegationalsolookedforwardto hearinganupdate from theSecretariat on implementingtheWIPOevaluation policy outlined in document WO/GA/32/4,and lookedforwardto discussing thataspectfurtherunderDevelopmentAgendaItems. TheDelegationwascommittedto takingtheDevelopmentAgendaforward by constructivelyparticipatingin thediscussionson reviewing theprogressof implementationconsidering anevolving newwork programanddiscussingtheimportant issueof how to designeffectivemechanismsfor coordination,reportingandassessment.

34. TheDelegationof NigeriacongratulatedtheChaironhis election andfully endorsedthestatementmadeby theDelegationof Senegalonbehalf of theAfri canGroup. TheDelegationalsoappreciatedtheexcellentreportsthathadbeenpreparedby theSecretariat. It welcomedthenewmethodologyproposedby theSecretariat andtheeffort madeby theDirectorGeneralin that respect, recognizingthatthereweresomedifficultiesaboutthenewprojectmethodologywhichwasmoreor lessasystematic measurewhichcould presentthedifficultyof how eachrecommendationwouldbespecifically implemented. TheDelegationverystrongly supportedtheneedfor aneffectivefollow-upmechanismfor assessingandmonitoring thelevelof implementation,whichshouldhaveaddressedthatconcern. In this


new methodologytherewasneedto giveparticular consideration to issuesthat concerneddevelopingcountries, especially theissueof technical assistance in respect to nationalandregionalstrategies for IP. Thestrengtheningof capacity-building for human resourceswhichwas really thekeyfor most developingcountriesand, in particular, theissueof mobilizingsufficientfinancial resourcesfor theDevelopment Agenda.TheDelegation appreciatedthefactthatefforts hadbeenput in placeto holdanotherconferencein thelatter part of 2009.TheDelegationcalledthe internationalcommunity to contributesubstantiall y to thefundingof this Donor Conference.

35. TheDelegationof AlgeriacongratulatedtheChaironhis re-election andsupportedthestatementsmadeby thedelegationsof Senegal and Yemenonbehalf of theAfrican andArab Group, respectively. Theadoptionof theDevelopmentAgendahadbeenawatershedfor thefutureof theOrganizationandasaconsequenceWIPOshouldadapt its roleanditsworkingmethodsto suit thecloserelationshipsbetweenIPRs, innovationanddevelopment.Thedraft of theinternationalpolicieson IP would haveto mainstreamtheconcernsofcountriesin respectof developmentin all its dimensions.TheDelegation repeatedtheparticularinterestit attachedto theimplementationof all 45 recommendationsmakingup theDevelopmentAgendaand felt thatacceptedproposals shouldbegivenequal amountsofattentionandequitabletreatmentby MemberStates. It furtherbelievedthatthenewproject-basedapproachproposedby theSecretariat for theimplementationof theAgendacontainedmanyadvantageson thewhole. It provided greaterclarity but theactionswere tobeundertakenby determiningoutcomesaccordingto established timelines,it alsomadeitpossibleto facili tate thefollow-upand evaluation of theimplementation of theDevelopmentAgendaby providinganumberof performanceindicators. However, thatnewmethodologyshouldin its view berefocusedandreadjustedsoas to guaranteetheeffective andcompleteimplementation of the45adoptedrecommendations. Theideaof groupingrecommendationsin ThematicProjectsshouldavoidgiving riseto a reinterpretationof theserecommendationsor to restrictits scope.TheDelegationrestatedtheneedto preservethespecificity of eachrecommendation in theDevelopmentAgenda, andthecoredocumentCDIP/1/3which listedtheactivities to beimplementedby recommendation shouldremain thereferencedocument.It wasclearthattheprocessof implementing theDevelopment Agendarequiredanumberofprerequisites. Apart from identifying anumber of activit iesandprojectsfor each groupofrecommendations,budgetaryandextra-budgetary resourceswould haveto bemobilizedtofund thedevelopmentof theAgenda.TheDevelopment Agendashouldbefundedthroughtheregularbudgetof theOrganization.TheDelegation wasin favorof theideaof holdingadonor conferenceat theendof 2009,whichwould contributeto anincreasein extra-budgetaryresourcesandpartnershipsthatcouldsupportWIPOactivit iesfor developingcountries,particularly,African developingcountries.However,any donorcontributionsshouldnot beusedfor selectiveandconditionalfundingof someactivi ties that might leadto aprioritizationof therecommendations. Apart from sustainablebudgetary fundingandasearchfor oneofextra-budgetary funding, theimplementationof thefollow-upof theDevelopmentAgendarequiredhorizontalcoordinationamong thevarious WIPOcommittees. It supportedthesetting upof coordinationmechanismsandstatedthatit wouldcontribute in aconstructiveand apositiveway. Finally, awareof thepreponderantrole that theSecretariat wouldhavetoplay in making concretetheplanof action for theDevelopmentAgenda, theDelegationexpressedits supportfor theSecretariatandstressedtheneedto provideit with thenecessaryhumanand financial resourcesto achievethetasksgiven to it.

36. TheDelegationof Japan congratulatedtheChair onhis re-electionandrecalledthatithad submittedaninformationdocument, circulated as documentCDIP/3/8, providingan


opportunity for WIPOto consider implementing its suggestion for thepurposeof promotingeconomicdevelopmentin thedevelopingcountries.

37. TheDelegationof Ukrainethanked theSecretariat for preparing documentsof highquality andtheir timely submissionto theMemberStatesandappreciatedthework of theSecretariat andthepolicy of transparencyanda greater involvementof theMemberStatesintheOrganization. During previoussessions, theDelegation of Ukrainehadexpresseditssupportto WIPOfor theDevelopment Agenda for aglobal infrastructureof developmenttohelp developing countriesmakefuller useof IP resourcesto for their development.

38. TheDelegationof Tunisia congratulatedtheChaironhis reelection and thankedall ofthedelegationsfor thetrusttheyplacedin him by electing him Vice-Chair. In supporting thestatementmadeby theDelegationof Senegalonbehalf of theAfri canGroup, andthatof theDelegationof Yemenon behalfof theArab Group,theDelegation of TunisiafurtheraddedthattheCommitteerepresentedanexcellentopportunity to discussissues relatedto IP anddevelopment, andthatthediscussionshouldtakeplacein a regular andsystematic mannerasit wasoneof themainreasonswhy theCDIP had beencreated. TheDelegationwasalsopleasedto seethesignificantprogressmadeby adoptingpractical measures to implementsomeof therecommendationsandhopedthatthesamemomentum would accompanythemevenfurther. TheDelegationcommendedthenewapproachadopted by theSecretariat basedon Thematic Projects, organizinginformation sessions, andfor preparing documentswhich, inaddition to thefact thatit avoidedduplicity, alsooffered structuredactivitiestogetherwithclear objectivesbasedon aclearlydefinedtimeline andevaluation mechanisms.TheDelegationbelievedthatthis newapproachwould bea goodworkingmethodand veryusefulfor otherdelegations. TheDelegationsuggestedcertain aspects to betaken intoconsideration.Firstly, someof therecommendationswerebestaddressedwhentheyweredealt within theclusterin which theywereplaced sothatthespirit of therecommendationwaspreservedafter theyhadbeengrouped. Secondly,mostof therecommendationsgroupedmorethanoneideaandtheCommitteehad to havetheoptionof re-examining, ona regularbasis, thoserecommendationsastheycouldwell includeother topicsthat wouldnot beenexploredfollowing thepoolingandtheDelegationwas pleasedto note that this ideawaswelltakencareof by theSecretariat.Thirdly, in mostcases, theimplementationof therecommendationsshouldnot belimited justto oneproject as therewasanambitiousprogramin mind giventhechallengesthattheyhadto meetin termsof development. Theremustbecontinuedon-goingprojects.Fourthly, once they hadbeenexaminedandimplemented,all oftherecommendations shouldnot just beabandoned,but shouldberegularly followed upastheywerethesourceof informationthattheCommitteecouldusein its developmentactivitiesand asa guidethat couldhelpwith adopting certain approachesto thedevelopmentandareferencepoint aswell that couldbeusedto ensurefollow-upandevaluating thesuccess ofactivities. TheDelegationcommendedtheeffective implementation of theDevelopmentAgendaasaconcreteproject thatwassureto haveapositive effecton theuser. Giventheimportanceof thoseactivities,theDelegation hoped thatWIPOwouldenvisagethepossibilityof organizingregionalawarenessseminarsto allow thevariousstakeholders in thevariouscapitalsto takeup theopportunitiesin agreatermannerof thoseproposalsandalsoother activities to exchangeexperiences.TheDelegation thankedtheMember Stateswhichhad already put forwardtheproposalswithin theDevelopmentAgendaandhopedthatotheractivitieswould alsobeproposedby otherMember States.Theorganizationof aninternational donorconferencewasoneof themostimportantdecisionstakenby theCommittee.TheDelegationhopedthatall would live up to responding to theobjectivesoftheConference.


39. TheDelegationof Iran (IslamicRepublic of) congratulatedtheChair onhis re-electionand the two Vice-Chairsof thethird sessionof theCDIP. TheDelegation admiredtheexcellent work andcontributionof theChair to theCDIP during thepastyearsandfor theprogressthathadbeenmade. TheDelegation alsoappreciated thecommitmentof theDirectorGeneralto theDevelopmentAgendaandtheSecretariat for its efforts. TheDelegationassociateditself with thestatementmadeby theDelegation of Sri Lankaonbehalfof theAsianGroup,andemphasizedthatIran (Islamic Republic of) attachedgreatimportanceto theCDIP activit iesandhadactively participatedin its discussions. In that regard, theDelegationbelievedthatCDIP provideda goodbasisfor reaching theWIPOmandateforpromotingcreative intellectualactivitiesandfacil itating thetransferof technologyrelated toindustrial propertyin developingcountriesthroughtheappropriate trainingsfor acceleratingtheeconomic,socialandculturaldevelopment. It was of theview that theimplementationoftheentire45agreedRecommendationswould movethenationaland internationalIP systemto an IP systemwhich waswell adaptedto developmentrequirements of membercountries.Accordingly, theCDIP shouldaccelerateimplementation of theapprovedrecommendations.In thatregard,thereviewof theprogress in respect of therecommendationunderimplementation wascertainlyanimportantissuewhichwould facilitateandprovidetheMemberStateswith aclearvision to fulfill thefuturework of theimplementation of therestof therecommendations. 40. TheDelegationof CambodiacongratulatedtheChair onhis re-electionandreiterateditsstrong supportfor thestatementsmadeby thedelegationsof Sri Lankaand Bangladeshonbehalf of theAsian Group andof theLDCs, respectively, andappreciatedthecommitmentoftheDirectorGeneralfor mainstreamingandimplementing therecommendationsassoonaspossible.TheDelegationurgedall to paymoreattention to theneedsof theLDCs, inparticularin addressingthefutureFunds-in-Trust(FITs). Thetechnical assistanceshouldbedeliveredin asustainablemanner.TheDelegation wasfully committed to work closelywiththeChairandothermembersto implementtheadaptedrecommendationsto enableall to useIP for economic growth.

41. A representativeof theLibrary Copyright Al liance(LCA) thankedtheChairfor theopportunity to makeastatementonbehalf of Electronic Information for Libraries,theLCAand the InternationalFederationof Library AssociationsandInstitutions. TherepresentativecongratulatedtheChaironhis re-electionandexpressed his gratitudeto theSecretariat for thesubstantialefforts madesincethelastmeeting in developingaconcretework plan, aswell asfor theimpressivedocumentsrelatingto theThematicProject. Hestated thathisorganizationsrepresentedtheworld’s public, academicandresearch librariesandcomments-relatedcopyright issues. Referring to AgendaItem6, LCA welcomedthedetailedexamples of activitieswhich illustratedanincreased rateof transparency in that processandacceleratedprogresstowardstheDevelopment Agendagoals. LCA welcomed theemphasison theuseof legaloptionsandflexibilities, includingthework of theStandingCommitteeonCopyrightandRelatedRights(SCCR) andlimitationsandexceptionsfor thevisuallyimpairedfor thelibrariesandarchivesand for education, andtheworkshoporganizedbyWIPO ondigital preservationandcopyright held in July2008, whichhadrevealedanurgentglobal needfor copyrightexceptionsto enable librarypreservationof cultural heritage andmemory,especially in developingnations. LCA furtherencouragedconcretemeasurestoexpandthescopeof exceptionsin nationallawsthroughouttheworld. At thesametime,LCA felt it necessaryto point out tracesin thosedocuments, particularly in thedocumentCDIP/3/5thatreflectednot so muchachangein direction that WIPOhad traditionally


promoted. Activitiesfocusedprimarily on IP protection andIP culture, for example, werenotnecessarilydevelopment-oriented.Sucheffortslikely benefittedrights holdersin developednationsandwhile theymight also benefita limited fragmentof population in thedevelopingnations, theydid not addressthebroaderinterests of developingsocieties. LCA hopedthatasthework programexpanded,therewouldbemoreevidenceof achangein focusin thegroupof 19 Recommendationsandless relianceonexisting outdatedstructuresandgoals. Referringto AgendaItem7, LCA commentedonseveralactivit iesunderconsideration. ConcerningRecommendation20,LCA stronglysupportedwork that contributed to abetter understandingof thepublicdomain. Thepurposeof thatactivit y wasto facilitateaccessfor thepublicandnot to monetizecontentto createnewmarketsfor theprivatesector. Therefore,LCA agreedwith theneedto preservesuchcontentfrom individual appropriation as outlined in theThematicdocumententitled“ Intellectualpropertyin thepublicdomain” . With respecttoRecommendation22,LCA urgedthatemphasisbeplacedonsub-point D onpotentialflexibilities, exceptionsandlimitations, andE on thepossibili ty of additional specialprovisionsfor developing nationsandLDCs. That wasoneof themostproductiveareasinwhich thework programcouldenhanceaccessto knowledgefor thedevelopingnations.Exceptionswereimportantto librariesandto peopleeverywhere, but they wereof criticalimportanceto developingcountrieswhosecapacity to accessknowledgewas definedprimarily by exceptionsandlimitations. LCA therefore encouragedWIPO to formulateaproject documentto examineco-limitationsandexceptionsto benefit developingnationsandto developguidelinesfor IP administrators on their implementation. Theacademicandlibrary communitywould bemost happyto assistin formulating thatstudy, it added. LCAhad threemorecomments concerningThematic Projects. It first commentedon theissueofcompetitivelicensingpracticesunderRecommendation23andalsoundertheThematicProjectentitled “ IntellectualPropertyandCompetition Policy” . Thatwas thekeyareaforlibraries. Librariesacquiredmostof their electronic content throughlicensesandoftenexperienceddifficulties whentheexclusiverights to content werethen owned by asingleentity thatheldamonopoly, precludingnegotiationsfor favorablepricesandcontractterms.In countries with advancedanti-competition laws,libraries might have remediesbut incountriesthatdid not, therewerenoalternatives. LCA supportedthestudyof competitionpolicy in selectedcountriesandregionswith a focuson IP licensing. With respectto theThematicProjectentitled“ IntellectualPropertyand thePublicdomain” , LCA stronglysupportedefforts of identificationand preservation of thepublic domain. Most nationsdidnot haveworksin their copyrightlaws. Uncertainty over thecopyright statusof works wasahindrancethatunderminedall usesof works. LCA welcomedeffortsto developtoolsforverifying thestatusof copyrightedworksandlookedforward to thatproposed activity.Finally, with respectto theThematicProject entitled“ IP Information andcommunicationtechnologiesandthedigital divide”, LCA full y supported amulti-stakeholderapproachtonew modelsof distributinginformationandcreativecontent,to enabledigital inclusionandglobal and affordableaccessto informationandknowledge. LCA appreciatedtheacknowledgementof thecrucialrole thatcivil society couldplay in promoting sustainablepublic sector informationandIP policies, andwasready to cooperatewith WIPO in makingthatproposala reality.

42. A representativeof Ibero-Latin-AmericanFederationof Performersfrom (FILAIE)congratulatedtheChaironbeingre-elected,seeing his re-electionasa guaranteefor thecontinuation of thework, andalso congratulatedthetwo Vice-Chairs. Theprojectsthatwerebeing presentedinvolvedall of theIP community. FILAIE felt thatit wouldbea goodideatorecallthattherewasstill aneedto avail someof theindividual rightssuch asthoseof artistsin theareaof audiovisualwork. Therewasaneed to full y developthoserightsthatstill


neededto bedone. WIPOneededto remember thatoneshouldnot forgetthevery importantrequestsinvolving therightsholdersin theareaof audiovisual works.

43. With no furtherrequestsfrom thefloor, theChair thankedtheCoordinators andMemberStatesfor their statements. Heacknowledgedthatthesestatements wereall positiveand indeedcontributedto thefocusthatall intendedto makeduringtheweek. TheChairalsothanked the two representativesfrom theNGOsfor their contributionswhich wereverymuchappreciated.TheChairthenrequestedtheSecretariat to introduceAgendaItem 5.

AgendaItem 5: Adoptionof thereviseddraft Report of theSecondSessionof theCDIP

44. TheSecretariatintroduceddocumentCDIP/2/4Prov.2whichcontainedthedraft reportof thesecondsessionof theCDIP, heldfrom July7 to 11,2008. Following theagreedapproach, the reportwascirculatedto theMemberStateselectronically. Commentswereinvitedandthosereceivedwithin thedeadlinewere incorporatedin thereport. Thatdocumentwasput forth to theCommitteefor adoption.

45. TheDelegationof ArgentinacongratulatedtheChaironhis re-election andstatedthat ithad somecorrectionsto suggeston its statementreflected in thereportwhich it wouldprovideto theSecretariat in written form.

46. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americamentioned thatit hadfoundanumberof places in thereport wherethelanguagecould bea little tighter, a lit tle bit moreprecise,andagreedto submit thosechangesto theSecretariat. TheDelegationhad two suggestionsinparticular. In paragraph92, line 4, therewasa referenceto 300,000Swissfrancsin responseto aquestionraisedby theDelegation of Thailandin paragraph91,quoting page4 of thedocument CDIP/2/2. However,in thedocumentCDIP /2/2, page4 therewasno referenceto300,000Swissfrancs. TheDelegationsoughtclarificationof thatparticularparagraph. TheDelegationalsostatedthat paragraph83 referredback to Recommendation 5, but did soin animprecisemanner.In thespirit of reflecting accurately thenegotiatedframework for thatparticularrecommendation,theDelegationhadsubmitted in writinga languagethatwouldbecloser to thelanguageof Recommendation5. Theothersuggestions thattheDelegationpointedout wereentirelygrammatical, with thespirit of improvingthedocumentgrammatically andstylistically.

47. TheChair thankedthedelegationsfrom theUnited States of Americaand Argentina,and mentionedthat thecorrectionsfrom theDelegationof Argentina referredto theirstatements,while thecorrectionsfrom theDelegation of theUnitedStatesof Americacoveredboth its statementsin paragraph83andtheSecretariat’s intervention in paragraph92. Withthatclarity, theChairsoughtthefloor’s approval thatthereport beadoptedwith thoseadjustments.

48. TheDelegationof Nigeriapointedout thatit needed to havea look if theamendmentproposed by theUnitedStatesof Americawerespecific andwentbeyondwhat it wasstatedconcerningparagraphs83and92.

49. At theinvitation of theChair, theDelegation of theUnitedStatesof Americastatedthatit hadsomeotherminorstylistic amendmentsofferedin thespirit of improving thedocument,but thatit wasquiteopento withdrawingthose. Its focuswasparagraphs 83and92.


50. TheDelegationof Angolacongratulated theChair for his re-election. Touchingon theproposal madeby theDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America, it suggested makingtheamendmentat a later stage, which theSecretariat couldcirculate to themembersfor approvalat theendof themeeting.

51. TheChair requestedthedelegations of Argentinaandof theUnitedStatesof America tosubmit theiramendmentssothattheparagraphcouldbeamendedlateron that day. Thatwouldgive theMemberStatesanopportunityto see therevisedtext. TheChair thenadjournedthemeeting.

52. TheChair askedwhetherdelegationshad understoodtheamendmentssuggestedby theDelegationof theUnited Statesof America. Heaskedwhether theamendmentsweresatisfactoryandthereportcouldbeadopted. He thenrequested theSecretariat to readtheamendedsentencesandseeif theywereacceptable to theCommittee.

53. TheSecretariatexplainedthatthefirst suggestionfrom theDelegationof theUnited Statesof Americawasin paragraph83of thereport,whichshouldread “ theDelegationbelievedthatdetailsonspecific technical assistance activi ties shouldbemadeavailableonly on request from MemberStates andonly after theconsentof theMemberStatesandof therecipients concernedasrequired by thenegotiatedlanguageof thetext” .Thestatementhadbeenmadeby theDelegation of theUnitedStatesof America itself soitwasrequesting refinementof its own intervention. TheDelegation hadalsoidentifiedatypographical errorin paragraph92 where300,000Swissfrancs shouldread 700,000Swissfrancs. TheSecretariatthankedtheDelegationof theUnitedStates of America forrecognizingtheshortcomingin thereport. There werealsosomefurthertypographicalerrorsin the report, for example,onpage57, in paragraph207,line13, theword “whether’ hadbeenmisspelledas“weather” . Similarly, theyhadidentified additional typographical errors onpages12and13whichwouldbecorrected.TheSecretariat thanked theDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americafor identifying thoseerrors.

54. TheChair indicatedthatthereportwasadopted with saidamendments.

AgendaItem 6: Reviewof progressin respectof recommendationsunder implementation

55. TheChair informedthattheAgenda Item includedthreedocumentsaddressingthereviewof progressandtheCommitteewoulddealwith eachof themseparately. He requestedtheSecretariat to introducedocument CDIP/3/5entitled “ProgressReportonRecommendationsfor ImmediateImplementation”. 56. TheSecretariatexplainedthatdocumentCDIP/3/5providedaprogressreportonrecommendationsfor immediateimplementation, alsoknownas the“19Recommendations” .TheSecretariatrecalledthatout of these, six recommendations, namely 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and11,had already beendiscussedby theCommitteewhile theremaining recommendationshadnotyet beendiscussed. Theprogressreport containedin thedocumentcoveredtheperiodfromNovember2007 – whentheSecretariathadbeenrequested to starttheimplementationoftheserecommendations– up to December2008. Following severalobservationsmadeby theCommitteeonAnnexII to documentCDIP/1/3,whichwasapreliminary informationreporton the19Recommendations,theSecretariat hadtried to makethereportmorestructuredbyproviding strategiesandachievements, ratherthan simply providinga list of activities. It alsorecalledthat for recommendations1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and11, theCommitteehadagreed to astrategy


for implementation. Consequently,theleft handcolumn of thereportincludedtheagreedstrategyfollowedby examplesof activitiesand,in thelastcolumn,theachievements.It wasclear that theachievementsin thelastcolumnweretheinitial assessment by theProgramManagerswith regard to theachievementsin addressingtherecommendation. ThedocumentwasbeforetheCommitteefor information.

57. TheDelegationof El SalvadorthankedtheSecretariat for theinformation providedandcommendedtheSecretariatonall thework that hadbeendonein preparingtheprogressreporton recommendationsfor immediateimplementation. TheDelegationnotedthat theSecretariat hadcontinuedto undertakework onuniversities,and anumber of studieshadbeenundertakenon academicinstitutionswhichhadbeen particularly useful for developingcountries,includingEl Salvador.The Delegation alsonotedthat therewereanumberoftopicsin thereporton which theDelegationworked very closelywith theTechnicalAssistanceandCapacityBuilding Bureaufor Latin AmericaandtheCaribbean. TheDelegationindicatedthattherewasanewvision,whichwasparticularly importantfordevelopingcountries.It also commendedthefactthat attentionhad beendrawnto collectivemanagementissuesandalsoto audiovisualissues as theywere two very importantareas.TheDelegationnotedthata largenumberof activit ieshadbeen undertaken in Latin Americaonsuchtopics,whichwereof particular interestto El Salvador.TheDelegationhadbecomeinvolved in multilateralcooperationwith anumber of othermembers that werealreadyveryinvolved in work in thoseareas.Legal assistancewas alsoasubject of greatinterestto theDelegationand, astheSecretariathadindicated,thelist of activit ieswas not exhaustive,buttheDelegationwishedto thanktheSecretariat for all theassistance thathadbeen providedtoEl Salvador,suchasassistancein interpreting andimplementingsomeof thetextsonsubjectsunder negotiation.

58. TheDelegationof theUnitedKingdomasked if thedatabaseon legislationandlegislativemeasuresto protectTK, traditionalcultural expressionsandgenetic resourcesmentionedin theactivitiesof Recommendation13,was availableto thepublic or whetheritwasavailableonly to theMemberStatesof WIPO andhowto accessit.

59. TheDelegationof Egyptaskedwhetherthefloor wasopenfor questionson allrecommendations, or whethercomments shouldbeprovidedona recommendation byrecommendationbasis.

60. TheChair indicatedthathewasopento either approach,andnotedthatas manyof therecommendationshadalreadybeendiscussedandit was a follow-up report,thedelegationswere familiar to them. Hesuggestedthatcomments couldbemadeononerecommendationat a time if thatwasthepreferenceof thedelegations.

61. TheDelegationof Egyptaskedtwo questionsaboutRecommendation 1. Thefirst wason page2, secondcolumnonexamplesof activities,where there was amention of aHigh-LevelForumon IP for LDCs,whichhad beenorganizedin Geneva,onDecember12,2007, therecommendationsof whichhadbeendeveloped andimplementedin variousLDCs.TheDelegation wishedto receivemoreinformationonwhat theForumhad entailed,whohadbeeninvited andwhathadbeentherecommendations. Secondly,theDelegation madereferenceto theinitial workingdocumentCDIP/1/3,whereit was mentionedthatin 2008,WIPO would prepare,coordinate,andcommission,adocumentcontainingadescriptionoflegislativeassistanceasregardspublicpolicy anddevelopment. Thedocumentwasgoingtodiscussthemodalities, principlesandformat of theassistanceprovided,aswell asvarious


optionsof flexibili tiesavailableundertheAgreement onTradeRelatedAspectsof IntellectualPropertyRights(TRIPS) andParisConvention. TheDelegation wishedto knowwhetherthedocument hadbeenprepared,andif it wasavailable, giventhat therewasno referenceto it indocument CDIP/3/5andwasit anactivity thathadbeensetasideor been completed.

62. TheDelegationof India requestedthattheCommitteediscussedrecommendationsoneby one. OnRecommendation1, theDelegation hadtwo queries. Thefi rst queryrelatedtothepartonprogressandachievements,which indicatedthat nationalplansandstrategieswerebeing formulatedin somecountriesandwereunderimplementation in others. TheDelegationwishedto knowwhatelementsconstitutedWIPO’s advicewhenit came to advisingcountrieson howto formulateanationalIP policy. Did it includeadviceon flexibili tiesavailableundertheTRIPSAgreementandelsewhere?Did it also involveadvisingthemon howto strategizeIP asa tool for economic growth in orderto leverageIP assets for competitiveadvantage,advanceshareholdervalueandultimately boostrevenueandnationaldevelopment?Weretheseissuesacomponentof thepackagethatwasoffered? TheDelegationwishedto receivefurtherdetails onwhatelementsconstitutedtheadvisorypackage. Thesecondqueryalsoconcernedthesameparagraph,whereit saidthatreview/evaluation mechanismshadbeenincluded in IP plansinvolving nationalauthoritiesandotherstakeholders. TheDelegationrequestedfurtherinformationonwhatkind of reviewmechanismexistedfor assessingtheeffectivenessof theprojectsby WIPO. Wasit thecountrythatgavethefeedbackandif so,after how long? TheDelegationaskedif the informationcouldbeshared with MemberStates,perhapson theWIPO websiteor, wheneachevent washeld, throughthepublicationofasummaryreport or feedback,sothatMemberStateswouldbeable to review to whatextenttheyhadsucceededandwhatthey hadactually entailedin substance.

63. TheDelegationof Bangladesh alsowishedto speak aboutRecommendation1. Asageneral commentrelatingto all recommendationstheDelegation felt thattheSecretariat wastrying to captureaprojector aninitiative in onesentence, it hadeitherover-simplified it orraisedquestionsin theabsenceof details. TheDelegationdid not wish to dwell onprojectsbeing donein othercountries, but only on theprojectthatwas beingdonein Bangladesh.This wasmentionedonpage2, column2, andreferred to asa comprehensivethree-yearnational project. TheprojectactuallycoveredvariousministriesandagenciesthatdealtwithIP, but it could not becalled“comprehensive” because,for example,thegenetic resources,TK andfolklore issueswerenot coveredundertheproject. It wasnot that theDelegationactuallywantedthemto becovered,but sincetheywerenot, coveredcalling it‘comprehensive’ gavepeopleanimpression thateverythingwas beingdonein onego, whenitwasnot thecase.Drafting, therefore,wascritical. Thedocument alsoindicatedin thenextcolumn thattheprojectwasbasedona thoroughneedsassessment,but therewasasevereneedto upgradeeventheinternalstructure andadministrative mechanismsandtherewerealot of thingsthatBangladeshneededto do internally also for thereto bea thoroughneedsassessmentandthoroughunderstandingon howto taketheproject forward. TheDelegationsuggestedit wasbetternot to over-reachby trying to capturethecomplexitiesof suchaproject in averyshorttext,whichwaswhat hadhappenedgenerally throughoutthedocument.Referringto thecolumnon thesecond page,theDelegation of Egypthad alreadymentionedtheHigh-Level Forumon IP for LDCsorganizedin Genevain December2007. TheDelegationknewthattherewasa10-point planof action thattheministerswhohadparticipatedhadapproved,but it wishedto knowhowfar thoserecommendationshadbeenimplementedin variousLDCs,especiallygivenresourcesandfinancial constraints. TheDelegationalsobelievedthatthefull detailed report of theForumhadyet to bepublished.


64. TheDelegationof CostaRicacommentedon thethird columnof page2, where therewasa referenceto aprogramin CostaRica. TheDelegation wonderedwhether CostaRicawasthebestexample,giventhatit hadnot beeninvolvedin aprojectwith WIPO in thatfield.TheDelegationhad sought thesupportof theOrganization andall it hadreceivedwasahandbookonhowto carryout anIP audit.

65. TheDelegationof India notedthatin thereporttherewas nomentionof theIP AuditTool whichwasmentionedextensively under Recommendation 4, whichwasalsodealingwith thesame issueof settingupappropriatenational strategies for IP. Bothof themhad thesameobjectivesoit questionedwhy it hadnot beenreferred to in thereportunderthatRecommendation. Thesecondpoint pertainedto thesection on “Mainstreamingprinciples”on thesecondpagewhereit referredto aninternal memorandumissuedin November2007, toall Divisionsaskingthemto ensurethatall theDevelopmentAgendaprinciplesbeimplementedwith immediateeffect. The Delegationwishedto knowwhatkindof reviewhadtakenplacefollowing that memorandum.Hadtherebeenany sortof mechanismput in placeto seein whatsenseor how far theyhadbeenmainstreamed?

66. TheChair thoughtit wouldbehelpful to havetheexperts present to respond.As aresult,theCommitteewould first havea lookat thedocument CDIP/3/2with therosterofconsultants,for which theSecretary of theCommitteecouldanswerquestionsandthengoback to thereporton the19Recommendations.

67. In introducingdocumentCDIP/3/2theSecretariat informedthatthesecondpartofRecommendation6 read“WIPOshall draw upand makewidely knownto MemberStatesaroster of consultantsfor technicalassistance to WIPO”. Thedocumentcontainedtherosterofconsultantswhichgavea list of all consultants whowereunderaWIPOSpecial ServicesAgreement (SSA) contractbetweenJanuary 1, 2005,andDecember 31,2008. SSAcontractswere thekeymodality throughwhich theOrganization hired consultants to work on technicalassistanceactivities. Therosterdid not includespeakersused for specific occasionssuch asWIPO seminarsandworkshops.

68. TheDelegationof El Salvadorexpressedits satisfaction on thedocument containingtheroster of consultants. TheDelegationhighlightedthattheavailabili ty of externalconsultantsto WIPO had beenparticularlyusefulin aprojectwhichEl Salvadorhadbeenimplementingwith somesuccesson IP andfiscal matters.The Delegation thoughtthat it wasanexcellentpractice andit hadalwaysbeenhelpful for MemberStatesto haveaccessto specialistsnotonly from theOrganizationbut alsoexternalconsultants. Theproject, whichhad beenrunning for betweensix to eightmonths, hadbenefitedfrom theadviceof high-rankingofficials within Latin Americaon theseissuesandmanyof them were includedin therosterof consultants.

69. TheDelegationof Algeria thankedtheSecretariat for havingpreparedthedocumentwhich providedMemberStateswith veryclear andtransparent information on therosterofconsultantsusedby WIPO. TheDelegationalso wished to maketwo comments. Thefirstreferredto theworking languageof theexpertsor consultantsin question. In themajority ofcases, theyappearedto benativeEnglish speakers althoughthereweresomeMemberStatesthatworkedwith otherUN languages,for exampleFrenchandArabic. Thesecondcommentreferredto thecountriesbenefitingfrom theservices of thoseconsultants. TheDelegationwonderedwhetherit might bepossiblefor theSecretariat to preparethedocumentin aslightly differentformat,includinginformationon countries in which theprojectstookplace.


It would thenbepossibleto drawacomparisonbetweenregionsandhavea better ideaof thecountriesbenefitting from theexpertiseof theWIPOexternal consultants.

70. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica thankedtheSecretariat for making available therosterof consultants,which theyfelt wasveryuseful. TheDelegationwishedto addto thepointraisedby theDelegationof Algeria, thatit would behelpful to seewhichcountriestheconsultantswerefrom becauseit wasnot alwaysclear. In addition, theDelegation requestedtheSecretariat to continueto consultwith thePermanent MissionsandtheForeign Ministrieswhenselecting theexpertsto beusedin theiractivities.

71. TheChair askedtheDelegationof Algeriawhetherits concernwasthecountriestheconsultantscamefrom, asrequestedby theDelegation of SouthAfrica, or whetherit wassomethingelse.

72. TheDelegationof Algeriaclarified thatit wishedto see thebeneficiary countries,thecountriesbenefiting from theprojectsfor which theconsultantshadbeenengaged.

73. TheDelegationof India thankedtheSecretariat for thepublicationof therosterandconsideredit averywelcomesteptowardscreating transparencyandmoving forwardtorealizingthespirit of Recommendation6. TheDelegation wasinterestedin knowinghowtheroster hadbeendrawnup, whatparametershad beenkept in mind, whohad beenconsultedand whathadbeenthecriteriaemployedfor selecting theconsultants. It noted thattherostersatisfiedpart of Recommendation6. Theotherpart,which was perhapsthelargerobjectivebehind theexercise,wasto ensuretheneutralit y andaccountability of WIPO’s technicalassistancestaff andconsultants“by paying particularattention to theexistingcodeof ethicsand by avoidingpotentialconflictsof interest” . TheDelegationenquiredas to whatwouldbethefollow-upstepafterthepublicationof theroster. It believedthat therewas aWIPO codeof ethicsthatwasbeing drafted,andwishedto knowwhethertherealsowasadefinitionofconflict of interest and, if so, whethertherewasspecific advicewhich wasgiven toconsultantswhenevertheywereassociatedto WIPOactivi ties.

74. TheDelegationof Egyptexpressedits agreement with thepoints raised beforeby thedelegationsof South Africa andIndia. It wonderedwhether, in addition to theroster, therecould besomenarrativeto explainthebasisfor thecriteriausedfor theroster at thebeginning. TheDelegationhadheardtheSecretariat mention thatit hadnot includedthespeakers,soit enquiredwhethersuchinformation could alsobemadeavailable. TheDelegationnotedthatin almost300consultants,only five wereArabic-speaking,sothatmeantthatfor theArab Region,therewerefiveconsultancyopportunitiesover300. It,therefore,wonderedwhethertheinformation was not clearenoughor it did not catchall whatWIPO wasdoing in theArabRegionin termsof consultancies. TheDelegation alsoagreedwith theissueraisedby theDelegationof Indiaon theneedto understandhow theissueofpotential conflicts of interestwith regardto thevariousconsultantswasbeing addressed, andindicated thatin an updatedversion of the roster,a columncouldbeadded, specificallyaddressingtheissueof conflictsof interest.

75. TheDelegationof AlgeriaaskedwhetheraMember Statecouldsubmitthenameof aconsultantor ratherapotentialconsultant,andwhethertherewereany specific requirementswhich had to bemet. TheDelegationalsoenquiredwhether theSpecial ServicesAgreements(SSAs) wereopen-endedor hadanenddate. Finally, theDelegation enquiredto whomthe


reports of consultantswereaddressed, to theSecretariat, to MemberStatesin general, ordirectly to thecountryinvolved.

76. TheSecretariatexplainedthatthedocumentunderconsiderationdealt with only apartof Recommendation6. Theimplementation of thatRecommendation wasalsocontainedonpage10of documentCDIP/3/5andthatwaswhere,in thefi rst column, it describedthestandardsof conduct for theinternationalcivil serviceadoptedby theInternational CivilServiceCommission(ICSC). TheSecretariat explainedthat theStandardsof Conductdealtwith thequestion of impartiality, conflicts of interest andotheraspectsof similarnature. TheSecretariat alsopointedout thattheprojectdocumentonRecommendation 5, containedinCDIP/3/INF/2, containedaprojectthataimedto establishanIP technical assistancedatabase.TheSecretariatfurtherexplainedthattherosterwas a fi rst attempt andmayhavesomeshortcomings,but oncethetechnicalassistancedatabasefor recommendationswasready, theobservationsmadeby theCommitteewould beaddressed. TheSecretariat tooknoteof thefactthattherosterdid not clearlymention thenationality of theconsultants or thecountriesthathavebenefited. Questionshadbeenraisedwith regardto theworking language andtheSecretariat ensured thattheissuewould besharedwith thecolleagues thatwoulddevelopthedatabase.TheSecretariatalsoagreedwith theDelegation of Egypt thatin futurereportsanarrativecould beprovideddescribingexactly whattheconsultantsdid. SSAswerebasicallyshort-termstaff hiredto undertakespecificactivitiesfor which theOrganization eitherlackedskills or did not haveenoughmanpowerin thatspecific areaof expertise. With respectto theobservationsmadeby theDelegationof Algeria, theSecretariatpointed out that IP wasaspecializedfield andit wasalways a challengeto find appropriateexpertisein thevarioussub-areasor sub-subjectsof IP. TheSecretariat wouldbewilli ng to receive any nominationsthatcountriesmaywish to provideof consultants or potentialsexperts in thevariousfields.Concerning thequestionof who theconsultantsreported to, theSecretariat explainedthattheyreportedto theProgramManagersin WIPOwho hadhiredthemfor undertakingaspecifictask,andthat ProgramManagerswereresponsible for delivery to theMemberStates.

77. TheDelegationof NigeriacommendedtheSecretariat for preparing therosterandstatedthatit wasastepin theright direction towardsimplementing Recommendation 6. It providedthenames of specialistsfor differenttypesof projects but neededto bemorecomprehensive,includingcountries.TheDelegationpointedout thatoneareawhich wasmissing with respectto Recommendation 6 wasthecodeof ethics. In documentCDIP/3/5, it talkedaboutthestandardof conductfor internationalcivil service whichhadbeenadopted by theICSCin2001, andapprovedby theWIPO CoordinationCommittee in 2002. TheDelegationconsideredit very importantto seesuchdocuments. Whentheissueof thecodeof ethicshadbeenraisedin thesecondsession of theCDIP, it hadbeenmentionedthatit wasunderstudy,as explainedin paragraph203of documentCDIP/2/4. But it nowseemedthat it hadalreadybeenadopted.Thereseemedto beacontradiction. TheDelegation concludedthatit wouldbe importantto seethedocumentsit hadreferredto in orderto clarify theissue.

78. TheDelegationof Brazil thankedtheSecretariat for preparing theroster of consultantsand acknowledgedtheeffortsmadein consolidating thenamesof sucha largenumberofconsultantsin onedocument.In its view, theroster should beregarded asthepracticalpartofRecommendation6. Althoughit wasincluded in ClusterA, it thoughtthattheRecommendationalsoaddressedissuesof other clusters,especially theissues of balanceandtransparency.TheDelegationnotedthattherewerecertainblankspacesin somecolumnsregarding institutionsof origin andin somecases thesubject matter or projectwasdescribedin averygeneralway. TheDelegationwasof theopinion thatit could beimprovedin order


to enhancetransparency.Additionally, in orderto give effective implementation toRecommendation6, it suggestedthat therosterbemadewidely available in WIPO’s website.TheDelegationwasalsoof theview thattherostershould becontinuall y updatedandthatthequestionof balanceshouldbetakeninto accountin thefutureselectionof consultants.TheDelegationalsohadcommentsonelementsraisedby theSecretariat relating todocument CDIP/3/5, but statedthatit would presentthemwhentheCommitteediscussedthatparticulardocument.

79. TheDelegationof YementhankedtheSecretariat for theeffortsundertakento preparethedocument. It supportedthecommentsmadeby thedelegationsof Algeria, EgyptandIndia. In relation to whathadbeensaidby theDelegationof Egyptregarding thenumberofArab consultantson thelist, theDelegationwonderedwhether theSecretariat hadconsideredproviding translation or interpretationto helpMember States benefit from theservicesof suchexpertsasseveralmembercountriescould lack thenecessaryexpertisein foreign languages.

80. TheDelegationof Romaniawasverysatisfiedwith therosterof consultants,which alsoincluded aRomaniannational. TheDelegation notedthat, while thereweremanyprojectsoflocalor specific nature,therewerealsosomeof a moreregionalor general nature. TheDelegationenquired abouttheavailabilityof thematerial createdby theconsultantsin casesin which thematerial wasof general interestandwhentheresults weretangible,suchasthestudyby thePresidentof theHungarianCopyrightCouncil. TheDelegation wouldbeveryinterestedin theresultsof thatstudy,of theproject andthemethodologyusedfor measuringpiracy rates.TheDelegationwishedto knowwhetherthematerial on theproject wasaccessibleandwhetherit wasavailable for othercountriesthat might needsuchmodelsormethodologies.

81. TheDelegationof TrinidadandTobagocongratulatedtheSecretariat for havingtakenthetimeandseenthewisdomin preparingtherosterof consultants, which it believedhadbeenextremely helpful andwhich reflectedtheincreasedemphasison thepart of theSecretariat on transparency andefficiency. TheDelegation endorsed theobservationsmadeby thedelegationsof IndiaandEgypt with respect to thecriteria for theselection ofconsultants.They felt thattheissuewasextremely important, astheoutput, theprocesswouldcreatewasdirectly linked to thecapacity, theskill sets and thecompetenciesof theconsultantsassignedto delivertheparticularproject. In that context, theDelegationwonderedwhether,in theprocessasit operatedat thetime, therewasroomfor consultationwith MemberStatesprior to theassignmentof consultants,or whether theconsultantswerealreadyassignedandtheprojectthenranits course.It seemedto theDelegation thatfrom theperspectiveof efficiency, or from theperspective of enhancing thepotential to delivertheproject efficiently, it might havebeenbenefi cial that suchconsultationtookplaceprior to theassignment of theconsultant.

82. TheDelegationof Bangladesh thanked theSecretariat for preparingtherosterandraisedtwo points. Thefi rst wasapracticalsuggestionfor improvingtheroster,andit relatedto thethird columnwherethenamesof theinstitutionswereprovided,andin somecasesthenamesof theinstitutionswerenot presentor theaddresswasmissing. Someof the individualsdidnot appear to beaffiliated to anyinstitutionandif acountrywasinterestedin finding out whatexpertise theexpertshad,therewasno wayto contactthem. Thesecondpoint concernedhowtheroster wouldevolvein thefuture. TheDelegation thankedtheSecretariat for explainingand it understoodthatthatwasthefirst attempt and thatit wouldbeimprovedand updated.In thatcontext, theDelegationsupportedtheproposalmadeby theDelegation of Brazil to


publish theroster on thewebsite.Onhow it evolvedin thefuture,theDelegation consideredthattherewasaneedfor balanceandfor expertise. In particular, it highlightedtheneedforhaving in the rostertheexpertswhohadworkedin thecontextof LDCs.

83. TheChair explainedthatanumberof expertsfrom theSecretariat hadbeeninvited torespondto someof thequestionsraisedby thedelegations. TheChair, therefore, requestedtherepresentativesof theSecretariatto respondto thequestionsandcommentsraisedwithrespectto Recommendation6 andspecifically with respectto therosterof consultants.

84. In responseto thequestionsraisedby several delegationsconcerning therosterofconsultant,theSecretariatexplainedthattherosterwasa first effort which wouldbeimprovedin the future. MemberStatescouldsuggestconsultants andtheconsultants report to theprogrammanagersthathiredthem. It pointedout that theprojectfor implementingRecommendation9 would focusondevelopinga technical assistancedatabaseandtheobservationsandcommentsmadein themeeting with respect to therosterwouldbetakenintoaccountin thecontextof thatproject.

85. Therepresentativeof theHumanResourceManagementDivision (HRMD) notedthatas of 2009,a referencehadbeenincludedin all contractsto theStandardof Conductfor theInternationalCivil ServiceCommission(ICSC), whichwascommonto all UN systemorganizations. TheStandardof Conduct hadalsobeenincluded in thecontracts ofconsultants.With respectto therosterof consultants, theHRMD representativenotedthattheroster wasnot a centralizedtool in administration, but it was a rosterbasedon technicalassistancedemandsandit wasmanagedtheby theTechnical AssistanceandCapacityBuilding Sector. TheHRMD representative informed theCommitteethatthepreviousmonth,theSecretaryGeneralof theUN, Mr. Ban-Ki Moon,hadaddressedall theChiefExecutiveson aproposalfor acommonpolicy document on ethics within thecommonsystemoforganizations. That, togetherwith rulesandregulationsandproceduresfor financialdisclosure,wasanissueonwhich theSecretariat wasworking.

86. TheDelegationof NigeriathankedtheSecretariat for theexplanation andwonderedwhetherit understoodcorrectly thattheSecretariat did not work with apool of experts. TheDelegationpointed out thattheRecommendation indicatedthatWIPOshould drawupandmakewidely knownto theMemberStatesa rosterof Consultantsfor technical assistanceavailablewith WIPO. In effect,whathadbeendrawnupwasnot a rosterof consultantsnoraroster of experts, but whatdelegationshadreceivedwereprojects thatexpertshadundertaken.A realrosterof consultantswouldnot in anywayexcludetheonesincludedtherebut theyhadto be in acommonpool. In otherwords,if somebody was selectedfor projects andthatpersoncompliedwith therequirementsor guidelinesto becomea consultant, thenthatnamewouldgo in thepool,whichwould thenbecirculatedto all MemberStates. WhattheCommitteehadbeforeit includedaccurateinformation on theprojectandtheinstitution,which wasvery important,but whatwasrequired wasa roster, thatis, akind of pool to beestablishedon thebasis of guidelines,inviting countriesandanybodyelsewhocouldprovidethenames of peoplewho metthespecifications. All theexplanationsthatwerebeingprovidedwouldstil l bevery relevantbut whatwascurrentlymissingwas themost importantlink, namely, therosterof consultants.

87. TheSecretariatinformedthatthereweremany criteria thatformed thebasisfor theselectionof consultants. First of all wastheknowledgeof theissue,thecompetenciesrequired,and thematchingof thatknowledgeand thosecompetencieswith therequirements


for anyparticularmission,adviceor undertaking. Thenthenamesof theindividualsthatmatchedthoserequirementsweresharedwith thebeneficiary countriesor institutionstoobtain theiragreementon thenamesproposedfor undertakingsuch assignments.Thefinaldecisiononacceptanceor not of thosenamesdependedonwhethertheterms,whichwerebeing preparedfor theassignment,wereacceptableor not. As aconsequence, it wasaprocesswhich wasbasedoncompetenceandcoordination with thebeneficiary countries.Thelist of expertswasa tool whichcontainedthenamesandsomeadditional informationofvariousexperts thathadbeenusedor hadbeenemployed by WIPO in differentareas.It wassomethingthatcouldbeusedto identify experts asrequiredandit wassomething thatneededto bedevelopedfurther. As hadalreadybeenmentioned,theprojectwhich wasproposedtobeundertakenunderRecommendation 5 wouldhopefully enable amuch moreflexible wayofhandlingandrecordingthenamesandthefieldsof actionof thevariousexpertsthattheOrganizationwould employin thefuture.

88. TheDelegationof Bangladesh statedthatits previousintervention wasasuggestionabout embellishingtheinformationthatwascontainedin thethird column, “ Institutions” .Whenindividualexpertsdid not haveanaffiliation with an institution, it wasnecessary towiden theinformationon theindividualsthemselves sothatdelegationsknew howtheexpertscould bereached.Thesecondpoint which hadbeenmadewasmorerelevant to theissuebeing raised by theSecretariat,but it wasnot abouttheselection criteria. Thecurrentmethodologyfor developing therosterwasthatif agiven personhadpreviously workedwithWIPO, thenthenamewouldgo in theroster becauseif WIPOtried to gobeyondthatit mightbeaccusedof beingsubjectivein includingsomeandnot others. Themethodologyusedwasthereforeprobablygoodto start with but, clearly,as it evolved,themethodologywouldhaveto beamended.TheSecretariathadalready indicated thatindividualcountrieswerefreetosuggest peoplefor inclusionin therosterandWIPOwouldplay theroleof an arbiter sothatitbrought morebalanceof expertiseonvariousregions,in particularexpertiseon LDCs. Thepoint was, therefore,relatedto thefutureevolution of themethodologyand howtherostercould benefi t all theMemberStatesthatwerein differentstagesof development.

89. TheChair thankedthedelegationsfor their initial responseto Recommendation6. Thedelegationshadidentifiedsomedeficiencies, which theSecretariathadrecognized. Thecomment by theDelegationof Bangladeshdealt with theissueof theroster evolvingin thefuture, whichhadalsobeenmentionedby theSecretariat. As technology anddemandson theexpertisechanged, no rostercouldremainstatic, sodelegationswereright in expectingit toevolve. Therewas alsothequestion of collaborationwith Member Statesin theidentificationof experts.TheSecretariathadmentionedthatif delegationswereawareof expertsin theircountries, theirnamescouldbecommunicated to theSecretariat and their availability wouldbe takeninto consideration. TheChairalsoexpectedthat from time to timesomeof theprogramswouldbefundedby certaincountriesandthosecountrieswould haveasayin thechoiceof experts and wheretheycamefrom. As aconsequence, avariety of principleswouldbe identified thatshouldguidetheprocess.TheChair did not think thatit was theobjectiveof MemberStatesto put all thequestionstogether anddevelop rigid rulesto guidehowtheorganization identified experts. His suggestion was thatcertain criteriabetakenonboard,thattheCommitteerecognized thechallenges thattheOrganization wouldhaveto go throughin identifying consultants, andthattheSecretariat recognized theexpectationsof MemberStatesin terms of balance,conflictsof interest,etc. Onedelegation hadmentionedthattherewere five out of 300consultantsin therosterwho camefrom Arabstates. If thatprovedto bethecorrectnumber, thenthatwasa fact,but theChair did not seeanyBarbadians on thelist


either. However,whathewouldwant to seein therosterwas theexpertiserequiredto assisthis countryandthatwasthefundamentalissue.

90. TheDelegationof Angolaexpressed theneedto definecriteriato beusedfor theselectionof experts taking into consideration anequitable,geographical distribution andrepresentation.TheDelegationalso underscoredtheneed to establishobjectivecriteria in theselectionof experts in thefuture. TheDelegationsuggestedthattherosterbeimprovedandthatacoverpagebeaddedwhichdescribedtheselection criteria.

91. TheDelegationof Moroccoreiteratedtheneed to review therosterof consultants,soasto allow for nominationsby membercountries. TheDelegation expressedtheimportanceoftransparent andobjectiveselectioncriteria. It believedthatexpertise,work experienceandlanguages,asit pertainedto thebenefittingcountry,shouldbekeyelements of selectioncriteria,andthatguidelinesto thateffect shouldbedrafted for usein thefuture.

92. TheDelegationof India thankedtheSecretariat for answering its questionaboutthecriteria,andagreedwith theChairon thenecessity to haveaconstructive approachfordrawingup theroster. With respectto theselection criteria, theDelegation suggestedthatinaddition to theelaboratedcriteria,skills requirements onWIPOwebsiteor otherwise,aninvitationto expressinterestshouldbepublishedon thewebsite. TheDelegation of Indianoticedthatmanywell-knownnames, which look at IP from adevelopmental perspective,weremissing from thelist, andthatnamesof manystudents wereon thelist. Accordingly,itreiteratedtheneedto createadatabasewhichwas consultative, transparent andbalanced,andallowedfor skill sets to beadvertised, aswasdoneelsewhereonawebsite or newspapers.

93. TheDelegationof Francesupportedtheconclusionsthat weredrawn,but expressedreluctancewith respectto theestablishment of a frameworkfor recruitmentthatwastoonarrow, whenit cameto consultantsor experts to behiredby theOrganization for specifictimeboundtasks. TheDelegationagreedwith all theprevioussuggestionsandtheChair’scommentsaboutmoving forwardand promisedsomeimprovement in thefuture.Referringto documentCDIP/3/5, it asked the Secretariat to answerthe many questionsthatwere raisedwith respectto Recommendation1 within thesaid document.

94. Respondingto thequestionsmadeby theDelegationsof IndiaandCostaRicarelatingto the issueof IP strategy developmentin general,theSecretariat madefive comments:Firstly, theoverall goalof theIP strategy andpolicy developmentwasto useIP at astrategiclevelfor economic development.Accordingly, thepriorities,needs,andspecificcircumstances of thecountrieswouldbetakeninto consideration; thewholepackage is donein suchamannerthatit is within theoverall developmentgoals andprioritiesasenshrinedintheoverall developmentplans. TheSecretariat explainedthat sometools wereinternallyconceivedwhichwerecurrentlybeingfully developedandsystematized,includingtheIPAudit Tool, in addition anenhancedsystematic processto identify suchneedsincomprehensive,coherentandrobustmanner, tool-kits,which would enabletheOrganizationto bemoreconfident in theprocessof developingIP policiesandstrategies. Moreover, anumberof questionnaireswerespecifically tailoredto addresstheneedsof specificconstituentssuchasLDCs questionnairesandsmall andmedium-sizedEnterprisequestionnaires.In additiontheSecretariat adhered to aprocessthat would includeanumberof keyelementsnamelya needsassessmentwhich would beundertakenprior to thedevelopmentor thefinalizationthepoliciesinvolvinga review meeting for all nationalstakeholdersinterestedin thedevelopmentof anIP policy. TheSecretariat alsopointedout


thatit reliedonexternalconsultantswhowould bringspecific expertiserelating to specificareasthatmaybeof primeinterest to thecountriesconcerned.As such,theprocesswouldbeof aninteractive natureinvolving discussionsamongtheSecretariat, theconsultanthiredbytheSecretariat andthevariousnationalauthorities. TheSecretariat mentionedasimilar casein Mauritius. TheSecretariatrecalledCostaRica’s andIndia’s remarkson this issueaddingthatthestrategy wouldcovertheentiregamutof IP activi ties ranging from formulationof IPpolicy to activit iesgearedto leveragingtheuseof IP assets.Furthermore, theSecretariatheldseminarson licensingarrangements, patentdrafting, transfer of technology,andcreationoftechnologyin IP innovationcenters, IP management for Universityresearchand developmentinstitution,andareassuchashumanresourcedevelopment,legal assistance,anddraftingoflegislation.Respondingto thequestionsconcerningLDCs, theSecretariat pointedout that45out of the49 LDCs weremembersof WIPO. It explainedthattheLDCsDivision focused onbuilding IP institutions in LDCs togetherwith UN Organizationsas well aswith theotherprogramsin WIPO. Referringto theHigh LevelForumwhichwas held in December12,2007, theSecretariatexplainedthattheForumwasonbuildingcapacity in LDCs to useIP asaknowledge-basefor wealthcreationandit consisted of two parts: theMinisterialplenaryand sessions onanumberof Thematicissuessuch aspatent licensing,businessidentifiersandcommercializationof productsandservices,developmentof copyrightindustry for wealthcreation,TK, theroleof highereducation in institutionsandresearchorganizationsin LDCsand their contribution for IP capacity-building,andthecooperation betweenbusiness,industriesandhighereducationandinstitutionsand researchcenters.TheSecretariatfurtherexplained that,asanoutcomeof thedeliberations,anactionplanwasproposed for LDCs andthatthis actionplan woulddealwith issuessuch as formulation andimplementation ofnational IP policiesandstrategies,buildingsustainableinstitutions,promotionof innovationin LDCs, identificationof specificproductsin aposition to get addedvaluewhenexported,TK, partnership at thenationallevel betweentheprivateandpublic sector to promoteIP foreconomicdevelopment,exemptionandpreferential treatmentwith regardto LDCsmembershipto thevariousWIPOtreaties, preferential treatmentwith regardto theirannualpaymentor contributionto mostof thetreaties, recognitionof LDCs asa groupwithin WIPO,LDCs relatedactivities in WIPO andmonitoringandfollow-up. Concerning thequestiononCDIP/1/3,Recommendation1, page3, paragraph10, theSecretariat saidthatan internaldiscussion tookplaceabouttheimplementationof this Recommendation. In this regard therewasnocleardeterminationon themodalitiesandthetermsof referenceof thedocument.Given theextremesensitivitiesandthelegalcomplexity of theissuesinvolved in flexibilities,theSecretariat decidedto takeaverycautiousapproach,andpreparedaworkingdocumentthatwasdistributedin a regionalmeeting,held in Singapore,in July 2008,with theparticipationof representativesof IP offices andMinistriesof Health of a numberof Asiancountries. Thoserepresentativeshadgroupdiscussionson thedocumentand proposedanumberof changes. Those inputshadalreadybeenincorporated into theworkingdocument.Theworkingdocumentwasformedby anintroductorypart, with anexplanation of theconceptof flexibilities, their variousmodalitiesandtheprinciplesthatapplyto them. Thedocument alsocontainedanumberof examplesof flexibili ties,namely on thescopeofpatentability,on theconditionof enabling disclosureof inventions,onexhaustionof rights,oncompulsory licensesof patentrights,onundiscloseddataandotherdataandon injunctions.TheSecretariatfurtherclarified thatthestrategy wasto bring thatdocument, alreadymodifiedafter theSingaporemeeting,to otherregions,includingameetingwith GroupB Members,and incorporate inputs aftereachmeeting. In theend,thedocumentwould not yet aconsensual one,but it wouldbeat leasta thoroughlydiscusseddocument. Thefinal versionwould thenbesubmittedto theCDIP and,eventually, transformedinto a formal CDIPdocument.


95. TheDelegationof Argentinaaskedwith respect to thequestionnaires whetherthosehadbeenupdatedsincetheadoptionof theDevelopmentAgenda. It asked,for example, ifquestionshadbeenincludedon theuseof flexibili ties in theIP system.

AgendaItem 5 continued

96. Reverting to AgendaItem5 “Adoption of thereviseddraft Reportof theSecondSession”, theChair wishedto confirm that theamendmentsto thestatementmadeby theDelegationof theUnited Statesof Americain paragraph92weresatisfactory to all andthat,subjectto anamendmentstill to besubmittedby theDelegation of Argentina, thereport wasin factadopted.

AgendaItem 6 continued

97. TheChair expressedconcernwith theprogressof theCommittee’s activi ty. Hestatedthatwork hadbegun correctlybut theprocessof lookingat theprogressreportscontainedindocument CDIP/3/5wasratherslow. Hereiteratedthat thereportwasclearly on the19Recommendationsfor immediateimplementationandthatif theCDIP continuedreviewingthereportat thatpace,it might spendthewholeweek lookingat thatreportwhich, hewassure,wasnot theintention of theCommittee. TheChair stated thathehadgiven a lot ofthought asto howhewouldencouragetheCDIP to quicken thepacewith respect toreviewingthereportandhadbasedhis thoughtsonasimple formula: TheCDIP wouldbeable to challenge reports,commenton reports,makeadjustmentsto activi ties for thenexttento 20 years. Everythingwouldnot necessarily haveto bedonenow, theCDIP thereforewouldnot needto getit all perfectly right immediately, andtheessential element to getrightat thatpoint in timewastheimplementation of all 45adopted Recommendations. Headdedthatin thefollowing year, 80percentof all timewouldbespenton reviewingreportsanddealingwith reports.However,at the timeandin thefollowingsession,hewouldsubmit that90 percent of thetimeshouldbespenton implementation andaddressing therecommendationsto beimplemented.TheChairreiteratedthathewasnot discountingtheimportanceof critically lookingat reports andthattherewereseveralyearsin which to doso.However,if theCommitteewantedto seetherecommendationsimplementedsoonerratherthanlater, thenit would needto spendmostof its time in thatareaandthereforelesstimereviewingreports. He expressedthehopethat theCommitteewould understandandsympathizewith his sentimentandencouragedtheCommitteeto utilize thetimethatdayaseffectively andefficiently aspossible. TheChair furtheremphasizedthefact thattherewereexpertspresentthatdayandthatsomeof themwould needto leaveandcomebacksincetheyhad other responsibilitiesto attendto. He imploredMember States to bebrief with theirquestions, aswell astheexpertswith their responses,with theunderstandingthattheCommitteecould always comebackto these reports in thefuture. TheChair concludedbyasking theDirector Generalto makea few comments.

98. TheDirectorGeneralrecalledthefact thatApril 26wasWorld IP Day andthat,althoughit fell onaSundayin thecurrentyear, it wasstill celebratedby theOrganization.Hestatedthat thedayon whichhewasactually speaking, April 28,wastheoccasionofanothercelebration,namelythe200th Anniversaryof theFirst BrazilianPatentLaw,becauseit wasonApril 28,1809,thatBrazil had passedits first Patent Law. TheDirector Generalelaboratedthat it wasquiteapioneering law, since it was only thesecondPatentLaw in theworld which accordedsimilar treatmentto foreigners as wasgivento nationals. Thatof


course,headded,was thefoundationof theprinciple of national treatment, which in turnfound its way into theParisConventionwhenit wasconcludedin 1883, andBrazil , therefore,becamea founding memberof theParisUnionwhichwas establishedunder theParisConvention. TheDirectorGeneralconcludedby extendinghis congratulationsto Brazil onthatoccasion.

99. TheDelegationof Brazil thankedtheDirector Generalfor recalling thatoccasionwhichwasindeeda very importantdatefor Brazil. TheDelegationstatedthatBrazil washoldingaseminarthat weekin Brasilia,with thesupportof WIPO,to celebrate theoccasion. It thankedtheDirectorGeneralfor giving it theopportunity to mention theseminarandapologizedforbeing a litt le self-congratulatory regarding Brazil, but it was important to notethat Brazil hadalwaysbeeninvolvedin multi-lateralnegotiations. It addedthatmulti-lateral negotiationshadbeenthemainaspectof Brazil’s foreignpolicy and, since its independence in theeighteenthcentury,Brazil had hadthetraditionof participating in any multi-lateraldiscussionandhadbeenin favor of multi-lateralinstitutions. TheDelegation underscored thattheparticipationof Brazil in thenegotiationof theParisConventionhadbeendoneduring thereignof theEmpireof Brazil andthatit hadonly beenoneor two yearslater thattheRepublicwasinstalled.Nevertheless,all treatiessignedbeforetheentry into forceof theRepublichad beenenforcedagainandwererespectedby thenewregime. It concludedby saying thattheoccasionwasavery importantone,for not only wasBrazil a foundingmember of theParisConvention, but alsoa foundingmemberof theIP system, and it wasveryproudof that.

100. TheDelegationof Senegalconferredwith theChair’s opinionon thepaceof theworktheprevious day. TheDelegationunderscoredtheimportanceof significantitemsnot beingoverlookedor sidelinedbasedon timeconstraints andgiventhat theintroductory remarksoftheChairwereexactlyin line with members of theAfri canGroup,it wascontentedthatthework of Committeecouldindeedproceedasefficiently aspossible. TheDelegationfurtheraddedthatit believedthatwasa generalacceptanceof theneedto movea little fasterthroughtherecommendations and soasto identify whatwascritical, eitherin thewayof a commentor aquestion, bearingin mind thatonecouldalways comeback to thosereportsin thefuture.

101. TheDelegationof EgyptthankedtheSecretariat for theelaborationonpoint 10of theinitial workingdocumentwith regardsto Recommendation 1. TheDelegation recalledthattheSecretariat hadmentionedthatthereweretwo aspectsto theissue.Thefi rst onewasthepreparationof adocumentcontainingadescriptionof legislative assistancewith regardtopublic policy anddevelopment. In this regard, theDelegationpointed out thattheSecretariathad opted againstproducingthis document, bearing in mind thatwork hadbeen donein otherinstanceson thatissue. TheDelegationbelievedthatacompilationof thework donein thefield wouldenable theCommitteeto takeamoreconcrete lookat WIPO’s work on legislativeassistancewith regardto publicpolicy anddevelopment. With regardsto thesecondissueabout optionsfor flexibilities availableundertheTRIPSAgreement, theDelegationsaidthatit wasits understanding thataworking documenthadbeenelaboratedandenquiredaboutthepossibilityof having accessto thatdocumentasit evolved, in orderto considerhow it couldbe furtherdevelopedwith pointsbeingraisedby someMemberStates. TheDelegationconcludedby requestingthatreferencebemadeto theissuein document CDIP/3/5in ordernot to losetrackof it astheCommitteeprogressed.

102. TheDelegationof CostaRicawishedto focusmoreon implementation. With respecttoRecommendation1, theDelegationbelievedthat thesituation it wasaddressingwouldalsohaveanimpactonhoweachoneof the recommendationswould beimplemented. It stated


thatthepreviousdayit hadnotedthatin Recommendation 1 onpage2, referencehadbeenmadeto theimportanceof implementing projects. In thefi rst place, thatwas an importantitemon theAgenda, andsecondlycooperation shouldbeseenas aproject with a lif ecycle,abeginningandanend. TheDelegationaddedthat thereseemedto beadifferencein thecooperation referredto in theRecommendationunderconsiderationandalthoughit wasgrateful for theSecretariat’s explanations,it notedthattherewasa tendencytowardsasystemizationof activities. TheDelegation statedthatit wasimportantfor projectsto beadaptedto theneedsof eachcountry. However, it did not see this aspect beingelaboratedintheprojects.TheDelegationfurtherstatedthatin CostaRica, an IP audit wasbeingcarriedout, but thatwasmerely anactivity andnot aproject. CostaRicahadbeenlookingforward toan initiative asa follow-up to theIP auditfor thepastthreeyearsbut, to date, therehadbeenno follow-up initiative. TheDelegationconcluded by underscoringthewordsof theDirectorGeneralthat cooperationneededto beseenasaprojectand thereforeaproject planneededtobedrafted togetherwith thecountry concerned. It believed thatthis statementwasvalid forall recommendations.

103. TheDelegationof Argentinaenquiredfrom theSecretariat asto whether thequestionnairehadbeenupdatedaftertheadoptionof theDevelopmentAgenda, soastoincludequestionsrelating, for example,to theuseof flexibilit iesof theIP system.

104. TheDelegationof Brazil praisedthework of theSecretariatin thefield of exceptionsand limitationsand flexibilities. It underscoredtheimportanceit attached to theissueofflexibilities andelaboratedthatoneof themain cultural changesthat theDevelopmentAgendahadintroducedinto theOrganization wasabroadeningof thefocusof technicalassistanceactivities, sothatWIPO in its legislativeassistancewould present countrieswith arangeof possibilit ieswith respectto theamendmentor adoptionof a law. Forexample,itaddedthatif a countryhadacertainobligation to implement, theSecretariat’s assistancewouldalso consistof explaining theflexibilit iesunderTRIPSin thatcontext. TheDelegationconcludedthatit agreedwith thestatementmadeby theDelegation of Egypt thattheSecretariat shouldmakethedocument beingpreparedon flexibil itiesavailabletoMemberStates.

105. TheDelegationof EcuadorcongratulatedtheChaironhis re-election and thegoodworkhehadbeendoing to achieveprogressin thework of theCommittee. It alsothankedtheSecretariat, in particulartheDirectorGeneral,for thedocumentsand theconstructivespirit inwhich theimplementationof theDevelopmentAgendawastakingplace. TheDelegationreferredto documentCDIP/3/5, andin particular to theinformation underRecommendation14which identifiedanational seminaron theuseof IP flexibilities in theareaof health. It addedthatfollowing a roundtableandduringaSeminar in Ecuador, therehad beendiscussionson aworkingdocumenton flexibilit iesin theTRIPSAgreement.Similar to thedelegations of Egypt andBrazil, theDelegationof Ecuadorbelievedthatsuchadocument should beincludedin theofficial discussionsin thework of theCommittee. TheDelegationexpressedits wish to seework steppedup in theareaof competition policy and theuseof flexibili ties.

106. TheDelegationof IndonesiacongratulatedtheChair onhis re-election andtheDirectorGeneralfor thedocumentationprovided, aswell as thepreviousday’s briefingonRecommendation1. TheDelegationsoughtclarification on: (a) How WIPOintendedto setthemeasuresof thenationalIP plansandstrategies while taking into accountthedifferentlevelsof developmentof MemberStates, especiall y giventhat in their view, national IP plans


and strategiesshouldnot bea ‘onesize fits all ’ approach; and (b) Given thatRecommendation1 referredto timeframesfor completion, why wereno timeframesmentionedin thematrixprovided.

107. TheDelegationof El Salvadorre-emphasizedwhathad beensaidpreviously withregard to Recommendation1. It stressedthatEl Salvadorhad receivedsignificantinputs withregard to planningandstrategy on thesubject, and had developedactivit ieswith thesupportof theoffice for cooperationwith Latin Americaand theCaribbean.TheDelegationassociateditself with thestatementmadeby theDelegationof Ecuador.It thankedWIPO fortheorganization of theseminaron theuseof competition policy andflexibilit ies,andits inputintoall theactivit ies. TheDelegationreiteratedthattheworkingdocument on flexibilitieswouldnot only beimportantfor discussionsin theCDIP,or anyother committeein theOrganization,but alsodirectly important for El Salvador. It advocated theneedfor suchinformation by developingcountries.

108. TheDelegationof India thankedtheSecretariat for thedetailedrepliesto its queries.TheDelegation requestedclarificationfrom theSecretariat with respectto thecontentsof theadvisory toolsprovidedto countriesunderthenationalIP plansandstrategiesprogram, andthereviewor evaluationmechanism beingworkedout by theSecretariat.

109. With respectto theprocessof developing IP strategies,theSecretariat stated thatit wasbasicallyaprocessthatwasdemand-driven andthatit wastherequestsfrom countriesthatenabledtheSecretariatto settheprocessin motion. It agreedthat aprojectapproachshouldbeusedand notedthecommentsmadefor thedevelopment of aproject. In thatcontext, theSecretariat mentionedtheon-going projectin Mauritius. TheSecretariat then addressedthequestionfrom theDelegationof Argentinaon thevarioustoolsused. It recalled thatit hadmadereferenceto theIP Audit Tool andanumber of questionnairesthathadbeendevelopedby theSecretarial relatingto theissueof strategicplanning. Referringto thedocumentCDIP/3/INF/2, AnnexIX relatingto Recommendation 10, whichdealt with thequestionofthetool-kit for IP strategyandplanningdevelopment, theSecretariatstated thatthetool-kitwouldbecomemorecomprehensive,coherentandrobustsince theinformation collatedfromthevariousentitiesin theOrganizationthathadproducedsimilar toolswould besystematized.It furtheraddedthatananalysiswouldbecarriedout soasto identify thegapspresentin thevariousdocuments andcomeupwith a testedmethodology thatwouldassist in providingarigorousmeansof elaboratingIP strategyandplans for thecountries makingsucha request.TheSecretariatconfirmedthatthedocument thathad beendevelopedsofar, for example,theIP Audit tool, eventhoughit did not contain specific paragraphson flexibil itiesunderthechapterdedicatedto thelaws, hadaprovision for suchquestionssincequestionsregardingflexibilities wereconfidentialandbasedonspecific requestsfrom countries. Such requestswouldopenthedoorfor engagingin discussion relating to thatkindof flexibili ty thecountrywouldwantreflectedin thestrategy to beput in place. TheSecretariatexpressedthehopethatnew toolsin thefuturewoulddefinitely includethedimensionon flexibil itiessinceitwouldbeanOrganization-wide tool andtherewould bediscussionwith thesectorsinvolvedin flexibilities. TheSecretariataddressedthepoint madeby theDelegationof Indonesiaandstated thattheRecommendationitself foresawtheneed for IP development strategiesto becustomizedto theneedsof thecountry andthusanapproach which reflectedthelevel ofdevelopment,thegaps,andtheconstraintsfacing theconsideredcountry. With respecttomeasuringtheimpact,theSecretariatstated thatthetools wouldalsobeused forbenchmarking. It also referredto astudythatwasongoingwith theuseof externalconsultants.TheSecretariatfurtherelaboratedthat in respect of timeframesfor completion,


thereweresomesetclausesin theIP strategy thatwasput forward,onaveragetwo to fouryears, all in accordancewith theprinciple thattherewasno “onesize fits all ” . TheSecretariatconcludedthatit hadtakenduenoteof therequestmadeby theDelegationof Indiapertainingto theadvisorytools andvaluationmechanismand thatinformation in thatrespectwouldbemadeavailableshortly.

110. TheDelegationof Angolaenquiredas to thekind of activitiescarried out by theSecretariat in Portuguesespeakingcountries. In thatcontext, theDelegation suggestedthatWIPO consideredmoreusageof thePortugueselanguagesoasto havegreater participationfrom Portuguese-speaking African countries.

111. In responseto theDelegationof Angola,theSecretariat emphasized thatthereportdidnot encompassall theactivitiesof theOrganization. Therewereanumberof activities carriedout in Lusophonecountriesin thepreviousyearandmentionedtheMinisterial conferenceforLusophonecountriesheldin April 2008. TheSecretariat addedthatthere werealsovariousactivities heldin thecontextof aPatentDatabasein Portugueseandtherewasa regularcooperation planwhich hadbeenapproved by theMinisters in Lusophonecountries. TheSecretariat reiteratedthattheactivitiesin question were reported with respect to specificrecommendationsof theDevelopmentAgendaand, as such,did not coverall of thetechnicalassistanceandcapacity-building programs. It assuredtheDelegation that theabsenceof anactivity from thereport did not meanthatit wasnot taking place.

112. TheDelegationof Brazil supportedthestatement of theDelegation of Angolaandstated that linguistic differencesamongstcountriesshould betakeninto accountwhenproviding anddelivering technicalassistance. In thecaseof thePortuguesecommunityofcountries,theDelegationunderscoredthe fact thatPortuguesewasnot only an off iciallanguagein theGeneralAssemblybut alsoanofficial languagein thePatent CooperationTreaty (PCT). TheDelegationwelcomedthestatementmadeby theDirector Generalwithrespectto theactivi tiesthatwerebeingcarried out for Lusophonecountriesand encouragedtheSecretariat to engagein discussionwith its Delegation soasto exploreotherpossibleactivities.

113. TheDelegationof Algeria raisedaquestionwith respectto thetelevisionprogramforraisingawarenessof the importanceof IP for Development in Sri Lanka. TheDelegationenquiredasto thenatureof theprograms, theachievementof theprogram’s objectivesandwhereonecouldfind out abouttheresultsof theinitiative. TheDelegation elaboratedthatinits effortsto promote IP vis-à-vis thegeneralpublic on theWorld IP Day,Algeriawasorganizingopenhousedaysfor thepublic in relevantinstitutionsandthereforewishedtoknowof other practicesfrom which thecountrycouldbenefit. TheDelegation thenmadereferenceto documentCDIP/1/3, paragraph10, which referred to theholding in 2008of aninternational conferenceon thecreativeindustries. In thatcontext, theDelegation wantedtoknowwhethertheconferenceactuallytookplacesincesaiddocumentdid not reflect theevent.

114. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica stated thatits questionregardingRecommendation3wasalso somewhatlinked to Recommendation 4. TheDelegation addedthatreferenceinRecommendation3 to threetrainingprogramsorganizedon theStrategic ManagementofIPRsdid includeonewhichhadbeenorganizedin South Africa thepreviousyear. TheDelegationwaspleasedto seethattherehad been52participantsfrom developingcountriesattendingthecoursewhichwasevaluatedas‘outstanding’ . It underscoredits contentment


with thepositive resultsobtainedandconfirmed thatSouth Africawasin theprocessofarrangingasecondonewith theWIPOWorldwideAcademy(WWA) on theIP StrategicManagementcourse.TheDelegationsoughtclarification based on thecommentof theDirectorGeneralon theProgramandBudget,asto whetheranactivity similar to theoneontheManagementof IP Assets, wasstill in existence. In its opinion, especially in thelight ofcommentsmadeby delegationsof otherdevelopingcountries,it wasimportantto find awayof continuingthoseprograms. With respect to theMastersCoursesin IP courses thatwereprovidedandthecorresponding100degreesandcertificatesawarded,theDelegationsoughtclarifi cationas to which percentagewereactually graduatesfrom developingcountriesandfor whichspecificprograms, andwhethertheMasterswas adistance-learningcourseor anactualMasterscourse.

115. TheDelegationof India madetwo commentswith respectto theimplementationofRecommendation3. TheDelegationstatedthat giventhatlessthan5 percentof globalIPassetslaid in thehandsof developingcountriesandLDCs, thetraditionalfocusof WIPOonpromoting,protectingandbetterenforcing IPRs werenot directly relevantor importanttodevelopingcountriesandLDCs. It addedthatreference to promoting adevelopment-orientedIP culture, whichwasthebasicobjectiveof theRecommendation in question,would implythatthefocusshould beoneducatingcountriesasto whatIP wasaboutand howastrategic IPpolicy couldbedovetailedinto nationaldevelopmentpolicy goals, utilizing thepolicy spaceand flexibilit iesavailable, whilst keepingin mind specific developmental statusof acountry.TheDelegation furtheraddedthattheprogress/achievement columnunderRecommendation3, howevermadeno reference to development orientation. In particular, asit pertainedto support givento theNational IP Officeof Sri Lankaandthe22sessionsofregionalandinter-regional seminarsheldin developingcountriesandLDCs, theDelegationquestionedwhetherthefocusshouldnot bemoreonwhat wasreally importantto thedevelopingcountriesandLDCs. Thesecondcomment, theDelegation of Indiastatedwassimilar to thecommentmadeearlierby theDelegation of SouthAfrica. TheDelegationwelcomedreferenceto thethreetrainingprogramsorganizedonstrategic managementofIPRswhich, it believed, waswhatdevelopingcountriesand LDCs needed. It also referredtotheExecutiveandResearchProgramof theWWA which was evaluatedasoutstanding,adding thatout of theninesessionsheld, two wereheldin India,and thetotal numberofparticipantswas256, of which65percentcamefrom developingcountries. Its understandingwasthatthesessionswereona fee-based participation andthatasurplusof 0.15millionSwissfrancshad beenmadeandsubsequently channeledto offer discounttuition feesfordevelopingcountries.TheDelegationbelievedthatboth theapproachandtheprogramwereexcellent. It underscoredthatoutstandingviewson theusefulnessof theprogram to Indiahadbeenreceivedand thatin fact Indiahadrequestedthatanothersessionor a seriesof sessionsbeorganizedin 2009. TheDelegationexpressedits disappointment with respect to thepossiblediscontinuationof theprogramandrequestedtheSecretariatto review its decisionand reinstate theprogram.

116. TheDelegationof Nigeriabelieved thatwith respectto Recommendation 3, whatneededto beclearlyreflectedwastheideaof adevelopment-orientedIP culture,which in itsopinion wasnot thecasewhenreading thereportin question.TheDelegation referredto thestatementmadeby theDelegationof India with respect to thetheoretical andpracticaltraining in theprotectionandadministration of IP, andadvocatedaneedfor coordinationatthenationallevel in orderfor thewholeIP cultureconceptto bebroughton board andachieved.TheDelegation furtherreiteratedthelack of coordination at thenational level withrespectto recommendations1 and2 andgaveanexampleof a requestcoming from anational


body. It elaboratedthata requestthatwasreceived by theSecretariat from anationalbodyprovidednoassuranceto theSecretariatthattheinstitution in question wascoordinatingwiththenationalfocal point for IP. TheDelegation concludedby emphasizing theneedforcoordinationamongstagenciesandtheIP focalpoint at thenational level andcommendedtheChair for placing importanceon theissue.

117. TheDelegationof Indonesiathanked theSecretariat for havingorganizeda trainingcoursefor diplomatsin thefield of IPRs,in collaborationwith theCentrefor EducationandTraining,andIndonesia’s Departmentof ForeignAffairs. TheDelegation statedthatthecoursehadbeenconductedtwice in thelast two years,2008and2009,andthatthosecourseswere regardedasvery relevantandoutstandingby participants. It added thatthecoursehadtargeted not only Indonesiandiplomats,but diplomatsfrom theAsia,Afri caandAssociationof SouthEastAsianNations(ASEAN) aswell. In view of theusefulnessof suchanactivity,theDelegationrequestedWIPOto maketheactivi ty a regularone. TheDelegationunderscoredtheimportanceit placedon education, asoneof thekeyfactorsof development.It expressedits appreciationfor thethreedistance-learningprogramsconductedin anumberof countries andbelievedthattheMastersDegreePrograms shouldbewidenedinto a fulldistance-learningprogramwith affordable tuition fees,particularly for developingcountriesand LDCs. TheDelegationconcludedby informing theCommitteethatwith theassistanceofWIPO, Indonesiawas goingto launchanIP-IT Academy in Jakarta in early May 2009.

118. TheDelegationof UruguaycongratulatedtheChairandVice-Chairs on theirelectionand thanked theSecretariatfor thedocuments provided. With respectto Recommendation3,theDelegationreferredto page5 of thedocumentin questionwhich mentionedtheparticipationof 23,500peoplein WIPO’s courses.TheDelegationassumed thatthereferenceon page5 wasto varioustypesof coursesandenquiredasto whether thosecourseshadbeenbrought into linewith thecrux of therecommendation concerned,soasto incorporate thenotionof IP trainingdesignedto promotedevelopment.

119. With respectto Recommendation3, theDelegationof El Salvadorreferred to theintroduction of IP at variouslevelsof trainingandeducationandenquired from theSecretariatas to thespecific issuesof university-relatedprojects. It added thatEl Salvadorwasveryinterestedin theintroductionof IP not only into university programs,but alsointoprimaryand secondaryeducationcurricula. In thatcontext, theDelegation wantedto knowwhethertheuniversity programwasin theportfolio of theWWA. It statedthat avery successfuluniversity projecthadbeencarriedout in El Salvadorandthat it would beinterestedinfindingout whethertheuniversityinitiative wasstil l beingcontinued by theWWA. On thequestionof promoting IP, smallandmedium-sizedenterprises(SMEs)andrelatedissues,theDelegationstatedthatEl Salvadorwasworkingon aproject with SMEs,whichwascurrentlyin averyearlystage.It addedthatthecountryhadreceivedasignificantamount of assistancefrom theLAC Bureauandthatit wasverypleasedwith whathad beenachieved to date. Withrespectto awareness-raisingfor thejudiciaryandgovernmentofficials, theDelegationstatedthatWIPO andthenationaloffice for theJudiciary wereworking togetheronasix-monthprogramfor trainingpublicprosecutorsandjudgesin thefil edof IP, which hadbeenquiteasuccessfulexperience. TheDelegationbelievedthatit wouldsupportcontinuingsuchactivities basedon thatpositive experience.

120. TheDelegationof Kenya notedthatgeneratingpublic awarenessaboutIP wascritical totheAfrican countries,emphasizing theimportanceof raisingIP awarenessamongall sectors.However,theDelegationremarkedthat of theactivitiescarried out underthe


Recommendation3, with theexceptionof programsfor diplomatsin Egypt, nothinghadtakenplace in Africa, moreparticularlyin sub-SaharanAfrica. TheDelegationcalled for anincreasein awareness-creationactivitiesin Afri ca,for instance,thereplication of theSri Lankaactivi ties in Kenya. As regardsintroducing IP at differentacademic levels,theDelegationthankedtheWWA for theactivit iescarriedout,andstressedtheneed for emphasisto begivento IP for SMEsandspecialized researchinstitutionsandnot only to academicinstitutions. It furtheraddedthatfocusshouldbegivento specialized institutions dealingwith greeninnovation.

121. TheDelegationof Thailandcongratulated theChair onhis re-election andthankedtheSecretariat for thevery elaboratedocumentation. TheDelegation agreed with thestatementmadeby theDelegationfrom Indiawith respectto thelack of understandingamongdevelopingandLDCs of therelationshipbetweeneconomics,developmentandbusinessusesof IP, rather thanthestrongenforcementaspects. TheDelegation wasthereforeof theopinion thattheissueshouldbeaddressedin IP awareness-building programs. TheDelegationnotedthatin oneof theactivities under theproject in question, WIPOhadalreadyrecognizedtheimportanceof themanagementand economic aspect of IP. However, itencouragedtheSecretariatto placemoreemphasis on themanagement andeconomicsaspectof IP in developingfuturecurriculaandto makethosecurriculaavailable to variouscountriesin orderfor othertrainersto benefitfrom it. It addedthat WIPOshouldcapitalizeon itswealth of experiencein dealingwith differentcountrieswhendeveloping thecontentof thecurriculum andendeavorto reflectthebenefit of IP to theeconomic andmanagementdevelopment.

122. TheDelegationof TrinidadandTobagomadereferenceto thegoal of introducingIP atdifferent academiclevels,andstatedthatit hadtakennoteof theDirector General’s remarksthatlisting thetrainingandsupportwasnot exhaustiveof all thatwas providedby theSecretariat. However, theDelegationwasconcerned on theissueof theprovisionof trainingon strategic managementof IPRs,undertheexecutive and researchprogram of theWWA,which apparently hadbeenbrought to anend. In light of theoutstandingevaluationaccordedby theparticipants to theseprograms,theDelegation soughtclarification asto whethertheSecretariat might haveconsideredor developedalternativemodules for delivering saidtraining andsupportand,if so, in whattimeframe it couldbedelivered.

123. TheDelegationof Brazil referredto theissueof introducingIP at differentacademiclevelsandstatedthatit wasimportantto notethatsomeof theprogramslistedseemedto havebeenimplementeda long timebeforetheDevelopmentAgendahad beennegotiatedandapproved. In thatconnection,theDelegation wantedto knowwhetheradjustmentshadbeenmadein thecurriculaof themastersandotherprograms in orderto bring themin line with the45 agreed Recommendations.With respectto theRosterof Consultants, theDelegationrequestedmore informationrelatedto programsbelinkedto it.

124. TheDelegationof Italy congratulatedtheChairon his re-election, thankedtheSecretariat for thedocumentation,aswell as theDirector Generalfor his personalengagementin theexercise. TheDelegationreferredto theinterventionsof thedelegationsofSouth Africa,UruguayandBrazil andemphasized thattheMasterof IP Law programprovidedby theUniversityof Turin andwhich theGovernment of Italy hadfinancedfor thepast eightyears,requiredthat50percentof theparticipantscamefrom developingcountries,of which two thirdsmainlycamefrom LDCs. TheDelegationaddedthat thecoursewasjointly organizedby WIPOandtheGovernmentof Italy and thattherehad beenadjustments


in thecurriculum. TheDelegationcitedtheexampleof thepreviousannualConferenceon IPmattersorganizedin thecontextof that course, whichhadfocusedon theDevelopmentAgenda.TheDelegation of Italy concludedthat it believedthatexamplewas acrucialactivity for implementationof Recommendation 3 of theDevelopment AgendaandencouragedotherMemberStatesto engagein similar bilateralactivities.

125. TheDelegationof Egyptexpressedits concernthat theimplementationstrategiesofhttp://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=127156Recommendation 3 mightnot actually capturetheessenceof adevelopment–oriented IP culture. TheDelegationquotedfrom themiddleof theexplanationon the implementation strategyandstatedthatimparting adevelopment-orientedIP cultureencompassedmorethan involvingvariousstakeholdersandrequired anexaminationof IP vis-à-vis public policy priorities and thelevel of development.TheDelegationbelievedthata revision of thestrategy was requiredsoasto reflectin amorequalitativemanner theimportantsubstantive elementsof imparting adevelopmentorientedculture. With respectto theincreasein human andfinancial allocation, theDelegationraisedthequestionof whetherwhathadbeenpresentedin theactivitiesallowedfor an analysisof anincreaseor not. It addedthaton theissueof introducing IP at differentacademic levels,animportantvehiclewastheWWA in thatcontext and,assuch,theCommitteeneededtospecificallyseewhethertherewasanincreasein resources to theWWA in orderto enableitto undertakesomeof the activitiesindicated.TheDelegation thenreferred to thecommentsmadeby theDelegation of Italy andenquiredasto whether theMaster of IP Law programswasstill ongoing, whethertherewouldbeany revisionto theprogramandexpressedthehopethatit wouldcontinue. TheDelegationof Egyptreferredto thenumber of 23,500participantsof theDistanceLearningCoursesandstatedthat althoughthefigurewasquitesubstantial, theDelegationwould preferto havemoredetails as to, for example,howmany of themwereArabic speaking,weretheuserssatisfied, andwere theobjectivesachieved?

126. TheDelegationof Angolareferredto thedocumentin questionas it pertainedto theprogramsfor diplomatsheldin IndonesiaandEgypt. In thatcontext theDelegationwasinterestedin knowing whatregionwasbeing referredto, from wherethediplomatswhohadattendedtheprogramswere,andwhetherin futurecoursesfor otherregionsandsub-regionscould beconsideredfor suchaprogram.TheDelegation furtherreferred to page5 of thedocument which referredto 22sessionsof regional andinter-regional seminars,andpointedout thatgiventheseminarswereapparentlyconducted in French,SpanishandEnglish,whetherit wouldbepossibleto considerorganizingseminarsin Portugueseas well. Withrespectto thefellowshipsandthe indicationonpage6 that 700peoplebenefitedfrom them,theDelegationrequestedclarificationasto thecriteriausedfor decidingwhoexactlywouldget thosescholarshipsor fellowships.

127. TheDelegationof Romaniastatedthatit couldpositively confirm theexamplesofactivities involving Romaniadid indeedtakeintoaccountthelevel of developmentof thatcountryandits specificpriorities. TheDelegationreiterated thatRomaniahadrecentlybecomeamemberof the EU, andthatbeingso,thepriorities for IP hadchanged. It addedthatRomaniawascurrently formulatingits secondstrategic plan2010to 2014,andthatin thefield of IP it hadnewobjectives,newmeasuresand newactionplans. With respecttoRecommendation3, theDelegationsoughtclarifi cation on thetownsor countriesin which thesub-regional Symposium,referredto onpage5 of thedocumentwasheld. TheDelegationthenreferredto page7 on thedocumentin questionandaddressedstudies on theeconomiccontributionof creativeindustries.It stated thata studyhadbeencompleted in Romaniaand


probably thereshouldbeadistinctionmadein thedocumentbetweenstudies thatwereinitiatedandthosethat wereconcluded.

128. TheChair invited theDirectorGeneral to speakon thesubject underdiscussion. TheDirectorGeneralstatedthatit hadbeenanextremely interestingdiscussion.Heconfirmedthatnotehadbeentakenof all therequestsandcomments and thattheywouldbetakenintoaccount. TheDirectorGeneralstatedthat hewould confinehimselfto four commentsfollowing thediscussion andwouldhopeto provideanswersto oneor moreveryspecificquestions.His fi rst commentaddressedtheissueof how to dealwith suchreports in thefuture,bearing in mind thatit wasnot a reporton all of theactivi ties of theOrganization,butrather a report on thoseactivitiesthathadbeenundertakenwith particular emphasison therecommendationof theDevelopmentAgendathatwasbeingaddressed.In that connectiontheDirectorGeneralbelievedthatthehelp of theMemberStateswouldberequiredand,thatEgypt hadmadeavery valid commentthatperhapsmorefocusshouldbeplaced on therecommendation in thereportingsoasto providemoregranularity to theinformation. TheDirectorGeneraladdedthathealsobelievedthat acatalogueof every singleactivity thathadbeenundertakenby theOrganizationwasnot whattheCommitteewantedandwouldnot bethemost helpful wayto advancethework of theDevelopmentAgenda. TheDirectorGeneralwasof theopinion that it wasnecessaryto find a meansof reporting thatwouldcapturetheessenceof theactivities undertakenfor a recommendation andthatof coursesatisfied theMemberStates. TheDirectorGeneralsuggestedthatwhatwasrequiredwouldbeameansofinteraction whichenabledMemberStatesto monitor theSecretariat’sprogramandactivitieswith respectto theimplementationof theDevelopmentAgendaandthoserecommendations.With respectto commentsmadeby somedelegations, for example,SouthAfrica, IndiaandEgypt, concerningstrategicmanagement,theDirector Generaldrewtheattention of theCommitteeto thedistinctionbetweenthestructureof theorganization andtheactivitiesto becarriedout. Headdedthatif therewereno longerasection, that wascalledexecutiveresearch,it did not meanthattheactivitieswerediscontinued. It simplymeant thatthemethodof organizingwithin theSecretariat, theactivit iesandtheprogramin theWWA hadbeen, for variousmanagementandresourceallocation reasons,organized in adifferentmanner.He emphasizedthattheOrganization wasquitehappyto continueand indeedtherewasin thecurrentmonthanexecutiveprogramthatwouldcontinue. TheDirector Generaladdedthattheactivities in theexecutiveprogramconducted in Geneva,which hadceased,were feepayingcourses,roughly2,000 to 4,000Swissfrancspercourse, and thatit wasthought that for thatpricetherewereamplecourses, for similar pricesor less,offeredinmany,manyinstitutionsaroundtheworld. Heassured themeeting thatasfar asdevelopingcountrieswereconcernedtheOrganizationwouldbevery keento continuethatparticularactivity. With respectto theparticipationof developingcountriesin theprograms,theDirectorGeneralstatedthatalthoughhecouldnot givespecific statisticsthen,hecouldsaythatmostof theparticipantsof thoseprogramswere from developingcountries andthatavastmajority of thosedegreeswentto nationalsfrom developingcountries. He recognized,however,thatMemberStateswerelooking for moregranularity of information on thematterand statedthathewould askhis colleague in-chargeof theWWA to providesupplementaryinformation on thematter. TheDirectorGeneralin his fourthcommentaddressedtheuniversity initiativesreferredto by theDelegation of El Salvador. TheDirector Generalclarified thatuniversity initiativeswerenever conducted by theWWA in thepast. Headdedthatuniversityinitiativeswerenowtheresponsibility of anewsection, thePatent Law andPolicy Division,whichwasalsoresponsible for innovation and technology transfer, wherewewereseekingto givemoreemphasisto thequestion of technologytransfer. TheDirectorGeneralunderscoredthefocusof thatDivisionon thetransfer of knowledgefrom university


or treasury institutionsto thecommercialsector including thelegaltoolsandinstrumentspursuantto which that transferwould takeplace.

129. TheSecretariataddressedthequestionposedby theDelegation of SouthAfr icawithrespectto thedegreesandcertificatesandreiteratedthatmostparticipants to theprograms,camefrom developingcountriesashadbeenmentioned by theDirector General.TheSecretariat statedthattheAcademyhadbeenorganizingaMasterof IP LawProgramtogetherwith theTurin University,andwith thesupportof theGovernmentof Italy onanannualbasis.Everyyear, some40studentswereadmitted and20of which receivedscholarshipsprovidedjointly by WIPO andby theGovernmentof Italy. TheSecretariatreassuredthemeetingthattherecipients of scholarshipswerein fact from developingcountriesandLDCs andthatothersourcesof financing wereavailableto self-financedparticipants.TheSecretariat mentionedthattheAcademyhadlaunchedaMastersfor IP Programtogetherwith African RegionalIntellectualProperty Organization(ARIPO)and Africanuniversities andthatsofar20 scholarshipshad beengrantedto developingcountries’ participants. TheSecretariatreportedon thejoint programwith theUniversity of SouthAfrica (UNISA), in whicheveryyear40 scholarshipswereprovidedto participants from developingcountries. With respecttothequestionondistance-learningprogramsofferedby theWWA askedby theDelegationofUruguay,theSecretariatexplainedthat23,500participatedin thatcourse. Thecourseincluded a generalcourse on IP availablein sevendifferentlanguages,namely, Arabic,Chinese,English,French,Portuguese,Spanishand Russian;four specializedcourses; anadvancedcourseon IP andTK, anadvancedcourseon IP andE-commerce; andanadvancedcoursesoncopyright,patentsandtrademarks.In responseto thequestion from theDelegationof Brazil asto whethertheMastersprogramhad beenmodified to accommodatetheDevelopmentAgendaconsiderations,theSecretariat respondedaffirmatively. TheSecretariat addedthatit fully agreedwith theinterventionby theDelegation of Italy, whichhighlightedtheannualupdatingof thecurriculumcontent, newinformation including thatontheDevelopmentAgenda.With respectto thequestion from theDelegationof Egypt,theSecretariat confirmedthattheMaster’s programwasongoingandstatedthat in 2008,threenew programshadbeenlaunched.The realignment processof WIPOhadmadetheeducationprogramoneof themainfocusareasof activit iesof theWWA. TheSecretariat alsostatedthatit wouldbehappyto provideinformation to MemberStateson thenumber ofparticipants,nationalities, andlanguagesof participants. In addressingthequestionfrom theDelegationof Angola the Secretariatstatedthatalthoughthree languageswerementionedwith referenceto thecoursewhich took placein Geneva,it wanted to assuretheDelegationthatdifferentcourseshadbeenorganizedin differentcountries for Portuguesespeakingparticipants.Therehadbeena joint programorganizedby WIPO andthePortugueseIndustrial PropertyInstitute (IMPI) whichhadtakenplaceovera two-week period in Lisbon.On thequestionof the700scholarships for distance-learningcourses, theSecretariat clarifiedthattheseweregrantedto governmentofficialsfrom developingcountries and thatscholarshipswerealso availableto themfor specializedadvanceddistance-learning course.

130. RemindingthattheCommitteehadsofar discussedonly two of the19 Recommendations, theChairexpressedthehopethat theCommitteecould moveon toRecommendation4. He also statedthatas thework progressed,it may benoticedthatsomeof theissuesof laterrecommendationswouldhavebeencovered.

131. CommentingonRecommendation4 in theprogressreport, theDelegation ofSouth Africaemphasizedtheimportanceof SMEs for SouthAfrica andfor developingcountries. TheDelegation statedthatalthoughthatRecommendation put emphasisonSMEs,


thedocumentin question did not quitereflectthatemphasis, in particular, in terms ofachievements andprogresswith respectto SMEs. TheDelegationsoughtclarificationwithrespectto activit iesfor creatinggreaterawareness. Morespecifically theDelegationwantedto knowwhethertherewerepracticalactivitiesor workshop,whattheactivit iesentailedandhow theywere linked to theprogressandachievementsin termsof effectively managing IPassetsandincreasedknowledgeandawareness. TheDelegation further soughtclarificationon thesurveythatwasinitiatedthroughaneeds assessment questionnairefor SMEsandenquiredwhether it couldobtaininformation on theoutcomeof thesurvey,theanswersto thequestionnairesandalso whichcountriesresponded. TheDelegation stated thatin caseSouthAfrica hadnot yet respondedto thequestionnaire, it would beappreciative for an opportunityto respondimmediately. TheDelegationunderscoredtheneed for thestrategyfor SMEsto behighlightedandstrengthenedin particularin thelight of a work programfor SMEsundertheDevelopmentAgendasoasto includemorepractical examplesandexperiences at thenationallevel.

132. TheDelegationof India notedtheexampleof theactivi ty givenwith respectto theprogressandachievement underRecommendation 4. TheDelegation underscoredthatincreasingtheknowledgeandawareness of SMEson thebenefits that could bederived fromeffectively usingandmanagingtheir IP assetswas indeedvery important for developingcountries,includingIndia. TheDelegation requestedthatits appreciation beplacedon recordand enquiredasto themechanism theSecretariat hadin placefor obtaining feedbackon theeffectivenessof thoseprograms.TheDelegation’senquirywasmadewith aspirit thatimpliedcontinuity to theprocess. It believed thattherewasalways scopefor improvingtheprogramsand assuchfeedbackwasavery importanttool to that end. TheDelegationthenaddressedthepoint raisedby SouthAfricawith respect to asurveyconductedon theSMEssector. Giventhat68 countriesrespondedto thesurvey, theDelegation thoughtthatthesurveycouldbeavaluablesourceindicating therealit y on thegroundwith respectto IPservicesto SMEsby IP Offices. It added thatthenatureof theexercisewould imply thattherehad beenanintentionto evaluate thedatabase,comingto someconclusionsaboutthefindingsandfactoring it in asaninput to thefuturework programs. In thatcontext,theDelegationenquiredasto howthefindingsof thesurveyhad beenusedby WIPO’sSecretariat in creating futureactionplans. With respectto thestudiescarriedout on theeconomiccontribution of copyright basedindustries,for policy makingandanalysisof thecreativesector, theDelegationaskedwhetherany follow uphadbeenenvisagedfor thoseStudiesand if theywould finally beusedfor creating national creative industry strategies.

133. TheDelegationof Brazil underscoredtheimportancethatit attached to theSMEsandtherelevantrole, in its opinion,to beplayedby WIPO in whatit considered to betheparticularSMEperspective.TheDelegation believedthatit wasverypositive to haveanSME approachwithin WIPO astheyconsideredSME issuesto becross-cutting in nature.It addedthat SMEs hada relationship with trademarks,copyrightandevenwith patents,incertainspecial cases.Therefore,from theperspective of theDelegationof Brazil, SMEs hada fundamental role to play in promotingIP utili zation in developingcountries. In thatcontext,theDelegationencouragedtheSecretariat to carefully look at variouspossibilitiesasto how SMEs couldengagein openinnovation modelsor in collaborative researchmodels.TheDelegationgave theexampleof SMEs in Brazil thathadadopted openinnovationlicensingschemeswhendevelopingsoftware. ThoseSMEs consideredthemselvesto beserviceproviders, andtheopeninnovationmodelsandopensourcesoftwareinnovationschemeswereconducive to their role. TheDelegationconcludedby supporting theactivitiesdevelopedby WIPO in thefield of theSMEs. TheDelegation of Brazil statedthatin Brazil,


therewereseveral supportingOrganizationsfor SMEs suchas theSABRAI. However, theDelegationbelievedthatWIPOcouldbeinstrumental in themainstreaming of IP in thecontextof thepromotion of SMEs.

134. Referring to its earlierquestionconcerningRecommendation 3, theDelegationofUruguaysought clarificationonhowthecontentof thedistance-learningprogramhadbeenbrought,or wouldbebrought, in line with Recommendation 3 regardingIP anddevelopment.

135. In responseto thequestionfrom Uruguay,theSecretariat statedthat therewasnospecificcoursein thedistance-learningprogram entitledIntellectual Property andDevelopment. However,relevantcontent couldbe foundin thevariouscourseswith thesamepurpose. TheSecretariatexpressedits will ingnessto discusswith MemberStatestheirneedswhich couldbeincorporatedin newcourses.

136. TheDelegationof Pakistanexpressedits appreciation for thework being doneby theSMEs Division. TheDelegationsoughtclarification onwhatwasdonewith theneedsassessmentsurveyto which68MemberStateshad respondedto; whetherthesurveyhadbeenincorporated into nationalIP strategies. TheDelegation alsoenquiredas to thestrength of theSMEs Divisionandwhetherit wasadequately staffed to carry out theactivitiesto beundertaken.

137. TheDelegationof NigeriacommendedtheSecretariat for theemphasis placedonSMEsand pointedout thatit maybeusefulto maketheresultsof thesurveyavailableto allMemberStates. TheDelegationsought further clarification with respectto theSecretariat’sresponseto thesurvey’s feedbackvis-à-vis thereali ty on theground,and inquiredif therewere assessmentguidelinesthathadbeendeveloped,andwhetherthey couldbemadeavailableto all MemberStates. TheDelegation furtherinquired from theSecretariat whetherit couldprovideinformationon theevaluationof thesurveysandhow it wasutilized in orderto achievetheobjectivesof Recommendation 4.

138. TheDelegationof Algeria referredto the‘Guideon Intellectual Property for SmallandMedium SizedEnterprises’ andaskedin what languagestheguideexistedandwhetheritcould obtaintwo copies. TheDelegationfurtherremindedtheChair thatit had previouslyaskedquestionsrelatedto Recommendation3, on thetelevisionprograms,their contentandobjectives,andtheconclusionsof theInternationalConferenceon theCreative industrieswhich tookplacein Genevain 2008.

139. TheSecretariatstatedthatthetelevisionprogramthathadbeenimplementedinSri Lanka,waspartof a projectwith thefinancingof theEuropeanUnion. TheSecretariataddedthatthetelevisionprogramconsisted of six modules,of which two hadbeenimplemented. Theprogramswhichhadbeenbroadcastedlive, discusseda specific subjectwith theparticipationof threepanelistsandamoderator. Theviewers had participatedby faxor mail. TheSecretariatstatedthatthetwo mainprograms thathadbeenbroadcastedsofar,were aboutIP in generalandIP andBusiness.It alsostatedthat thefeedback receivedsofarhad beenquitepositive, whichdemonstratedakeeninterestin learningaboutthewholeIPsystemandcould bebeneficialto acountry.

140. TheDelegationof Indonesiaexpressedits supportfor thestrategy to enhancethecapacity of SMEsandSMESupportinstitutionsin variousregionsandcountriesthroughthetraining of thetrainersprograms.It believedthatit wasoneof theimportant endeavors


throughwhich theengineof developmentcouldbecontinuouslyenhanced. TheDelegationunderscoredtheimportancethatIndonesiaattachedto theroleof SMEsin economicdevelopmentandrecalledtheresilienceof SMEs during theeconomiccrisisin SouthEastAsia in thelate1990s. TheDelegationexpressedits supportfor WIPO’s work with SMEsand suggestedthatthesharingof bestpracticesof SMEs in using IP, particularly indevelopingcountriesandLDCswouldbeusefulfor other SMEsin increasingtheirawareness,and at a laterstage,theperformanceof their businesses.In thatconnection,theDelegationstatedthatit wouldbeusefulif theSMEstrategy were in line with theirneedsandrequestedtheSecretariatto carry out asystematic assessmentof theIP needsfor SMEs. Withrespectto thestrategyfor creativeindustries,theDelegation thanked WIPOfor organizinganInternationalConferenceon IP andCreativeIndustriesin Bali, in December2008. It statedthattheConferencehadattractedhundredsof internationalparticipantsandprovidedgreaterawarenessof thesubjectto policy makers andotherrelated stakeholders in thefield. TheDelegationconfirmedthatit wasworking with two WIPOexpertswith regardto thestudyontheeconomiccontributionsof creativeindustriesand it hoped thatthestudywouldhelpguidetherelevantstakeholdersin enhancing thecreative industries in thecountry.

141. TheDelegationof Italy startedby sayingthat it would beimpossible for its Delegationnot to takethefloor giventhatItaly hadbeenamajor partner, hadbenefittedfrom, andhadbeenamajor supporterof theSMEDivision’s work for developingcountriessinceitsinception.With respectto theimplementation of Recommendation4, theDelegationreferredto aSeminaraimedat assisting Latin Americancountriesto comeupwith national strategiesin the field of IP. It addedthattheSeminar which would beheld in Mexico, wasco-organized by thegovernmentof Italy, thegovernmentof theUnited States of America,thegovernmentof MexicoandWIPO, andwould addressmanycross-cutting IP issues, includinggeographical indications.

142. TheDelegationof Thailandenquired if it wouldbepossible to maketheproceedings ofseminarsandworkshopsavailableto Member States.TheDelegation believed thatsuchinformation would beusefulandbeneficial to all countries. With regard to thestrategyforcreativeindustries, theDelegationnotedthat there wasa trainingcoursefor four categories:creativeenterprises,musicians, film makersandtheadvertising industry. In that, theDelegationaskedwhetherit wouldbealsopossibleto incorporate thestrategy for theusersofcreativeworks. Thatwould includetheentertainmentbusiness,hotels, restaurants andinternetusersin general. TheDelegation of ThailandaskedwhethertheIP PANORAMAsoftwarewould bemadeavailablein otherlanguagesbesides English.

143. TheDelegationof Egyptsoughtclarification on thecreationof materials andguidesinArabic coveringvariousIP assetsfor useby Arab SMEs. In thatconnection, theDelegationrequestedinformationon theexistenceandonline accessibilit y of anothersuchguides.

144. TheDelegationof EcuadorstatedthatSMEsin developingcountries constitutedthegreatestsourceof employmentandthattheimportanceof intellectualcapital to themwasoftenmoresignificant thantheirphysicalassets.TheDelegation believedthatWIPO shouldfocus particularly onbuilding thetechnological capacity in theSMEsDivision,soastoenablethemto accesspatentandflexibilit y toolsandbetterunderstand entrepreneurialapproachesto IP.

145. TheDelegationof CambodiastatedthatSMEs werecrucial to thepromotion of IP in acountryandenquiredasto whetherWIPOhadany specific policy or strategic planthatwould


help increasetheutilization of IP amongstSMEs,in particular thosein LDCs. TheDelegationexpressedits appreciationfor theWIPOmonthly newsletterandenquiredwhethertherewas anyintentionto translatethenewsletter into thelocal languageof Cambodia.

146. TheSecretariatdrewtheattentionof Member States to theoverall strategy andtheresources availableto theSMEs Division. TheSecretariat statedthatcurrently theDivisionhad six professionalsandonesecretary. Amongsttheprofessionals threeheld regularposts,two wereconsultants, andoneona temporarypost. It added thatdespitehumanandfinancialresourceconstraints, theSMEsDivision over theyears had createdasubstantial amountofbusiness-orientedandeasy-to-understandcontent,andpublicationsin English. A keyelementof theoutreachstrategyhadbeenthecreationof theWIPOSMEsWebsite,andtheSMEsnewsletter,whichhadgreatlyhelpedin disseminatingWIPO’s messageand contentdirectlyto SMEs andSMEstakeholdersworldwide. The Secretariat believedthatthestrategywasfarmoreproductive thantheold modelof respondingto ad hoc requestsof theMemberStatesbysending a WIPOmission or organizinganeventwhich wereveryresource-intensive. TheSecretariat advocatedtheexploitationof theICT environmentin making available contentand publications,not only on theWeb,but alsovia theelectronicmedium,for example,onCD-ROMs. Morespecifically all contentandpublicationsthatwereavailableon thewebsite,including thepublicationsin the“IP for Business”series,could bedownloadedfree-of-chargeby anyone.TheSecretariataddedthatover theyears,anincreasingnumber of thecontentandpublications thatwerecreatedby theSMEs Division,hadbeentranslatedintooneor moreoftheremainingfiveUN languages.It explained thattheprogressin translation hadbeenunevenbecauseof resourceconstraintsin theLanguageServiceof theWIPO. Forexample,for thefirst setof publicationswhichcameout in 2003,somewerestill not available in all theUN languages,andthatcurrently,amuchhigher percentageof thecontentandpublicationswere availablein FrenchandSpanish,but lessin Arabic, RussianandChinese.TheSecretariat madereferenceto the“I P PANORAMA MultimediaToolkit,” whichwascreatedin English, in cooperationwith theKoreanIP Office (KIPO) andtheKoreaInventionPromotionAssociation(KIPA). It wassuitablebothasaself-learning tool anda tool fortraining theteachers andtrainers. TheSecretariatstated thatusing IP PANORAMA forcapacity building through“train thetrainers”programsrequiredanintervention of at leastoneweek andthetraditionalwayof doing aone-week programwith a largenumberofinternational speakers, wassomethingthat WIPO couldno longer afford. TheSecretariatstated thattheestimatefor havingtheIP PANORAMA softwarein severallanguageswasapproximately200,000Swissfrancsperlanguage.Headdedthat theGovernmentof theRepublicof Korea, hadvery graciously offeredto fund50per centof thecostof creatingArabic, FrenchandSpanish versionsof IP PANORAMA, overthenexttwo to threeyears,tobegin with. In orderto doso,WIPOwouldhaveto provide300,000Swissfrancsto matchtheKoreancontribution. TheSecretariatmentionedthatWIPOhadalsoprovided100,000Swissfrancsfor makingtheArabicversion,which wouldbedonethroughtheKIPA. In2010, theFrenchandtheSpanish versionswouldalsobemanufactured,providedthatasumof 200,000Swissfrancswasavailable. TheSecretariat alsoaddressed thepoint raisedon thegeographicalspread,thenatureandtheevaluation of theactivit iesof theSMEsDivision. Heexplained thatgiven theresourceconstraints,asa ruleof thumb, theSMEsDivision did notuseits own resourcesfor organizingany activity thatrequiredasubstantial expense.Itplugged into activit iesandeventswhichwerelargely fundedby oneof theregionalBureausof WIPO or by anexternalpartner.This was doneby only providing theinternationaltraveland accommodation expensesof theWIPOstaff memberor asuitableexternalexpert. As aresult,theSMEsDivision hadbeenableto contribute to a largenumberof sucheventsaroundtheworld. TheSecretariat highlightedthattheDivisionalsoencouraged self -fundedeventsat


theWIPOheadquarters,wheretheparticipantspaid for theirown travel andaccommodation.An annualsummaryof theactivities,in theform of anactivi ty reportwasavailableonlinefrom 2002onwards,on theSMEswebsite,which provided a lot of granularity of informationthatMemberStates requested.In termsof evaluation of theoutcomeof thoseactivities,theSecretariat statedthatthekey indicatorincludedthenumber andthenatureof therequeststhatwere receivedby WIPOfrom thenationalIP Offices and theothernationalSMEsupportinstitutions. Forexample,thetranslationor adaptation of thecontent andpublicationsof theSMEs Division,especiallythepublication in the“IP for Business”series. Overtheyears,thesedemandshadincreasedandcurrentlymorethan60countrieshadtranslated or weretranslating, with or without nationaladaptation,oneor moreof thepublicationsof theSMEsDivision. With respectto training,theSecretariat statedthat realprogresscouldnot bemadeon thegroundin acountry,if nationally adapted material in thelanguageof thecountrywasnot available. TheSecretariatconfirmedthatadaptingpublicationsto thenationalcontextdemandedcompetenceat thenationallevel to doso. Headdedthatgiventhat thecompetenceof anIP Office largelyis confinedto theregistrationof IPRs,when it cameto businessrelatedissuesandIP, it wasindeedachallengefor IP offi ces. TheSecretariat thenreferredto the‘NeedsAssessmentQuestionnaire’thatwassentto all theIP Officesof theMemberStatesofWIPO, in April /May 2008,andto whichsome68 national IP officeshaveresponded.Itstated thattheremaining nationalIP Officeswerereminded to respondto theneedsassessmentquestionnaireon IP for SMEs,andasa result,an additional five responseshadbeenreceived.It would thereforebepossibleto sharetheinformation receivedfrom those71IP Officesin asummarizedform ona country-by-countrybasis. More importantly,theinformation would beaninput for aproject-basedapproach to implementa National IP Policyand Strategyfor internationalcompetitivenessandeconomic development. It would alsobeusedfor implementing activitiesunderthepilot projectsforeseen in six countriesin theframeworkof aprojectto beconsideredby theCDIP underanotherAgendaitem lateron inthatweek. TheSecretariatemphasizedthat,given thecurrentfinancial constraints, theIPneedsof SMEs,thathadbeenexpressedby the71 nationalIP Officesthroughtheneedsassessmentquestionnaires,couldnot beadequately addressedby WIPO in ashort spanoftime. Hepointed out thaton theissueof makingavailablethecontentand publicationson IPfor SMEsin thevariousUN languages, substantial progresshadbeenmadein manyof theUN languages.However, thetranslationsinto Arabic hadposedthegreatest challenge. TheSecretariat requestedMemberStatesfor assistancein theidentification of Arabic translationservices.

147. TheSecretariatreferredto thequestionposedby theDelegation of Pakistan,on thestrengthof theSMEsDivision andreiteratedthefact thattheOrganization wasundergoingstrategicrealignmentand whenit cameto theturn of theSMEsDivision, this aspectwouldbefully takeninto consideration.With regardto thepoint madeby theDelegation of Egyptabout thecreation of materialsandguidesinto theArabic language,it informedtheCommitteethatit wasawork in progressandregretted thatfact thatit wasnot mentionedinthedocumentCDIP/3/5.

148. TheDelegationof Thailandemphasized theimportanceof SMEsin developingandleastdevelopedeconomies.TheDelegationbelievedthatSMEsaccountedfor more than90 percent of theenterprisesin developing countries. It added therefore, thatit wasextremelyimportantto providethenecessaryassistance, soas to ensurethat theSMEs inthosecountriesnot only understoodbut full y utili zedtheIP systems. TheDelegationconveyedto theSecretariattheneedto ensurethattheSMEs receiveda great dealmoreattentionandmoreresourcesin orderto facilitatenot only theexchangeof knowledgebut


also thetransferof thatknowledgedown to theSMEslevel. TheDelegationaddedthatit wasthemanagersandtheownersof thoseSMEs who madeIP decisions,not thelawyers.OtherwiseSMEswould not bein apositionto adopttheIP strategythat waslaboriouslydevelopedat thenationallevel. With respectto theIP PANORAMA, theDelegationstatedthattheSecretariatwasprobablyawarethat theIP officeof Thailandwas undertakingthetranslationof theIP PANORAMA. However, theDelegation suggestedthat it might besimpler to amendtheprogramssuchthatsubtitleswouldbeallowed, since thetranslationandaddition of voicecouldbeavery complexexercise. TheDelegation furthersuggestedthatasimilar scenariobeenvisagedfor othernational languagesin orderto save timeandcost, andmakethesoftwareavailableto a largeraudience. TheDelegation concludedby sayingthatthesoftwarewasveryeasyto useandusefulfor SMEs.

149. TheDelegationof Egyptreferredto thedifficul ty that theSecretariat hadin identifyingsuitableArabic translationservices.TheDelegationconsideredit a causefor concern andbelievedthatit shouldbeapriority of theArabBureauof WIPO. TheDelegation recognizedthatit wasnot acostissue,andsuggestedthatWIPOcommunicatedsuch problemsin thefuture throughtheArabBureauto theCoordinator for theArabGroup,sothat the issuecouldbeexpedited.

150. TheDelegationof India underlinedthecritical role thattheSMEs Division played inIndia andotherdevelopingcountriesandLDCs,andstatedthatit looked forwardto WIPOhelping Indiamakeits SME sectorIP savvy. In thatcontext, theDelegation placedon record,its appreciationof theroleandtheinitiativestakenby theSecretariat, especially theSMEsDivision of WIPO. TheDelegationaddedthatgiventhecritical roleplayedby theSMEs indevelopingcountryeconomiesandtheexpectationsof theMemberStates,it would behappyto seethestaffingand thebudgetof theSMEsDivision reflectedassuch. TheDelegationexpressedhopethatin thestrategicrealignment, thenecessaryconsideration andadequateresourceswouldbeallocatedin termsof staff and budgetthatwouldbemadeavailableto theSMEs Division. With respectto thefindingsof theneedsassessmentsurvey,theDelegationexpressedits appreciationfor theresponsegivenby theSecretariat of theSMEsDivision, asitrelatedto responsesbeing coordinatedfor devisingnationalIP strategies. TheDelegationenquired,however,why onedid not immediately usethoseinputsto prepareIP strategies fortheSMEsDivision, for thecountriesthathad respondedto thesurveys, ratherthanwait fornational IP strategiesto emerge? TheDelegation requestedthat thesuggestionbetakenintoaccount.

151. TheDelegationof Iran (IslamicRepublic of) stressed theneed for SMEsto leverageIPas a tool for developmentin developingcountries,andstatedthat withoutSMEs,developmentwouldbemoredifficult or evenimpossible. TheDelegationaddedthatnational SMEs wereattachedto theprivatesectorsof theeconomy and assuch, thevalueadded went directly tosociety. TheDelegationrecognizedthatcapacity building andtrainingwerekeyinfrastructurecomponentsandit underscored its supportfor theapproach takenby WIPO.

152. TheDelegationof TrinidadandTobagoendorsedthecomments madeby Indiaandother delegationswith respectto thecritical importanceof SMEsin theprocessofdevelopmentin all developingcountries.TheDelegation expressedhopethatin thestrategicrealignmentprocesswhichwasin progress,thatsuchissueswouldbereflectedandtherightbalancewould befound,soasto testify to it in theallocation of resources, both humanandfinancial.


153. TheChair while expressinghopethatall questionshad beenanswered, stated thattheCommitteehadcompletedthreeof the19Recommendations. Resumingtheafternoonsession,theChairinvitedDelegatesto consider recommendations6 and7, or if therewerenocommentson thosetwo recommendations, to considertheremaining 19Recommendations.

154. TheDelegationof Egyptsoughtclarification onRecommendation7. TheDelegationstated thatin addressingtheanti-competitive aspectsof IP someMemberStateshadveryadvancedexperiences and evenwentasfar asissuingcompulsorylicenses.TheDelegationaskedwhetherin WIPO’s activities,specifically theregionalseminarsandtraining activities,an attemptwasmadeto introducethoseexamples andexperiences?

155. TheDelegationof Indonesia, in addressingthequestionraisedby Egyptsaidthatitcould sharesomeof theexperiencesit hadandalsoaddressthequestionby theDelegationofEgypt. Indonesiahadtheopportunityto participateat theseminaron IPRsandcompetitionpolicy heldin theRepublicof Koreain October 2008. Indonesiawasof theview thatthesaidseminarwasanexcellentopportunityto enhance theknowledgeof participantson thevariousissuesrelatedto the interfacebetweenIPRsandcompetition policy. TheDelegationsaidthatit understood thattheparticipantsalsohadtheopportunity to listento andlearn of nationalexperiencesandbestpracticesof thecountriesandtheuseof thesepolicy tools. Basedon theabove-mentionedobservations, Indonesia suggestedthat similar seminarscouldbeorganizedin otherregions. Furthermore,substancewise,theDelegation suggestedthattheseminarsalsocoverthedifficulties of MemberStates in identifying their needsoncompetitionpolicy.TheDelegationunderlinedthatthepolicy-makingprocessof Member States shouldbeultimatelybasedon their actualneeds.

156. TheChair recalledthattherehadbeenacoupleof statementsaboutnationalexperiences,but encouragedDelegatesto review thereports and recommendations. HeinvitedDelegatesto look at therecommendations, theactivit ies,andtheprogressreport to seeif thebusinesswas following logically andadvisetheSecretariatin termsof thestructureofthereporting, thecontentof thereportingsothat theycanimprovenext time.

157. TheDelegationof Uruguaydrewattention to Recommendation11,page12ofdocument CDIP/3/5. TheDelegationstatedthat in thesecondcolumn where thedocumentprovidedexamplesof activities,a referencewasmadeto an experimental three-yearprogrambasedon researchevaluationandexhaustive analysisof circumstances. At theendof thatparticularcomment, it wasstatedthatin 2000, themodelwasgivento a lot of policy makersin developing countriesandSMEs. TheDelegationsoughtinformation on thepresentationofthis model,asit wasthefirst time it hadheardof it. As regardsRecommendation 12 theDelegationstatedthatreferencewasmadeto facilitating theincorporation of developmentquestionsinto technicalassistance.Under examplesof activit ies,thedocumentmadereferenceto theDevelopmentAgendaCoordination Division to affect themainstreamingofthedevelopmentdimensionsintoall areasof WIPOactivities. TheDelegation requestedsomediagrams illustratingthis point asthis Coordination Division wasestablishedrecentlyand theydid not knowwheretheCoordination Divisionstood in thegeneral structureof theOrganization andwhatresourcesdid it have, etc.

158. TheDelegationof Kenya commentedon recommendations12and15. OnRecommendation12with respectto mainstreamingdevelopment,theDelegationsuggestedthattheexampleof activitiescouldbemorespecifi c anddetailedsothattheessenceofmainstreamingwasapparent. TheDelegation felt thatit remainedvague,andaskedfor more


specificanddetailedexamplesof activitiessothatMember States could appreciatehowmainstreamingwasbeingachieved.With regardto Recommendation 15, theDelegationsaidthatoneof thecriteriato betakeninto accountwas consideration of abalancebetweencostsand benefits,perhapsin thenextreport,an explanationshouldbeindicatedor giventodemonstratehowabalancebetweencostsandbenefits was achieved.

159. TheDelegationof El Salvadorsoughtclarification onhowthework of theCommitteeproceeded. TheDelegationenquiredwhethertheCommitteewentrecommendationbyrecommendationor whetherall recommendationswereconsideredtogether?

160. TheChair statedthatastherewasnodelegation wishingto speak onRecommendation6, onedelegationspokeof Recommendation7, thefloor wasnowopen forall theremaining recommendations, i.e. from recommendations6 to 19, any of theremaining13 recommendations.

161. TheDelegationof El Salvador, with respectto Recommendation 7, requestedinformation on theseminarswhichwereheld on IP related competition. TheDelegationstated thattheywereawarethatall theseactivit ieswereundertakenon request, but askedwhetherthereweresomeprojectsat a regionallevel covering thatkind of activi ty. TheDelegationrequestedthis informationwith regardsto Central America wheretherewasanEconomicIntegration Secretariatwhich looked into thosekindsof issues. TheDelegationfurthersoughtclarificationwhethertherewas any kindof activit y planned.TheDelegationthenraisedaquestion concerningRecommendation11,which referred to promoting andenhancingtheuseof patentinformation. TheDelegation wonderedif patent informationwasavailableon theWIPOwebsiteandif not, it shouldbemadeavailable. TheDelegationsaidtheyweremonitoring this projectverycloselyandasfar asthey wereaware,it hadverypositiveresults. TheDelegationfurtheraskedwhetherthis information wasin thepublicdomain,andif not, requestedto beinformedasto how it couldaccessit. With referencetoRecommendation13,particularlyon theissueof TK, genetic resourcesand folklore, theDelegationexpressedit satisfactionon thefact thattherewasalreadyinformation availableontheWIPOwebsite. The Delegationnotedthatsomelegislative assistancehad already beenprovidedto certain countriesin theLatin American region. TheDelegation statedthatEl Salvadorfoundthatkind of informationuseful, andif theinformation wasin thepublicdomainit, would like to knowwhereit could beaccessed.

162. TheDelegationof Egypt, referringto Recommendation 6, notedthatthemeetinghaddiscussedtherosterof consultantsandsufficientdiscussionon thatsubjecthadtakenplace.TheDelegationsaid thattheir interestrelatedto thepotential conflict of interests.From whathad beenpresented it sawthattherewasmentionof thepreemptiveeffortsthat theOrganizationwasconducting,but therewasnomention of anypositiveefforts to avoidconflicts of interest.TheDelegationsaidthatit wasonething to havea codeof ethicsandtolet everybodyknow aboutit, andanotherto actuall y enforceit throughthemeansandchannelsthat couldbepursuedto put to an endtheconflict of interest. TheDelegationfeltthatthis aspectwasstill incompletein termsof theconflict of interestelementof theRecommendation.

163. TheDelegationof Brazil statedthatRecommendation7, whichhadmeasuresto assistcountriesto dealwith theinterfacebetween IPRsandcompetition policiesshouldbepromoted. In thatsense,oneof thestrategiesdescribedin thedocumentwasthatWIPOprovided, on request,legislativeadviceon theuseof legal optionsoncompulsorylicensing


and other measures. TheDelegationsuggestedthattheInternationalBureau prepareamenuof options,a list of thelegaloptionsthatcould beimplementedby Member Statesat thenational level,with aview to fostering acompetitive andinnovativeenvironment. Thisinitiativewouldallow abetterunderstandingof therelationshipbetweenIP andcompetitionlawandhow to useIP law to tackleanti-competitive practices.

164. TheDelegationof India, in relation to Recommendation 6, requested thatthesubstanceof discussion on theRosterbereflectedin Recommendation 6. TheDelegation’sunderstanding wasthattheRosterwasopenfor suggestionsby MemberStatesandthecriteriawasto belaid out. TheDelegationfurtherstated thattheimplementationstrategyforRecommendation7 startedout by statingthatWIPOwould provideon request, legislativeadvice,aimed at preventingor resolving IP-related anti-competitive practices. However,inexamples of activities,theDelegationcould only seeseminarsandaskedwhetherit wouldbepossiblefor theSecretariatto give anideaof how manyrequests hadbeenreceivedandhowmuch legalassistancehadbeenprovidedby theSecretariat.

165. TheDelegationof Algeriamadereferenceto Recommendation 6, andendorsedwhathad beensaidby theDelegationof India. TheDelegationstated thattheywould like toemphasizetheformatof thelist, andthatMemberStatesneededto beclearly informedaboutthebeneficiarycountries. Thatwouldmeanchangingtheformat a lit tle, soagreateremphasiscould beput on theregions, on thebeneficiarycountries,projectsandthen consultants.TheDelegationexplainedthatthis wouldmakeit possible to makeeverythingmorevisibleandenableMemberStatesto comparebetter. At themoment, therewasnot really a clearindicationof thebeneficiarycountriesandif thatinformation wereavailable, it wouldassistMemberStatesin makingcomparisonsmoreeasily.

166. TheChair inviteddelegationsto carefullyexamine all therecommendationsandrevertwith questionsor comments.

167. TheDelegationof Angola,in referring to Recommendation 11onpage16,requestedmoreinformationon improvedaccessto patentinformation via theLusophoneInternetPortaland the LusopatInterface,andrequestedto know who thebenefi ciarycountrieswere.

168. TheDelegationof Thailandmadereference to Recommendation 11,concerningthetraining coursesonpatent draftingfor scientists,researchers,andstatedthatin examplesofactivities, it wasproposedto holdsix nationalpatentdrafting workshops.TheDelegationstressedthe importanceof thecapability of acountry thatis not asdevelopedto haveIPpersonnelwhocould draft patentapplications,professionally enoughto passapatentregistrationin therestof theworld. Therefore, it wonderedif it would bepossible to broadenthescopeof theapplicationof theseactivities andhave them onaregionalbasis,or evenat anational level. At thesametime, theDelegation recalledthatlastyear they raisedaquestionwith regardto distance-learningon patentdrafting. TheDelegationcouldnot rememberthecodenumberbut saidit appearedon theWWA websiteasdistance-learning for patentdrafting. TheDelegationrequestedaboutits statusandto betold if it wasmeant for people tolearn howto draft patent applicationsprofessionally.

169. TheDelegationof Egyptmadereference to Recommendation 11,andthethirdimplementation strategyondevelopingpractical tools to assist MemberStatesin theirR&Dinstitutions,to set-upandimplementefficient technologytransfersystems. TheDelegationwasof theopinion that theinformation,theexamples of activities,and theprogress


achievements,werenot sufficientlyclearin thattheactivi ties did not providefeedbackontheirquality. TheDelegationstatedthatperhapsin this particular area,therewouldbea needto havea follow-up with theinstitutionsreferredto anda follow-upwith thosethat haveparticipatedin thetrainingandthenjudgeoveraperiodof timeto seeif therewasactuallyapositiveimpacton technologytransferandinnovation. TheDelegation felt thatjust havingalist of whathadhappenedandhowmanypeople participated, wouldnot really providesufficientinformationabout theimplementationof therecommendation.

170. TheDelegationof Brazil raisedthepoint again that it wantedto haveaccessto somestudiesreferredto in theRosterof Consultants,specifically theonefrom Mr. AntonioMarcioBuainain,on thecopyright-basedindustries,andthestudyfrom Mr. GesnerdeOliveira,on IP andCompetition.

171. TheChair notedtherequestfrom theDelegation of Brazil.

172. TheDelegationof Algeriamadereferenceto Recommendation 11,whichstatedthatatraining programwasprovidedfor 400participants on thegranting of technologylicenses,and that it allowedtheparticipantsto reinforcetheir capacity in termsof negotiating licenses.TheDelegationaskedwhy thetrainingwas limitedto scientists only, astherewereotherpopulationsaffected,for exampletherights holders.

173. TheChair respondedto theDelegation of Algeriaby clarifying that theword whichwasusedbeforescientistsshouldbe“mainly”, but thequestionwas still valid, andtheCommitteewantedto knowwhy “mainly” scientists?

174. TheDelegationof Argentinamadeacommenton Recommendation 14. TheDelegationrequestedthatWIPOprepared ananalysisdocument on flexibil ities. TheDelegationsaidthatwhenreferring to documentCDIP/3/5,underexamples of activities,in thesecondparagraphof page18, of theSpanish version,whereit said“concreteexamples of theimplementationofcertainaspects of policiesonanational level, certain aspects of theTRIPSAgreement,etc.”thatconcreteexampleswerenot mentioned in this document.

175. TheChair invited theDelegationof Argentina to repeat thequestion andalsorequesttheSecretariat to usemoreprecisenumberingwithin documentsin thefuturewhichwouldmakeit easier to makedirectreferences.

176. In responseto theChair’sinvitation, theDelegation of Argentinarequested WIPO toprepareananalysison theimplementationof certain aspects of theTRIPSAgreement.As faras theDelegation coulddetermine,documentCDIP/3/5,in thecolumnunderexamplesofactivities stated“the elaborationof adiscussionpaperwith concrete examples ona flexibleimplementation of theTRIPS Agreementandotherinternational obligations,in ordertoimplementnational publicpolicies”. In theDelegation’s opinion,it wasnot clearwhenthedocument referredto would beavailable,andwhetherit wouldbepossible for WIPO to carryout therequestedanalysis.

177. TheDelegationof Indiastatedthat thediscussionwasconfusedbecausedelegatesdidnot knowexactly which recommendationswerebeingreferredto by otherdelegations.TheDelegationwasof theopinionthatthediscussionsweremoreusefulwhentheCDIP dealtwith therecommendationsindividually, but notedtheChair’s point regarding leavingtime inthesessionto considerotherelementsof theAgenda. TheDelegationsuggestedthatthe


Committeeshouldperhapscontinueonanindividualconsiderationof therecommendationsthatday, andthefollowing daymoveto thenext AgendaItem. Theremaining reviewofimplementation couldbecontinuedin theNovembersessionof theCDIP. It statedthattherewouldbeaneffective reviewof eachrecommendation, theSecretariat couldanswer inresponseto asetof questionsononeparticular recommendation, as themeeting haddonesofar. This hadfacilitatedagoodexchange,respectedthetimeconstraints,andmadesure theremainingAgendaItemsalsogot considered.

178. TheChair reconfirmedthattheCommitteewouldcontinueto discusstherecommendationsashadbeendoneup to thatpoint, but thatif therewereany realdifficulties,hewouldchangehis position.

179. TheDelegationof Egyptsupportedtheinterventionby theDelegation of India,bystatingthatit hadmerit, in thesensethataccording to whattheChairsuggested, theCommitteeshouldconsider recommendation by recommendation. This wouldallow amoreproductivediscussion oneachitem. TheDelegation statedthat therewas no focusat thattime,becausetheCommitteemovedfrom onerecommendation to theother, andthatsomeoftheissuesthatmight havebeenraised,were interruptedby discussionson otherrecommendations. It statedthattheCommitteedid not haveasmuchproductive useof thetimeavailable. TheDelegationnotedtheconcernof theChair abouttimeconstraintsandsaidthatit joined theDelegationof India to setaparticular timeat theendof eachday,nomatterhow muchprogresshadbeenmade,andbeginthenextdaywith anewAgendaItem. TheDelegationsaidthatit wasmoreconcernedabouthavinga thoroughfruitful discussionon therecommendations.

180. TheChair reiteratedthatanydecisionhemadeshould not beinterpretedto beinterferingwith a thoroughandfruitful discussion.Delegateshadasked thoroughandfruitfulquestionsandtheSecretariathadgiven thoroughand fruitful answers.TheChair did not seeaproblem in dealingwith thebulk of therecommendationsaslongasthequestions addressedaspecific recommendation,andtheresponseaddressedthatquestion. TheChair furtherstatedthatin termsof thebroadersuggestionaboutcurtaili ng thediscussionandmoving to anotherAgendaItem thenextday,hewas fine with thatidea. If therewastime to gobackto it, theCommitteewould. TheChairexplainedthatthereasonhewantedto curtail thediscussionand by “curtail” hedid not meanclosetheAgendaItem,hemeant “suspend” it, becauseitwasalwaysup to Delegateswhethertheywanted to goback to it. TheChair said hewouldseekagreementto suspendthediscussionson that AgendaItem, sothattheSecretariat coulddo thepresentation on theproposedmethodology,andthentheregional groupscouldmeetand discussthemethodologyin detail,so therecouldbea final discussion on themethodology. TheChairrepeatedthathewasaiming to achievethesuspensionof thatAgendaItem thatdayearly, andcomebackandhavethepresentation for 15 to 20minutes,followedby 45minutesof opendiscussionon thenewmethodology. Hesaid that theintention wasto finish by 6.00p.m. Regional groupscouldmeet thenextmorningastheynormallydid, andDelegateswouldhaveall theinformation concerningthemethodologythatwouldassistthemto inform theregionaldiscussions,sothatwhentheCommitteereconvened,therewould beanopenandfinal discussionof theacceptanceof thenewmodalities,andfinally theCommitteecould go into theprojects discussion. HestatedthatiftheCommitteewentfrom item to item, therecould bediscussionsfrom a few delegationsthathad aninterestin Items6 and7, but therecouldbedelegationsthatweremoreinterestedinrecommendations35or 37or 42. Hestatedthathewould not wantto deny thedelegationstheopportunity to expresstheir viewsor raisequestionsandthatby opening thefloor, it gave


everybodythesameopportunityat theoutset. It did not disadvantageanyonethat did notwantto focusonRecommendation6. TheChair recalled thatwhentheCommitteecamebackinto theroom,his first questionwasRecommendation 6, andthatindeedwhentheCommitteebroke for lunch,theyall knewthattheywould resumeonRecommendation 6. He furtherrecalledthat hehadreopenedthefloor onRecommendation 6, anddid not recall anyfurtherquestions,sohemovedto Recommendation7. TheChairstatedthattherehadbeenonequestionand thendecidedthatif it progressedslowly, recommendation by recommendation,thedelegationsthathadaninterestin recommendations30and37,wouldgettheopportunityto speak,andthatit wasfair to all.

181. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica thankedtheChair andstatedthatit wantedto showsupportto theproposalthattheChairhadsummedup,andthat hadbeenraisedby thedelegationsof India andEgypt. It suggestedpausing thediscussionon theissueastheChairhad suggested,andcomingbackto it at a later stage, andthengoing to thenextAgendaItemlaterin thedayor thefollowing morning.

182. TheDelegationof TrinidadandTobagohadthreequestions. Thefi rst relatedtoRecommendation7, with regardto theinformation onpage11,wheretherewasanapproachthatdealt with IP andCompetitionPolicy, from thepoint of view of legislation andworkshops. TheDelegationaskedthatbeforethatstage,whether anyconsideration hadbeengiven to addresstheissueto policy holder advisors,for exampleat aMinisterial level,because theynotedthatlegislationwasbeing adjustedfor competition policy, minustheimplications with respectto IP in manydevelopingcountries. TheDelegation thenwenton toRecommendation11,with respectto thepatentdraftingworkshops,andstatedthatsomeregionslike theCaribbeanwerepresentlyexploring theestablishmentof a regionaladministrationfor patents. TheDelegationenquiredwhethertheseworkshopswere formalworkshopsor whethertheycouldimport themto theCaribbean,and if at theendof theworkshops,a form of accreditationwouldbeissuedto theparticipants.Thelastenquirywason thequestionof raisingawareness on thepractical and theoretical aspects of collectivemanagement,andspecificallyto contributionsof thedevelopmentandreinforcement of theCCL (CaribbeanCopyright Link) andaskedwhetherWIPO could useits expertiseandresourcesto assist solving someproblemsonsmall islandstates,wheremorethanonecollectivesocietyexistedfor onecategory of work, in thenameof thedevelopmentof smallcountries.

183. TheDelegationof ArgentinastatedthattheRecommendation of ClusterB ,15,16,17,18 and21, thatwereall recommendations thatcould beimplemented andrequiredcoordinationwith thevariouscommitteesthatcarryout thoserelatedactivi ties. In line withthestatement of GRULAC, theDelegation requestedtheDirector Generalto makeanannualreport to theCDIP on theimplementationof therecommendationsthat required coordinationamongthevariousWIPObodies.

184. TheDelegationof TurkeythankedtheChair andstatedthatit wasthefirst time thattheirDelegationhadtakenthefloor in thatsession. It statedthattheir comments weremainlyon thedocumentbeingcurrentlyconsidered. Therehadbeenmany proposals andmanyquestionswith regardto thedifferentrecommendationsandactivities,aswell asto theprogressof therecommendations,but it wasconfused at thatstage. Therewere alsosomecommentson theformal questionsandproposals,to beaddedto therecommendations,withregard to whatwasthenextstep,becausesomedelegationshadrequested thatthestrategiesor activities bechanged. TheDelegationwanted to know if therewould bechangesto the


document. It would preferto seetheproposals in writingbeforedeciding on thechangestobemadeto thedocument.With regardto theprocedure,theDelegation agreedwith theproposal andthought it to bea goodideato finishthediscussionson that subjectandcontinuewith themethodology.

185. TheChair statedthatif hecouldgive theDelegation of Turkey aquick response,not afinal one,but oneto think about,it would try to answerthequestionsin block, andwould takenoteof all thecomments. However,all thecomments werenot coherent, theSecretariathadto look at wheretherewasconflict in thecomments,andcometo somesortof decision.TheChair statedhewouldplaya role in thatdecisionmakingprocess,in termsof thecompromisesthatwouldbemade,but theoverall objective would beto improvethedocument, andthespeakers,theSecretariat, andparticularly theDevelopmentAgendaCoordinationDivision, hadaskedthatquestion earlier. TheChair statedthatit wastheSecretariat’s intentionandcommitment to improvethereportaccording to thebroadrecommendations,but hewasnot surethat theycoulddoeverythingasked, but it wasaworkin progressandtheSecretariatwouldbeableto showsomeimprovements. TheChairstatedthathewassureTurkeywould observeandrecognizethingsthatneededimprovement,afterwhich theSecretariatwouldcommitto its further improvementby thenextmeeting.

186. TheDelegationof EgyptthankedtheChair andstatedthatbeforeterminatingwith thecurrentAgendaItem,theywould like to clarify if theSecretariat waslikely to respondto thequestionsaskedbeforehandat theendof thatItem.

187. TheChair statedthatassoonasEgypthadfinishedspeaking, theSecretariatwould startanswering.

188. TheDelegationof Egypthadonefinal questionwith regardsto Recommendation12.TheDelegation thoughtit wasquiteanimportantrecommendation onmainstreamingdevelopmentinto thesubstantiveandtechnical assistanceactivi ties of WIPO. However,theDelegationpointed to thelackof quantifyingor qualifying theactivi ties,particularly withregard to progressor achievements.TheDelegation did not seehowmaking referenceto theDevelopmentAgendain theProgramandBudgetwasprogress,thatit wasagoodthing,butdid not really tell themhow muchWIPOhadadvancedin implementing theDevelopmentAgendainto its substantiveandtechnicalassistanceactivities. Accordingly, it shouldperhapslookat morebenchmarksof progress in orderto quantify andqualify whathadreallybeenachieved.

189. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica, referring to Recommendation 14on theframework ofagreementbetweenWIPOandWTO andtheexamplesof activit iesandtheimplementationstrategies,statedthatit would like to seemoreexamplesof cooperation with WTO, includingthosepertaining to theTRIPS legislativeadvice. Secondly,in termsof Recommendation42on enhancingmeasuresto ensurea wideparticipation of civil society at largein WIPOactivities, referencehadbeenmade,for example, to anIndigenousConsultativeForum on theIGC, to ensureWIPO’s participationof accreditedNGOsand IGOsin all WIPOactivities.TheDelegationsoughtclarificationonwhetherthoseNGOsandIGOswerebriefedoncross-cuttingissuesif accreditedto the IGC andwhethertheywerebriefed on thecurrentdevelopmentsin SCP,SCCR, etc. ConcerningRecommendation35, therequestedto knowwhetherthefour, two-dayWIPONational Roundtableson theEconomics of IP,hadalreadytakenplace.


190. TheDelegationof India referring to theChair’s decision to enddiscussionson theItem,suggestedthatastheSecretariatmight needmoretimeto respondto thevariousquestions,leavingtheDelegationwith no time to askquestions, informedthat it would not askfurtherquestions. That, theDelegationsaid,waswith thehope that it would beastandingitem ontheAgendain theforthcomingCDIP.

191. TheChair respondedby requestingtheDelegation of India to askits questions,andforit not to besaid thattheChaircurtailedquestions. TheChair acknowledgedthat theDelegationwasindeedright, in thatit would takemorethanfiveminutesfor theSecretariat toanswerthequestions,and thatit would takewhatevertimeit took,but encouragedtheDelegationof India to kindly goaheadandasktheir questions.

192. TheDelegationof India pointedout that astherewerestill 13Recommendationsleft tobediscussed, it declinedtheoffer as it did not think thatthosepresentto listentointerventionson tenof thoserecommendations. Therefore, theDelegation agreedto continuethediscussionsastheChairhadsuggested,in thepresent session,although it did not seem apractical possibility. TheDelegationdid not think that therewould betimeto revisit thatAgendaItem during thepresentsession. Therefore,theDelegation statedthat theyhopedtocontinuethetopic in theNovembersession.

193. TheChair statedthattheDelegationof Indiawas correctin thattherewould bea reportin everysession,andthat in thefuture,80 to 90percentof thetimespentin theCommitteewouldbeused to reviewanddiscussreports,but statedthat at thepresent time,80 to90 percent of thetimewasneededfor the implementation issues.TheChair statedthattheDelegationwascorrectin thatthereport wouldbe improved basedon thedialogalreadyathand,andif theCommitteegot throughtheproject issuesfast, whichwasnot expected, theDelegationof Indiacouldcomebackto thatAgendaItem,anddiscussit, but if not in thecurrentsession, for sureat thenextmeeting, theitemwouldbean AgendaItem. TheChairstated therewould belesspressureon theimplementationissuesbecausetherewouldbeasetof implementationof recommendationsfor theSecretariat to work on,but would seehow itprogressedfor therestof thatweek.

194. TheDelegationof ChinathankedtheChair andstatedthatit would like to supportthemethodappliedby theChair. It alsohada commentonRecommendation 12, in ordertointegratethedevelopment dimensioninto theactivitiesanddebatesof WIPO. TheDelegationsupportedthis initiativeandhopedthatin thefuturewhen policiesweredrawn-up,WIPOwouldplacea greateremphasison theissues of development.

195. TheDelegationof Senegal thankedtheChair andreferring to Recommendation12,stated thatthemainstreamingof developmentconsiderationsintovariousWIPOactivitieswassomethingthatwould, to agreatextent,dependuponthecollective attitudewhichprevailedinthediscussions.TheDelegationbelievedthattheexistenceof such aculturewasaprerequisiteto themainstreamingof developmentconsiderations. If thedevelopmentdimension wasto befully integrated,thentheculturereferredto would haveto prevail bothinsideandoutsidetheOrganization.TheDelegationquestionedwhathad beendone,or whatshouldbedone,within theOrganization,in orderto makesurethattheIP cultureto which itreferredbecameareality? TheDelegationstatedthatit hadto bea reality outsidetheOrganization,but thatit wouldnot domuchgoodif it was not alsoa reality within theOrganization.It statedthatit would only beable to progressif it prevailed in both places.


196. TheChair thengavethefloor to theSecretariat and requestedthatbefore it beforerespondedit shouldidentify therecommendationandwhereverpossible, theDelegationthathad raisedaquestion with relationto thatrecommendation.

197. TheSecretariatstatedit wouldconcentrateonRecommendation 11,asseveraldelegationshadenquiredwith regards to thatparticularRecommendation. On thequestionfrom theDelegationof Uruguay, onnetworkprojects,it stated thatit wasthefi rst projectthattheOrganizationactuallycarriedout asa technical cooperation projectwith amulti-yeartimeperiod. It ranfor four years,andmanycountrieswith research institutes anduniversitieshadproducedresults but thetruthwasthatscientistsanduniversitiesdid not alwaysknowhowtomanagetheresults,or how to protectthem,or identify thosewhomight beinterestedin theresultssoas to developa newproductor improveexistingproducts andtechnologies.Therefore,theSecretariatdrewupaproject, with thepurposeof offeringsupportin twolocations, firstly in Columbia,andsecondly, in oneof thecountriesof theEconomicCommunityof WestAfrican States(ECOWAS) . Theprojects supported researchinstitutesdealingwith malariaandtropicaldiseases,andassistedwith theprovisionof trainingto createaservicesharedby theentirenetworkof universities,which wouldmanagetheresultsthroughtheir research,to signlicensing contracts,draft patentrequests,and identify possiblemarketoutlets. TheSecretariatstatedthatit startedfrom zero,that in 2004,therewerenotraining modulesin place,whichwerenow referredto in Recommendation 11. Therewasnoexample for amodule for drafting andpreparinga patent request,nor amodulefor makingapatentlicensingagreement.TheSecretariathopedthat themodules wouldensurethatat thetwo locations,themoduleswereused, whichbrought theSecretariat to thequestionfrom theDelegationof Algeria:why scientists? Basically becausethetraining programsareappropriatefor scientists,thatwerecalledtechnologymanagersrather thanscientists.Thesewerepeoplewho, in universitiesor researchinstitutes,havetheresponsibilit y for decidingwhatto dowith theresearchresults,andwhetheror not it shouldbetransferredto thepublicor theprivatesector, soit couldbeusedin thereal economy. TheSecretariat statedtherewasasmallsectionwithin theOrganization,where therewereonly four staff, and theycoveredthe181 MemberStatesof theOrganization.Theyweredoing theirbestto prepareanddevelopthosetrainingmodules.Theresult hasbeenthatin Columbia,anetwork wasset-up,ahealthresearch anddevelopmentnetworkwith 12universitiesworking together,whichhasasharednetwork and providessupportasasortof transfer of technologyoffice, providingassistancein all respects. TheColumbiangovernmentdecided thatthemodulehadbeenusefulandis lookingat thepossibilit y of creatingnewsimilar networks,onewould bearesearchnetwork dealingwith energydevelopment andtheotherwouldbein theagriculturalsector. TheSecretariatthenreferredto thequestion from theThai Delegation,on theprogramfor draftingpatentrequests.Unfortunately,it statedthat therewereonly four officersin thatsectionandof thosefour people,only onewasactually working full -timeon thepatentrequestsprogram. TheDelegationitself statedthatknowinghowto draft a patentrequestandwhich strategyto follow, in orderto maketheregistrationof your requestin theright sector,is thekeyto using thewholepatentsystem.Thattypeof trainingwas thereforeapriority. Itwasavery intensivetypeof training,whereparticipantsweretaughthow to draft andprepareapatentrequest.Thetrainingwasdone througha coursethatlasted8 to 10 days, andthentherewas anadditional threemonthsdone throughremote-learning,dependingon thenumberof participants.At theend,theparticipantsshould beable to complete exerciseswhichweredonethroughremote-teachingsuccessfully, and arethenissuedwith acompletion certificate.With regards to thequestionof certificatesby theDelegation of TrinidadandTobago,theSecretariat believedthatthequestion hadbeenanswered. With regardsto questionfrom theDelegationof Egypt on thedevelopmentof tools, it wastruethattheSecretariat hadonly


given examplesof activitieswhichwereundertakenwith thosetools. Thereweremanymoreactivities thanhadbeencarriedout usingthetrainingmodules on thedraftingof patentrequests,andlicensesagreementson theuseof technologyby universities,and thetoolsthemselves,overthe lastyearhadalsobeenimproved. TheSecretariat stated it could,ifdelegationssowished,provideadditionalinformationon this kind of trainingmodule,on therequirements, thelength,theprofile of participants.TheSecretariatexplainedthatin theend,thepurposeof all themoduleswasto supportcountriesandhelp themto createtheinfrastructurenecessary at a local level. Thekeyproducers of knowledgewereobviouslyuniversities, researchbodiesandinstitutions.

198. Beforerespondingto thequestionsonRecommendation 7, theSecretariat statedthatinorder to speedupandmainstreamtheprocessof implementing therecommendationsof theDevelopmentAgenda,severalrecommendationshadbeengroupedinto five ThematicProjects,that hadbeendiscussedinternally andapproved by theDirectorGeneral,andhadbeenbepresentedto theCommittee, asthenext AgendaItem. It statedthat oneof thoseThematicProjectsconcernedIP andCompetitionPolicy, andgroupedrecommendations7, 23and 32. TheSecretariatstatedthattheproposalswouldcomprise,at least,of severaldifferentsortsof activities thatwouldcoverthenuancesof thethreerecommendations,andthoseactivities hadthemajorconcernof not forgetting to meetthepractical aspectsof eachrecommendation. TheSecretariatbriefly addressedspecific questions,fi rstly from thedistinguishedDelegationof Egypt,who remindedall thatit wasimportantto attemptto haveexamples of experiencesfrom differentcountriesin theareaof IP andCompetition Policy,and that it couldbedifficult. Exactlyoneof theelementscoveredby theThematicProjects,wasto put MemberStatesin contactwith eachothersothattheycouldsharetheirexperienceson theinterfaceof IP and CompetitionPolicy. Indonesiahadasked abouttheSeminarinDaejeon,organizedby WIPO in conjunctionwith theGovernment of theRepublicof Korea.TheSeminarwasorganizedin October2008with 30participantsfrom 13 Asiancountries,and theSecretariat hadinvitednot only representativesfrom theIP sector of theGovernments,but also from thecompetition authoritiesof thoseGovernments,thathadcompetitionauthorities.Therewerevery fruitful discussions,with alsotheparticipationof acolleaguefrom theWTO Secretariat,who ran for a few years,aworkinggrouponinternational tradeandcompetitionpolicy. TheSecretariat statedthat there werethreedaysofvery gooddiscussions,andbecausetheSeminar wentvery well, oneof theitemsthat waspresentedwasto continueorganizingregional meetingsfor thefollowing two years. If theproject wasapproved,it wouldanswer thequestion from El Salvadoron futuremeetings.

199. TheSecretariatstatedthattheDelegationof Brazil hadaskedfor modelguidelinesonlegaloptions, to deal with IP andCompetitionPolicy. However, thepreparation of guidelineswasnot foreseen in theThematicProjectsbecausefor thetimebeing,there wasnoconsensusamongtheMemberStatesto haveguidelines,even if guidelinesweresoft law. However,attheSeminarin Daejeon,Republicof Korea, therewere alsootherrequestsfrom othercountriesexactlyalong thesamelines. Therefore, theSecretariat stated, thatif theCDIP gavethis mandate,theSecretariatwould try to develop someguidelines,but for thetimebeing,theideawasto testthewaters,to shareexperiences,raisenewdiscussions,andcreatea forum. Itstated thatthecurrentforum couldleadto somethingdeliverable andmoreconcrete,but thatit dependedon theoutcomeof theCDIP. TheDelegation of Brazil also requestedacopyof astudyby ProfessordeOliveira,andtheSecretariat statedthatit wouldbemorethanhappytoprovideBrazil with acopy. Thedocumenthadbeendistributedas aworkingdocumentat themeetingin Daejeonin 2008,andhadnot yet beenpublishedofficially, becauseit hadbeennoted thatsomeconcretedatawasmissing,andalthoughProfessordeOliveirawasa


very-high rankingpublic civil servant in theStateof SaõPaulo andwas very busy, hehadacceptedWIPO’s requestto sendthemissing tables. As soonas theyarereceived,thedocument would bepublishedasaWIPOdocument.

200. TheSecretariatstatedthattheDelegationof TrinidadandTobagohadenquiredaboutthepossibility of bringing thediscussionto theconsiderationof policy makers,andthatitwouldbeseenin thepresentationof theThematic Projectsthat it was alsooneof theSecretariat’s concerns. TheSecretariatstated that therehadbeentwo questions,onefrom theDelegationof India,andonefrom theDelegation of Argentina, on legislativeassistance.TheDelegationof Indiahadaskedhowmany requestson legislativeassistancehadbeenreceived.TheSecretariatinformedtheDelegationof India thattherehadbeenchangesin thestructureof theSecretariatoverthelasttwo years,andspecific activit ieson legislativeassistancehadbeenseparatedfrom activitieson flexibil itiesin general. Thespecific questionon legislativeassistancewasthendeferredto thetechnical cooperation sector for furtherclarification. TheSecretariat thenaddressedthequestionfrom theDelegation of ArgentinaonRecommendation14,onwhich theEnglishversionhadbeen consulted, and not havingtheSpanish versionat hand,it statedthatit did not referto adocument, but ratherto advice. TheSecretariat statedthatit did not seeany problemin havingcommentson thesubjectmatter, inhaving adocumentexplainingin anabstract form, withoutconcretereferencesto concretecases in legislativeassistance,becauseconfidential andbilateralmattershadbeendiscussed,but statedthattherewouldnot beany major problemin preparinga general description,notonly on thecriteriausedfor providinglegislative assistance,but alsoon thehistoricalevolutionof thatlegislativeassistanceby theSecretariat.

201. TheSecretariatstatedthattherewasonemajordifference, aconceptual differencebetweenadocumenton legislative assistance,thedocument that wasbeing discussed,andthatof paragraph10of Recommendation1. When referringto thedocumentand to paragraph10of Recommendation1, it wasadocument in abstract form, with flexibil itiesin anabstractform. TheSecretariathadprovidedlegislativeassistanceto MemberStatesin two or threecases,andevenformal squarebracketswith differentoptionspossible,wherebythelegislativeassistancecontaineddifferentchoicesfor theMemberStateconcernedto eitheracceptorreject. It statedthatit wasnot foundto beveryhelpful or fruitful , becauseit just shiftedtheburdenof thechoiceto theMemberStates,andwhatwasdonein thepast,wasto identify thedifferentoptionsandexplain theimplicationsand thepossibleconflict betweenthedifferentoptionsin thefootnotes,becausesometimeslegalnormswere likemedicines,if theycombinedconflicts in legalnorms,theywouldbecounterproductive. TheSecretariat statedthatit hadattemptedto doso,but thattwo years ago therewasachangein theorganizationoftheSecretariat,andtheSectorfor theStrategic Useof IP for Developmentceasedto dealwithlegislativeassistancespecificallyafterwhich it only dealt with flexibili ties in general.

202. To conclude,theSecretariatstatedthatthedocument, whichhadbeendiscussedthatmorning,wasjust aworkingdocument,andhadbeendistributedfor thefi rst timein ameetingin Singaporefor countriesof theregion,and theideawould beto continueregionalseminarsandto continueimprovingthedocument, receiving inputs,criti cismandmodifications. TheSecretariatstatedthatit hadalreadyplannedonmeetingwith theGroupBcountriesas well, sothattheDelegationof Indiawouldhaveadocument,not aconceptualdocument, but at least adiscusseddocument,after which thedocument wouldbebroughtforwardto theCDIP for discussion, andit couldthenbeestablishedwhattheMemberStateswantedtheSecretariatto do.


203. With regardto aquestionraisedby theDelegation of Egypt onRecommendation6, andin particular on themannerof avoiding confl icts of interest for international consultantshiredby WIPO for its technicalassistanceprograms, theSecretariat statedthatoneparticularelementin this questionwashowto put aneventualend to thesituation wherebysuchaconflict of interestwould occur. As statedbefore in thecontext of thecriteria for selectionofexperts, beforeanexpertis engagedby WIPO,a longexchangeof communicationwith thebeneficiary countrytakesplacein which thecurriculum vitae,experience, backgroundandtheterms of referenceof themissionof theexpertis communicated to theauthoritiesin thecountriesconcerned.In theprocess, any conflict of interestshouldbecomeknown. Asregardsthecontractualarrangementsfor suchshort-term expert consultancies, thereweresomereferencesto rightsandobligations that theexperts had to undertake,namely, forexample, obligationsnot to communicateto anypersonor other entity, anynon-publishedinformation knownto theexpertin thecourseof performinghis or her obligationsundertheshort-termcontractualarrangements.Suchelementsalreadyclearlyindicatedthatshould thathappen,theexpertwho tookadvantageof theinformation gatheredby him during themissionwouldbein conflict of interest,andin thatrespect,contractual arrangementsalsohadaspecificprovision for theterminationof acontract. Therefore,should thatsituationarise, thecontract would beimmediatelyterminatedupondecisionby WIPO,or at therequestof thereceivingcountryor beneficiaryinstitutions.

204. Referring to aquestion from El SalvadorconcerningRecommendation 11, in particular,regarding theuseof andaccessto patentinformation andin particularto theLATIPATProject, theSecretariatconfirmedthattheLATIPAT wasaproject being jointly implementedby theEuropeanPatentOffice, theSpanishPatentandTrademarkOfficeandWIPO. Themainpurposeof theprojectwasto provideacommonplacefor theelectronic publicationofpatentapplication fi lesor patentsgranted in Latin AmericaandSpain. To date, theSecretariat therewere13 LatinAmerican countries actively participating in theproject,andthatthedatabasewas,asfar aswasknown,theonly regionaldatabaseof patent information inSpanish andPortuguese,becauseBrazil wasincluded,andto datehadaround2 million patentdocumentsreferenced. TheSecretariatstated thatthemainobjective for thecurrentyearwouldbefor thecountriesto providethefull text information regarding their patentdocuments,and to date,out of the13countriesactively participating in theproject,9 wereproviding full text on theirpatentdocuments.Thesecondpurposeof theproject wastogeneratein thepatentadministration, theinternalcapacity to manage,produceandpublishnational informationregardingpatentdocuments,andto beableto publishthem on line. TheSecretariat hadbeenprovidingspecializedtrainingonhowto processthis informationwhichwere themainformatsusedfor theelectronicexchangeof theinformation. Sincethedatabasehad beenin operation,thenumber of hits andconsultationsof theregional databasehas beenmorethan10million in thelastfive years.

205. Respondingto aquestionfrom theDelegationof Angola which related toRecommendation11,which dealtwith LUSOPAT,theSecretariat informedthatit wasbasicallydescribed asaportal. Following theministerial conferenceheldin 2006, therewasanothermeetingof thePortuguese-speakingcountries in Rio deJaneiro in February2007,forthelaunching of theportal. Theportalwas a facility, a repositoryof patentdocumentsfromthePortuguese-speakingcountries, whichweremadeaccessibleto any interestedpartiesandcontainedinformation in thePortugueselanguage,related to patentsandpatentdocumentation from Portugal,Brazil andtheotherPortuguese-speaking countriesof Afr ica,namelyAngola,Mozambique,GuineaBissau,CapeVerdeandSaoTomeandPrincipe.TheSecretariatstatedthattherewasa link on theWIPO internetpagewith LUSOPAT,


Lusophoneportal thatcouldbeaccessed, following theimplementationof a resolution thatwasmadein thecontextof theRio meeting, to ensurethata link wasprovidedto easy accessto this Lusophoneportal throughtheWIPOwebsite.

206. In reply to aquestionraisedby theDelegation of ThailandconcerningRecommendation 11, theprogressof distance-learningcoursesonpatentdrafting, theSecretariat statedthatthedistance-learningcourseonpatentdrafting hadbeenlaunchedinMarch2008. It wasalsoofferedin Englishand230participantshadalreadytakenpart in thecoursethatlasted10weeks,andbecauseof thetechnical natureof thecourse,theSecretariathad alsoprovidedtutorial supportto theparticipants. Anothercourseonpatentsearchwaslaunchedin March2008,in English languageand140participants hadundertakenthatcourse.

207. TheChair remindedthatonRecommendation11, theDelegationof Egypthadaskedaquestionabout thelackof qualitycommentsin theprogressreport andits follow-up. TheChair statedthatit wasimportantthat it was knownandunderstoodwhether therehadbeenany follow-up to theactivity andherequested theSecretariat to respond.

208. TheSecretariatstatedthatin theprojectInnovationandTechnologyTransferSupportStructurefor NationalInstitutionscontainedin documentCDIP/3/INF/2, in AnnexVII, itcould beseenasto howto improvethemechanismsfor follow-up. TheSecretariat statedthatit wastruethatmoreandmorerequests for training programson licensing,patent drafting,marketing of IP, technologymanagement,werebeing received andthatfollow-upwasquitedifficult because therewasnowacritical massof trainees, someof whomwereapplying theknowledgereceivedat thetrainingprograms. For example, someof thosewhohadreceivedtraining onpatentdrafting,werealready draftingpatents for universities and fili ngpatentssuccessfully.TheSecretariatfurtherstatedthatit hadsimilarly received inputfromparticipantsthatweresupportingtheir research institutionsanduniversitiesin theprocess ofnegotiating technology transfercontractfor their research results. To systematize follow-up,theaboveprojecthadbeenproposedto theCommittee.

209. In responseto aquery from theDelegation of India regarding requestsreceivedforlegislativeandlegaladvicetheSecretariatstatedthatit could providethosefiguresfrom thetimewhentheLegislativeandLegalAdviceDivision,whichset-up two andhalf yearsbeforeat theendof 2006. Fromits inceptionto date,over 100requests had beenreceivedby WIPOin differentareasof IP. Those requests coverednot only industrial propertybut alsocopyright,andsomerequests in thatconnection wereof adifferentnature, andwereused asexamples. Somecasesweresubmissions of draft laws,whichwerequite typical. Draft lawsthatweresent to WIPO for reviewbeforebeingenacted,or in somecases,outright requeststotheSecretariat to preparea first draft. TheSecretariat stated thatsomedevelopingcountries,in particular, wantedto seea first draft preparedby WIPObeforedeciding to moveon,anditwasusually in contextfrom thepastandin compliancewith futurerequirements,but morerecentlyin theoverallcontextof upgradingtheir IP systems. It was statedthatanumberofcountriesrequestedgeneraladviceon interpretation or usualpracticesin connectionwithprovisionscontainedin treatiesadministeredby WIPO,of which therewere25or 26,andalsotheTRIPSAgreementfrom theWTO, which providedadviceundertheInter-Secretariat’sagreementbetweenthetwo Organizations. Somesortof adviceregardingtheprovisionsinnational lawsof theconsultingcountrieswereprovidedthatwentbeyondtheSecretariat’smandate.On thewhole,WIPOhadnot been ableto respondto all therequests,becausein afewcases, therequestshadbeenput onholdpending thereceiptof additional clarif icationanddocumentationwhichhadnot comefrom therequestingcountries. However, taking thatinto


account,mostof therequestshadbeenrespondedto. Thereweresome14or 15out of anoverall numberof 100 requeststhathadbeenreceivedandwerestill pending.Thesewereunder consideration andwerebeingrespondedto. TheSecretariatstated thatthatshould givetheCommitteeanideaof thescopeof activit y thathad beenundertakenby theSecretariat.

210. TheChair proposedthesuspensionof thediscussiononAgendaItem 6, sothatthepresentationof AgendaItem 7 couldproceed,whichensuredabit of work in termsofunderstanding, particularly for thosedelegatesfrom capitals to comprehend thenewlyproposed methodology. However,beforetheSecretariat madeits presentation, theChair gavethefloor to theDelegationof Argentinawhichwanted to clarify astatementmadeearlier.

211. TheDelegationof Argentinastatedthatit wantedto offer a clarificationwith respecttoRecommendation14andadocumentfrom the“Groupof Friendsof Development”whichwassubmittedlastyear,in which it wasproposedthatasanactivi ty for theimplementationofRecommendation14,WIPOwouldprepareadocument on theanalysisof TRIPSflexibilities.TheDelegationof ArgentinarequestedtheSecretariat to takenoteof that request for thenextmeetingandto ensure thatinformationon theanalysis of theflexibilit iespresentin theTRIPSAgreement, wouldbemadeavailablefor which theywouldbemostgrateful.

AgendaItem 7: Considerationof work programfor implementationof adoptedrecommendations

212. TheChair notedtherequestby Argentinaandcalled upontheSecretariat to makeapresentationonAgendaItem 7.

213. Making a Powerpoint®presentationtheSecretariat informedtheCommitteethatthepresentationpertainedto theThematicProjects approachwhich wasdevelopedundertheguidanceof theChairandtheleadershipof theDirector General. TheDevelopmentAgendaCoordinationDivision hadtried to seehowbestit couldsimplify theimplementationof theDevelopmentAgendarecommendations,andmakeit easyfor theMember Statesto reviewtheprogressof implementationandits impact. Thediagram in Powerpoint® waspresentedtotheMember Statesin theinformal sessionscalled by theChair andpopulatedlaterwith thenumberof recommendations. TheSecretariat wenton to explain that ascould beseenin theleft handsidecolumn,a list of recommendationshadbeenprovided which were consideredasprinciplesthattheOrganizationhadto adhereto in undertakingall its activities. In therighthandsidecolumn, werethoserecommendationswhich requiredactionsfor implementation.To simplify, theright handsidecolumn,top row, werethefive recommendationsthatwereapprovedby theCDIP in its lastsession.As could beseen,thesewererecommendations2, 5,8, 9 and10. In thesecond row in theright handsidecolumn,werethefive ThematicProjects,for which theSecretariatpreparedandpresented a documentfor theconsideration of theCommittee.Thethird row consistedof theproposedfutureThematic Projectswhichcouldbepreparedif thatapproachwasacceptedby theCommittee for thefuturesessionsof theCDIP.Therewerecertain activitieswhichcouldnot beimplemented throughprojects andit wasproposed thattheybeimplementedthroughtheOrganization’s regularprogram.As alreadynoted, manyrecommendationsincludedprinciples. Most of thoseprinciples werecontainedin the famouslist of 19Recommendationsandit would beseenwhile discussing theimplementation of the19Recommendationsthatit washardto justify implementationofrecommendationswhich wereprinciples. It was hard to justify theobjectivesof thoserecommendationsmetthroughactivities, andastheDirector Generalhadmentionedthathewould report on thoseprinciplesperiodically. TheSecretariat statedthatit wasimportant to


appreciatethevalueof thenewapproachto seewherethingsstood. MemberStateswouldrecallthatfrom thelist of 19Recommendations,theCommitteehadsofar discussedrecommendations1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and11. Overaperiodof oneyear, theCommitteehadalsodiscussedfive recommendationsfrom thelist of 26,namely recommendation 2, 5, 8, 9 and10. During its lastsession,theCommitteehaddiscussedRecommendation 12 from thelistof 19, andrecommendation20,22and23 from thelist of 26. TheSecretariatdrewattentionto adocumentwhichprovideda revisedwork programfor thoserecommendations,andstatedthatwhat wasleft before from thelist of 19Recommendationscouldbeseenasa long list,beginningfrom Recommendation13andfrom thelist of 26Recommendationsbeginningwith Recommendation 24. It saidthatthecurrentapproachwasthebasis for discussionsintheCommittee’sdocumentCDIP/1/3, in which theSecretariat providedasuggestedlist ofactivities. Thefirst sessionof theCDIP cameup with anapproachonhow to look atrecommendationsfrom thelist of 19andfrom thelist of 26moving from oneclustertoanother. Now primarily theCommitteewaslookingat, for example,ClusterA from thelistof 26 Recommendations, andgoing backto ClusterA from thelist of 19,moving to ClusterBfrom thelist of 26Recommendations,goingbackto thelist of 19RecommendationstoClusterB and soon. After discussions,theSecretariat would modify theproposedactivitieson thebasisof documentCDIP/1/3. TheSecretariat wouldalsoidentify theadditional humanand financialresources.However,it wasvery important to mentionherethat in view of theslow paceof progressafterthesecondsessionof theCDIP,adeviation was taken,andinsteadof continuing to discussfrom thelist of 19Recommendations, theCommitteestartedtodiscussfrom thelist of 26Recommendations, whichwereconsideredto beactionablerecommendations. Theproposedapproachwasthatthoserecommendationswhichdealt withthesameor similar subjectmatterscouldbeidentified andgrouped together. Thematicprojectscould bepreparedfor discussionby theCommittee, andif theMember Statesagreed,theSecretariat would go backandupdatetheprojects in view of thecommentsmadeby theCommitteeandwouldbeginimplementation. It wasclear that if thereweresubstantivechangesto bemadeto theprojectdocument,theCommitteemight like to seetheprojectagainbefore theimplementationbegan.Therationalewasthattherewerequitea few overlapswhenit cameto theactivitiesproposedfor theimplementation of theserecommendationsindocument CDIP/1/3. Only oneexamplewould suffice. If theactionsproposedfor theimplementation of Recommendation30wereconsidered,for instance,thecolumnthatdealtwith theactionwouldstate“pleaseseecomments for proposal31”. AnotherexamplewasRecommendation28. It statedthatsimilar activit ieswereproposedfor recommendations25and 26. TheSecretariatsaid thatclearlytheCommittee,in adoptingdocumentCDIP/1/3asthebasisfor theclassification,haditself establishedlinkages whichcould justifiably beseenas thoserecommendationsthatdealtwith sameor similar subject matters. A numberofdelegationshadbeenasking for moredetails. They notedthatdocumentCDIP/1/3did notcontainsufficientinformationwith regardto theobjectives,timeframes,monitoringandevaluation,budgetandotherinformation, andmanyotherdelegationshad spoken of theslowprogressof implementation.TheSecretariat recalledthat in therevisedProgramandBudgetfor 2009,it wasproposedthattheDevelopmentAgendarecommendationswouldbeimplementedthroughprojectsandthatwas howtheideaof developingThematic Projectscameup. Overlapandduplicationcouldbeavoidedby jointly discussing and implementingactivities. Of courseaproject-basedmethodologyensured thatmorecomplete informationwasavailable to theMemberStatesbeforetheymadedecisionsby groupingrecommendationstogetherandhopefullysawaccelerated progress. In orderto makesurethatin proposinganddevelopingtheThematicProjectsall thesensitivit iesweretakenintoaccount, for theThematicProjectdocument, additional sheetshadbeenaddedwithsupplementaryinformation. It establishedthelink betweendocumentCDIP/1/3to the


activities proposedin theproject. As amatterof fact, it demonstratedthat all theactivitiescontainedin thedocumentCDIP/1/3which were includedin theproject document. Wherethoseactivitiesweremodified,thesupplementary information sheetprovidedaclearjustificationasto why a particularactivity hadbeen modified. Whereanactivi ty wasnotincluded in theprojectdocument,but existed in document CDIP/1/3, again thissupplementaryinformationpageprovidedthejustifi cationasto why thatactivity hadnot beenincluded. Therehadof coursebeing concernaboutappropriate reportingprocedures. Theproject-basedmethodologyensuredthatasingleperson,whoof coursewasimplementingtheproject,with thehelp of otherareaswithin theOrganization, developedand implementedaproject andreportedbackto theCommittee. TheSecretariat explainedthat theThematicProjectapproachcut across clusters. Whilesomemight seeit asapotential risk thatnot alltheconcernsbehind therecommendations might beaddressed, otherssaw thatit couldavoidcompartmentalizationof recommendationsdealing with thesamesubjectmatter. If actionwastakenin parallel lines,between,for example,ClusterA, dealtwith technical assistanceand theClusterthatdealtwith norm-settingactivi ties it would not produceoptimalresults.That washowtheprojectapproachtook aholistic viewof thesituation. Referring to aslide,theSecretariat statedthat it dealtwith someof theconcernsthat emergedduringtheperiodofnegotiation. Thefirst point wasthatthe45Recommendationsremained in tact. DocumentCDIP/1/3wouldnot betouched.It wouldstay as it was. Whenever theMemberStateswantedto comebackandrevisit thatdocument,it wouldexist. Themerelisting of activitiesproposed in documentCDIP/1/3,getreplacedby aproject-basedproject structure. In thepast,MemberStateshadconcernsabout prioritization amongstactivities. TheThematicProjectapproachasamatterof fact, removedany possibilit y of prioritization. TheDirectorGeneralmentioned thatthoseprojectswereonly a first step towardsimplementationof theDevelopmentAgenda.Clearly, afterthoseprojects, theMemberStates coulddecideon thefuturework. As mentionedearlier,if therewereanyaspects of a recommendation whichcould not be includedin theproject,theywould beincludedand implementedthroughregularactivities of theOrganization.Concerningtheinternal structurewithin theOrganization, theDevelopmentAgendaCoordinationDivision (DACD), reporting directly to theDirectorGeneralwastheoverallresponsibleDivisionwithin WIPO. Therewereprojectmanagers, as mentionedearlier,from thetimeof conceiving aprojectdocument to itsimplementation to reporting. Theprojectmanagerswould dealwith givensubjects,andthenother activities whichwerenot includedin theprojects wouldbeimplementedby thevarioussectorsanddivisions. Theprogrammanagerswould report to theCDIP andthereportswillalsobeincludedin theProgramandBudgetreportingof theOrganization. If theMemberStatesagreedto thatapproach,astheDirector Generalhadkindly indicated,in anticipation oftheapprovalof theprojectdocuments, theprojectbudgetwouldbeincluded in thenextbiennial budgetprocess.In orderto ensurethattheprojectswerenot somethingexternaltotheregularactivit iesof theOrganization, theSecretariat hadtried to, bothin termsof thesubstantiveinputsandimplementation andfinancially to includeor bring themcloserto theregularprogramsof theOrganization,andthefinancial allocationswould go to theprogrammanagerswhoshouldprovideassistanceto theprojectmanagers in theimplementationofthoserecommendations. As mentionedearlier, thoseprojectmanagerswere fully integratedinto therestof thework of theOrganization,andtherewerenoseparatestructuresthatwerebeing created.TheSecretariatverybriefly presented theadvantages anddisadvantagesof thenew Thematic approachasfollows: It said thattheadvantageof thecurrent or existingapproach wasthatit containeda familiar methodology. Of courseacasecouldbemadethatitwasfamiliar to thosewhohadbeeninvolved in theprocess,but giventhefactthatcolleaguesfrom thePermanent Missionsin Genevakeptrotating, familiarity wasperhapsasubjectivematter. This wasalsotrueof delegatesfrom thecapitals. Thosewereadvantagesof the


existingapproach.With regardsto theproposedor new approach,it couldbesaidthatit wasfasterin implementationandpresentedopportunity for coordinatedprogress,wherebyallrelatedrecommendationscouldbediscussedunderThematic Projects,whichof coursewouldleadto efficiencyandcoherence.TheCDIP wouldmakeprompt decisions; asingleprojectmanagerwoulddeal with thesubjectandreportback to theCDIP; effective monitoring andevaluation. Andof course,thedisadvantageof thatapproachwasthatit wasanewapproach.Thehumanandfinancialresourcesfor the five proposedThematic Projects wouldconsistofnon-personnelcostsof approximately4 mill ion Swissfrancsandpersonnel costsof about2.8 million Swissfrancs. Thosepersonnel insteadof hiring themafreshfrom outsidewouldbedrawn from existinghumanresourceswithin theOrganizationas it wentthrough thephaseof thestrategic realignment. Thesecondpoint wasthat thosecolleagueswhowouldbeworkingon the implementationof thoseprojects,werenot devotedto technical assistanceorDevelopmentAgendaactivitiesin thepast. They camefrom otherareasof theOrganization,as mentionedearlier throughtheprocess of strategic realignmentandtheywouldbeseenasfreshresources.Thethird point thatwasobviousbecausetheOrganization hadrecruitedpersonnelfor theimplementationof thoseprojects,that amountwouldhavebeenincludedintheprojectdocument andpaidby theOrganization. TheSecretariat setout abrief list of theproposed elements thattheCommitteemight wantto considerwhile it lookedat theprojectdocuments. Firstly, did theproposedproject meet theconcernsof therecommendationorrecommendationscontainedtherein?Secondly, did theprojectrequireany changes,replacements,additions, subtractions?Thirdly, arethereany elementsof therecommendationthatneededto beimplementedthroughregularactivit iesof theOrganization, meaningbysubjectmatteror elementsthatwerenot projectworthy? Lastly, were thereanyotherchangesrequired to any part of a projectdocument? Obviously this wasnot anexhaustive list ofelements,andtheCommitteemight haveotheradditions.

214. TheChair thankedtheSecretariatandnoted thattherewasonly onerequestfrom thefloor. He invitedtheDelegationof Thailandto take thefloor.

215. TheDelegationof ThailandthankedtheChair andtheSecretariat for thepresentation.It congratulatedWIPOandtheDirectorGeneral for theirefforts in undertaking theThematicProjectapproach. TheDelegationexpressedits full supportto this approachin ordertoimplementactivit iesundertheCDIP. This would not only economizeon WIPOresources,but wouldhopefullyprovideamoretangibleresultwith clear,defined objectives. FromtheDelegation’sexperience,not only IP officesbut alsoprivateenterprisesonly embarkonactivities when theobjectivesandtangibleoutcomeshavebeenidentified andnotedthatthiswouldbedonewith thenewapproach. Therefore,thenewapproachwouldeventuallyleadtoamoretangibleresultfor WIPOefforts. TheDelegationhowever advisedtheSecretariat thatin undertaking thetasksof developingtheThematic Projectthefollowing should beobserved:(1) In establishing theobjectiveof eachproject regardlessof its name, theobjective wouldhave to coverall aspectsof themattersraisedby theMembersthatwere related to suchaproject (2) Theseobjectiveswouldalso haveto beflexibleenoughto cater to anyadditionalrequirement if theMemberStatesawfit (3) Theobjective would haveto berealisticandsuitableto thecountrytargetedandtheoutcomeor outputmustbeaccomplishable.Finally,theDelegationof ThailandaddressedtheChair regarding theimplementation of theseprojectstheywouldhaveto beadjustableto suit theeconomic developmentconditionsof eachof theMemberCountries.

216. TheDelegationof India alsothankedtheSecretariat andthepresentationsheldon thesubjectwhich it viewedasveryuseful. TheDelegationenquiredif therewereanyactivities


in theproposedThematicProjectsthathad already beendoneby WIPO?And if therearewere,hadtheybeenindicatedin theproject document?

217. TheSecretariatrepliedthatspecifically thoseactivitieswerenot beingundertakenbytheOrganizationat themoment.However,in somecasesthroughtheactivit iesundertheprojects, links werebeing developedbetweenWIPO’s regular activi ties and theprojectactivities, andin manycases, theprojectsgaveaboostto other activitiesthatwereongoingwithin theOrganization. WhentheCDIP got intodiscussionon thoseproject documents,theproject managersandothercolleagueswouldcometo thepodiumto reply to theDelegation’squestions,andidentify theareaswherethereweremutual relationshipsbetweentheregularactivities andtheprojectbeingestablished.

218. TheChair invited thedelegationsto discussthenew methodologyin their respectiveregionalgroupssothattheCommitteecould agreeto work with thenewmethodologyandtheprojects. TheChairannouncedthatwhilst delegationsweremeeting in their regionalgroups,hehadarrangedto meetwith theNGOsand theIGOsfor them to haveanopportunitytoshareanyconcerns.MemberStatesnot having regional groupmeetingwerefreeandwelcometo join themeeting.

219. Resuming thesession, theChairnoted thatdelegationshadhad enoughtime to focusonthemethodologyanddiscusswithin their respective regionalgroups.TheChairhadhaddiscussions with theNGOsandthe IGOs,andwishedto givedelegationsa flavorof whathehad heardfrom them,but also wishedto geta flavorfrom theregionalcoordinators,astowhattheyhadheardfrom their respectivegroups.TheChair requestedthat only a few wordsto givewhatseemedto betheconsensuswithin thegroup,with regardto theuseof theproposed methodology, werenecessary.

220. TheDelegationof GermanystatedthatwhentheGroupB had proposed theAmbassadorof Barbadosto continueasChair of theCDIP, it had not beensolely amatterofdiplomaticcourtesy,but haddoneso to showsupportandappreciation for his ablestewardshipof theCommittee. TheGroupB hadlimiteditself to astatementon thefirst dayof theCommittee,which includedits view on theThematic Projects approach. TheDelegationalsoindicatedthatGroupB verystronglysupportedtheChair’s ruling thattheCommitteestartedwith substantivediscussionson thenewapproach. TheDelegationproceededto readout thestatementmadeon thefi rst day onbehalfof GroupB. It supportedmeasuresto accelerateandimprovetheimplementation of recommendationsadoptedbyMemberStatesin September2007,asWIPO’s Development Agenda.TheDelegationremindedtheCommitteethatthe45Recommendationshad beengroupedintoclusters,with aview to advancing thenegotiationprocess.Thatmethodologyhadbeenquite instrumentaltotheconsensusthathadeventuallyemerged.Partly dueto thatnegotiation technique,someoverlapsriskedto slowdown theprogressin theimplementation of theDevelopmentAgenda.TheDelegation, therefore,welcomedtheinitiative of theSecretariat to enhanceefficiencyandcoherenceby applyinga ThematicProjects approach,assuggestedin documentCDIP/3/4.TheDelegationsawmuchvaluein thatapproach andwishedto commend theSecretariat forits efforts. If properly applied,thesuggestedapproach would not adversely affectthesubstanceof anyof therecommendations. To thecontrary, theGroupexpected it to bebeneficial, becauseit would facilitatetheimplementation of theDevelopment Agendainpractical terms. TheDelegationindicatedthatit wasreadyto enterinto in-depthdiscussionson thefour AnnexesandtheAddendum.It expressedits assurancethat theMembersof


GroupB would work in aconstructivespirit in orderto advancetherecommendations’implementation in thebest possible way.

221. TheDelegationof theCzechRepublic spokeonbehalf of theEuropeanUnion (EU) andits 27Member Statesand,asin its openingstatement, expressed its appreciation on theproposal regarding thenewmethodology for theimplementation of theDevelopmentAgendarecommendations,which hadbeenpresented by theSecretariat. TheEU anditsMemberStateswereconvincedthatthenewThematic approachwould increasetheeffic iency,governanceandqualityof thework of theCommittee. It would, therefore,maketheimplementationprocess fasterandsmoother. TheEU and its MemberStateslookedforwardto entering into discussionsaboutthoseproposals,asit was convincedthattheCommitteewould reachpositiveresults.Moreover,it supportedtheChair’s approach to startthedebateonAgendaItem 7.

222. TheDelegationof CostaRica,speakingonbehalf of GRULAC, thanked theChair forhis chairmanship andstatedthattheGrouphadheld a regional meeting thatmorning. Themeetinghadbeenveryproductiveandmadeit possiblefor delegationsto exchangeinformation on their respectivepositions,anddiscussnationalpolicieson thework beingundertakenin theCommitteeandtheexpectationsthattheDelegationhadfor its continuation.TheDelegation referredparticularlyto four points onwhich theGrouphadaclearposition.The first wasto recognizeandacknowledgetheefforts madeby theSecretariat in preparinganew workingmechanismconcerningtheThematic Projects,whichwould bediscussedin theCommittee.Secondly,theGrouprecognizedtheimportanceof activeandconstructiveparticipation by Members in theprocess,andappreciated theproactive andpositiveroleof theSecretariat in promotingnegotiationsin theforum. Thirdly, for GRULAC, it wasessentialtoguaranteethatthefundamentalconditionsfor discussionof theThematic Projects includedthefive pointswhichhadbeenraisedin theopeningstatement,which it wanted to repeat(i) thattheSecretariatwouldpreparetheThematic Projectstaking into accountthecontentoftheoriginal recommendations. Thereshould beno reinterpretationof therecommendations;(ii) that thedevelopmentandimplementation of theprojects should bear in mindmodificationsthatweremadeby countriesin thecourseof themeeting; (ii i) onceaprojectwasconcluded,thatit did not necessarily meanthattheprocessof implementing therecommendationswasconcluded; (iv) if therecommendationwas not really compliedwith,thenadditional projectswouldbeundertaken to ensurethat it was; and(v) sufficientbudgetary fundsshouldbeprovided to guaranteethefull implementation of theThematicProjects. Lastly,GRULAC felt thatit shouldbenotedthat thecostof theprojectsshouldnot includetheparticipationof thestaffwhowere alreadyworking in theOrganization.Staff costs to beincludedshouldbethoseincurredby theuseof staff thatwerebrought onboardespeciallyfor projectimplementation in theform of additional consultants,thatis, additional to thepermanentstaff of WIPO.

223. TheDelegationof Serbiasupported theposition that thelist of the45Recommendationsremainintact, andthatthereshouldbenoprioritization amongtherecommendationsbecauseof thefact that theprocessof implementation of thoserecommendationshad movedforwardvery slowly. TheDelegationcommendedtheinitiative to introducethenewThematicapproach,which in its view would improvetheefficiencyandcoherencein implementingtherecommendationsof theDevelopmentAgenda. TheDelegation believed thatsuchanapproach wouldmaketheDevelopmentAgenda’s contextmorecoherent,transparentandeasier to understandandfollow. TheDelegation wasalsointerestedin hearing theviewsofother regionalgroups anddelegations on theproposal.


224. TheDelegationof SenegalthankedtheSecretariat for theconsiderableamountof workit hadput into preparingthedocumentsandin keepingdelegationsbriefed. Speakingonbehalf of theAfrican Group,theDelegationreiterated its initial position,during theopeningstatements,that theThematicapproachincludedpositive aspects andthegroupremained opento all proposals,thepurposeof whichwasto develop relevant andagreedprojectsandactivities thatwerelikely to enablethe rapidandeffective implementation of therecommendations.

225. TheDelegationof Sri LankarecalledthattheAsianGrouphadmentioned in thestatementon Mondaythatit welcomedthenewapproach proposed by theSecretariat thatidentifiedtherecommendationsin two broadgroupsas “principles” and“actionables”.Regardingtheactionablerecommendations,while appreciating theproposals, theGroupfeltthattheproposalscouldbefurtherimproved. In thatrespect, members of theAsianGroupwouldmakespecificsuggestionswith regard to theThematic Projects.

226. TheDelegationof Bangladesh reportedon theposition of theLDCs group. It explainedthattheLDC delegationshadtakennoteof thenew approachproposed by theSecretariat.TheyhadreceivedabriefingandhaddiscussedtheThematic Projectsapproachamongotherissues,andthedelegationssawpotentialmerit in such anapproach,asit couldacceleratetheimplementation of theDevelopmentAgenda.TheGroup,therefore,believedthattheCDIPshouldexploretheapproach.TheDelegation alsoindicatedthatanumberof delegationsintheGrouphadspecificquestionsandcomments on individual projects,and would betakingthefloor wheneachprojectwasdiscussedindividually.

227. TheChair explainedthatheheldaconsultation with theNGOsandIGOs,andhadnotproperly writtenout his viewsandunderstanding following themeeting, but woulddohis bestto broadlystatewhatheconsideredto betheviews expressedduring thatmeeting. Therewasno doubtin his mind thattheviewswerebroadlysupportiveof themethodology,ashehadnot heardasingleobjectionto themethodology.Hehadheardanumber of concerns,whichwere largelyassociatedwith theneedfor Member Statesto ensurethattheprojectswerenotseenas anendin themselves. Therewasconcern thattheprojectswith enddatescouldbeinterpretedandcould possibly leadto thecurtailmentof activit iesthatwere intendedto beon-goingasfar astherecommendationswereconcerned.Therewasconcern lookingat someof theproject proposalsthattheydid not alwaysproperlyreflect what wasconsideredto betheessenceof therecommendations,andthat someof theobjectivesdid not properlyreflecttheobjectivesof therecommendations.Therewas somebroad concernthat,in theprojects,developmentmaybetoo narrowlydefined,reflecting theeconomic development dimension,but not thebroaderconceptof development.Therehad alsobeensomediscussiononAgendaItem 8, but hewould referto thatunder thatAgendaItem. Thus,thefundamentalconcernswereessentially two. Thefirst wasthattheprojectsshouldnot beseen asendsinthemselvesandthecontinuationof activitieswould not beinhibitedbecausetherewasaproject with anenddate. Thesecondwasthattheobjectives,as embodiedin therecommendations,shouldnot belost in objectivesof theprojects. Therefore, theconnectionbetweentherecommendationsandtheobjectivesof theprojects neededto bemorecoherentand better linked. Thereseemedto be recognition thattheprojects,or at leastmostof theprojects, reflectedmoreof astarting point for theimplementationof theRecommendation.TheChair mentionedthatoneNGOarticulatedthat point well and theSecretariat staffwhowaswith him did respond.It wasrecognizedthata lot of theprojectsconcernstudiesandassessmentsand it wasclearlythestartingpoint andwerenot endsin themselves. TheChair


pointedout thatwhile thatwasnot a faithful reproduction of what hadbeensaidduringthemeeting,it wasprobably a reasonablereproduction. Therewas, therefore,abroadacceptancethattheThematic approachwasuseful,or could beusefulto avoidduplicationsandto bringthebenefitsthatwereoutlinedin thepresentation, but MemberStatesneeded to takecaretoensure thatthesupremacyof therecommendations remained, andanyinterpretationofimplementation wasbasedandcontinuedto bebasedon therecommendations.

228. TheDelegationof Nigeriastatedthat theprinciple of theThematic approachwasnot initself problematic, but it wasin thedetail that diffi cultiescouldoftenbefound. TheDelegationexplainedthatwhatpresentedadiffi culty was whatwouldbelost by clustering.In otherwords, how to ensurethatclusteringof recommendationswouldstill makeit possibleto address all therecommendationsin their entirety. In effect, it simply meant thatindiscussing thework planunderAgendaItem 7, theperspectiveof AgendaItem 8, monitoringmechanismsandcoordinationmodalities,would all haveto beconsidered. It wastheresultsof thediscussiononAgendaItem 8 thatwould giveguaranteesof acceptanceof whatwasdiscussedunderAgendaItem 7, becauseit wasthemonitoring that would inform aboutthelevelof progressoneachrecommendation,andthenthekindof follow-up mechanismthatwouldbeput in placeto address theshortcomingsof therecommendationsthatwouldbeclustered.TheDelegationalso explainedthat principleswereprinciples becausetheyweresomethingthatguidedtheOrganizationin its activi ties. But if adistinctionwasmadebetweenprinciples andaction-orientedrecommendations,thepoint would belost.Recommendationswere recommendations. They were related, theyoverlapped,andtherefore,could bebrought together.But therecouldbeissueswith categorizingrecommendationsasprinciplesbecausetheOrganization wassupposedto implementallrecommendations,including theprinciples. Theessenceof themandateof theCDIP wastoproducea work plan, to developmechanisms anddeal with anyissues relevant todevelopment.TheCommitteewascurrentlydealingwith thework plan, but before it couldbecompleted,thedevelopmentof mechanismshad to bedealt with.

229. TheDelegationof Egyptsupportedwhat hadbeensaidby theDelegation of Nigeria,thatthetreatment of the45Recommendationsshouldnot result in amendingtheintentionoftheMember Statesin instilling qualityamongall therecommendations. TheDelegationagreedthatsomerecommendationscarriedelementsof whatcouldbedescribed asprinciples,but delegationsshouldnot fall into the trap of not believingthattheyshould betreated,astheothers, in anaction-orientedmanner.According to theDelegation thoseparticularrecommendationswhich theSecretariathadoutlined,as possiblypresenting principles,werealsoaction-orientedandit wishedto seethem implementedin theproject-based approachwhetherat thatjunctureor in thefuture. If theywerelabeledasprinciples,it wouldbeveryeasyto forgetaboutthem. TheDelegationdid not wish for thatto happenandbelievedthatinorder to ensurethatit did not happen, theprinciples,while guidingtheoverall work, shouldalsobeof anaction-orientedprojectapproach.

230. TheDelegationof Pakistanstatedthatin its opinion, it wasa goodapproach to groupdifferent recommendationswhichwere relatedto eachother andaddressthem collectivelyand wasin favor of theapproach.With respectto thecontentof theprojectsor theactivitieswhich had beenincludedundertheprojects,thereweresomeconcerns,but it believedtherewasanopennessonbehalfof all theMemberStatesandtheSecretariat, that if therewereanygapsin someof theactivitieswhichhadbeenproposed,delegationscouldgive inputstoimprovethemto thesatisfactionof theMemberStates. Thelastpoint theDelegationwishedto makeconcernedtheprinciples. TheDelegation felt that theprincipleswerevery important,


not only for all theactivitiesundertakenby WIPO within thecontext of theDevelopmentAgenda,but alsoall theotheractivitieswhichwereundertaken by theother committeesofWIPO. TheDelegationthoughtthatthoseprinciplesshouldbea guiding light for all theworkundertakenby WIPO. TheDelegationconcluded by indicating thatit supportedin principletheapproachandfelt thatit wasa goodwayto move forward, on theunderstandingthattheCommitteecould improvetheactivitiesproposedunderthedifferent projects.

231. TheDelegationof Chinanotedthatthedocument assistedthedelegationsin havingabetter understandingof theproposedapproached,and it believedthattheapproachproposedby theSecretariatwasveryworkableanda goodbasis to advance thework of theCommittee.TheDelegation lookedfavorablyon thework which hadbeen donein preparing theprojectsand statedthatWIPOshouldprovidefull financial andhumanresources for theimplementation of thoseprojects. TheDelegation alsonotedthat theWIPOSecretariatshouldcontinueto proposeprojectssothatMemberStatescouldbenefit from theimplementation of theDevelopmentAgenda.

232. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica aligneditself with thestatementmadeby theDelegationof Senegalon behalfof the Afri canGroup. It believedthattheDevelopmentAgendaremainedcritical to balancethework of WIPO,to includeadevelopment dimensionand in thatregard,theDevelopment Agendahadbeenproposedto ensuretheeffectivemainstreamingof all theprinciplesandnormsof therecommendationsinto all theactivities.TheDelegationwelcomedtheproposal madeinitially by theDirectorGeneral to reportannually to theCDIP prior to theGeneralAssembly. Regarding theprogresson theimplementation of theDevelopmentAgenda,theDelegation emphasized theimportanceofestablishingamechanismon themodalities for monitoring,assessingandreportingon theimplementation, in addition to theDirectorGeneral’s proposal. Therefore,theDelegationwelcomedtheprogress thathadbeenmadeby WIPOon theDevelopmentAgendaandtoanswerthequestionthathadbeenraisedinitially, it supportedthebasisof theproposal,toaccelerate thework on therecommendationsproductively throughtheclustering ofrecommendationsfor implementations.However, asotherdelegationshadalsomentioned,theDelegationwasalsoof theview thattheessenceof each recommendation neededto beretained whenlooking anddiscussingat theapproachto ensurethatimplementationwascompleteandcomprehensive.TheDelegationhad specific concernsandclarificationsregarding theapproachwhich it would raisein thecourseof thediscussions.

233. TheDelegationof India joinedothersin expressingits appreciation for theconsiderableefforts madeby theSecretariatandits initiative in proposinganew approach to ensureaspeedierand moreeffectiveimplementationof theDevelopmentAgenda. It wasindeedalaudableobjective andtheDelegationfully supportedandexpressed its whole-heartedappreciation. It welcomedthemoreefficientimplementation tool proposedwhichwastheproject-basedapproach. It agreedthatthat methodologyprovided moreinformationonactivities, it hadspecifictime framesandwell-defined objectives. It waseasier to monitorand evaluateand,on thewhole,it wasamoreefficient administrative and managerialtool forimplementing therecommendations.However, theDelegation emphasized thattheCommitteemustremainconsciousof thefact that it wasa tool andnot thegoal. Thedesiredgoal wasin thesumandsubstanceof eachrecommendation whichhadbeenarrivedatfollowing painstakingnegotiations, andthereal goalwoulddependonwhat each countryperceivedwastheobjectiveof eachrecommendation. In theDelegation’s view, it wasveryimportantto hearhoweachdelegationperceivedtheobjective of acertain recommendation,because therecould bevarying interpretationsand asin thepast, whathadbeen donewas to


listento whateachcountrywantedor expectedfrom each recommendation. Thoseperceptions hadbeendistilledandhadevolvedinto work programs thatreflectedthesumandsubstanceof thosediscussions.In theview of theDelegation, thatshould bethekernelof theapproach thattheCommitteewouldadopt. Oncetherewasagreementonwhatdelegationswantedfrom each recommendation,thenimplementationcouldbegin througheffectivemechanisms,whetherthroughaprojector awork program, wasreally asecondaryissue. IntheDelegation’sview, it wouldbea goodideaif all delegationscouldfocusoneachindividual recommendation,andseewhatdelegationswanted asastartingpoint fordiscussions on thenewrecommendations.TheDelegation alsowishedto commenton theclassification madeby theSecretariatinto two categories,principlesandactionables.Itwonderedif it impliedthattheprincipleswerenot actionables. TheDelegation felt thatperhapsabetter classification couldbefoundthatdid not imply that, becauseprobablyalldelegationsagreedthattheprinciplesweretheheart of theDevelopmentAgendaandneededto be implemented,acteduponandmainstreamedinto theOrganization.

234. TheDelegationof thePhilippinescommendedthemembersof theSecretariatwho,withgreat diligenceandthoughtfulness, hadpreparedthedocumentsfor thesession.TheDelegationhadstudiedthedocumentCDIP /3 /4, onThematic Projects and couldnot help,but beimpressedwith thestrategicandpragmatic approachit proposed in implementingthemulti-facetedandmulti-layereddemandsof mainstreaming developmentinto theIP system.Fromaninter-disciplinary perspective,thethemescaptured thelong-standingaswell astheemergingissuesin thefield of IP thatcut acrossvariousdisciplines,andhow interfacingimpacted ondevelopment.TheyalsoembodiedtherecommendationsadoptedundertheDevelopmentAgenda.TheDelegationbelieved thatthethemesweresufficient, but couldbefurtherimprovedor refinedastheneedarose.Froman organizationalandmanagementperspective, conceptually,organizingproduct servicesor interventionsinto amatrix formwheredifferentprojectsandactivities wereconverged, to accomplishamissionunderonetheme,wasabold initiative that,if executed well, wouldsucceed. Froma policy-makerandpolicy-implementerpoint of view, theThematic approach was elegantin its simplicity. It wasaconceptually operationaltool thathadprovedusefulto somenational IP officeslike thatoftheDelegation’s.Accordingto theDelegation,theThematic approach wassmart, hadastrategyandaccountability,wastime-boundandincludedmonitoringandreview. Thereweretwo basicconcernsthattheDelegationwishedto raise. Firstly, afterhearingsomeof theexpertsthepreviousdayon thehumanresourcesat theirdisposal, it wonderedwhethertheapproach wouldnot requireadditionalpersonnel, particularly experts,in addition to thepresentpersonnel at WIPO. TheDelegationunderstoodthattherewasaneed to domorewithless,but for theenormoustasksaheadandfor such animportantundertaking, it wasimportantto be realistic. Secondly,in bureaucraciesthathadadoptedamatrix organization with projectmanagershelddirectlyaccountable,thosein positionsin thetraditional structurewereoftenadverselyaffectedby thenewset-up. Assuming theThematic approach wasadopted,theDelegationaskedhow thatwould impacttheexistingstructureof WIPO. Thoseweregeneralcommentson theproposalbeforetheCommittee. TheDelegation indicatedthat it mayhavemorespecific commentson thethemeschosen or items under each projectproposallateron.TheDelegation fully supportedtheThematic approachpresentedto theCommittee,which itstated, if adopted,would beamilestonein theimplementation of theDevelopmentAgendainWIPO.

235. TheDelegationof Tunisia supportedthestatementmadeby theAfrican Groupthathadpointedout thatthenewmethodologywas acceptable to theextent that it allowedtheCommitteeto avoid duplication. TheDelegationalsopointedout thatif delegations


comparedthetwo methodologies, they were in fact identical. Theonly differencewasthatthenewmethodologyavoidedredundancy.If thecurrentapproachwaskept, repetitionswithactivities maynot beavoided.TheDelegation wishedto point out thattherewasaneedtomakeadistinction betweenagreeingon amethodologyandagreeingonproposedactivities.It alsoreiteratedthatthenewapproachwasacceptable to theextentthatcertain concerns,asexpressedin previous statementsandby otherdelegations,wouldbeincludedandmainstreamedinto thecornerstoneof the reportand theprojects. For example, theoptionofrevisiting therecommendationswasimportant, asalsotheoptionof keepingthespirit of eachrecommendationafterit hadbeenclustered.TheDelegation alsopointedout thattheprojects,actionplans,andactivitiesshouldbepresentedby theMemberStates,with theSecretariatandtheChair. It remindeddelegationsthat duringthelastsessionof theGeneral Assembly, it hadbeendecidedthatthe threestakeholders, thatis, MemberStates,theChair andtheSecretariat,wouldprepareaninitial work planfor thenextCDIP session.TheDelegation thought thesameprocedureshouldberepeatedfor thenext recommendations.

236. TheDelegationof Moroccostatedthattheproposed approachwasa goodoneandthatits implementationshouldbecarriedout assoonas possible, andtheCommitteeshouldnotspend toomuchtimeonprocedureandstepsto betakenfor implementation. It statedthatenoughtimehadbeenspenton its developmentit wastime to moveforward faster,whichdidnot meannot doingthingsproperly. In otherwords,each recommendationhad to berespectedin its integrity andits entirety. TheDelegation recalled thecommitmentmadebytheDirectorGeneralandthechairpersonconcerning theimplementationof theDevelopmentAgenda.TheDelegationfully supportedthenew approach,whileemphasizing thatthemonitoring andevaluationprocessremainedMemberStatedriven. TheDelegationsupportedthestatement madeby theDelegationof TunisiathattheCommitteemusthavethepossibilityof goingbackto projectswhenshortcomingswerenoticed, sothattheycouldbeconstantlyimprovedand reconsidered,with specialconsiderationsof eachMemberState. It pointedoutthatnot all countrieshadthesamelevel of developmentandeach countryhadspecificneeds,and theproposedprojectsweresimply toolboxes. It wasup to eachcountryto havetheliberty to choosetheprojectsthatwerebest suitedto them.

237. TheDelegationof Brazil recognizedtheefforts carriedout by theSecretariatinpreparingandpresentingtheproposednewmethodology. It regardedtheefforts by theSecretariat asademonstrationof theInternationalBureau’scommitment to theeffectiveimplementation of theDevelopmentAgenda.TheDelegation associateditselfwith theinterventionmadeby theDelegationof CostaRicaonbehalf of GRULAC, andrequestedthatthefive conditionspointedout by theDelegation of CostaRica,bereflectedin theChair’sSummary. It statedthatany methodof work that theCommitteeadoptedor maintainedmusttakeinto accountthattheDevelopmentAgendais aMember-drivenprocess. TheMember-drivenaspectwasa fundamentalprincipleof theDevelopmentAgenda,which theDelegationtreasured,andto which it attached theutmostimportance. Bearingthatin mind,theDelegationbelievedthattheCommitteehadfollowedawork paththatwasinclusive,legitimate,andwith which theCommitteewasfamili ar. Furthermore,thecurrent workmethodof theCDIP,allowedMemberStatesto thoroughlydiscussthecross-cuttingandmulti-thematic aspectsof eachoneof the45agreed Recommendations,aswell asto identify,under each recommendation,therelevantimplementationactivit ies. It statedthatthecurrentwork methodhadits shortcomings. It was indeedaslowerwayof makingprogress,but it hada fundamental advantage,whichwasthatmembers of theCommitteewereallowedto discussin a thoroughmanner, the full contentof each recommendation. Thecurrentwork methodensuredMemberStates’leadership in theimplementation of theDevelopmentAgenda. It


seemedto theDelegationthatif thenewapproach was tried,delegationswould haveto agreeon conditionsor guidelinesto pursuethework in thenewframework, and ensurethattheimplementation of theDevelopmentAgendaremained aMember-drivenprocess. TheCommitteeneededto agreeonconditionsor guidelinesthat wouldaddressthevariousconcernsexpressedby MemberStatesin theconsultations,regarding theproject approach.All aspectsof eachandeveryrecommendationneeded to bediscussedandwouldbeimplemented. No aspectshouldbeoverlooked. Multi-thematic recommendationscouldandshouldbepartof more thanoneproject. Anotherimportant condition or guaranteewasthatrecommendationsmustalwaysbediscussed prior to theprojects. TheDelegationpointedoutthatdiscussing theprojectsbeforediscussing therecommendationsthemselves seemedtoinvert thenatural orderof things. TheCommitteehadalready discussedandagreedonactivities for recommendations2, 5, 8, 9 and10. TheDelegation did not, therefore,seeanyproblem in discussing thenineprojectspresentedby theSecretariat for thosefiverecommendationsbecausetheSecretariathad basedthenineprojectson theactivitiesidentifiedby theCommittee.Nevertheless,for thenewrecommendations,thatis, forrecommendationsnot alreadydiscussedby theCDIP, thenecessaryguarantees shouldbeinplaceto ensurethattheCommitteewouldhave theopportunity to thoroughlydiscusstherecommendations,identify theactivitiesanddiscusstheprojects.

238. TheDelegationof Indonesiaalsoexpressedits appreciation to theSecretariat for theinitiative takenin preparingtheThematicProjects. TheDelegation notedthatfurtherclarification from theSecretariatwasrequiredon themethodologyto beapplied. During thepresentationof theSecretariat,delegationsheardthat therewereanumberof advantagestotheproposedapproach.Oneof themwasthattheproposedapproachwould lead to a fasterand morecoordinatedprogressin theimplementation of recommendations,but theDelegationaskedif theSecretariatcouldfurtherexplain whattimeframe it consideredappropriatefor theproposed approach. It hadbeenmentionedthatwith thecurrent methodology,implementation couldtakeapproximatelyfour years,but it was unclearhow long thenewapproach would take. It hadbeenexplainedthatthroughtheproposed Thematic Projects,13 Recommendationswouldbegroupedinto five Thematic Projects, andthatfurtherprojects,to bepresentedat thefourthsessionof theCDIP,wouldbring togethertheremainingrecommendations. TheDelegation,therefore,consideredthatdiscussionon theremainingrecommendationscouldbecompletedin two sessionsof theCDIP,which wouldbea greatachievement. However, theDelegationstressedtheimportanceof underlining, in accordancewith statements madeby thedelegationsof South Africa andIndia, thattheessenceof eachrecommendationshouldnot belost. It pointedout thatalthoughsomeof therecommendationscouldbeclusteredinto oneor two Thematic Projects,a thorough look at therecommendationsrevealedthatthereweredifferencesbetweenrecommendations,andissuesthatmaynot befully addressedin asingleproject. TheDelegation indicatedthatit wouldrevert to thatsubjectwhentheThematicProjectscameup for discussion.

239. TheDelegationof Argentinaexpressedits supportfor thestatementmadeby theGRULAC Coordinatorthattheprojectsapproach neededto beimplementedon thebasis offiveconditions. It statedthatfirstly, in preparingtheThematic Projects, theSecretariat shouldmaintain thecontent andlayoutof theoriginal recommendationsadopted by theCommittee.In otherwords,thereshouldbeno re-interpretation of therecommendations. Secondly,thedevelopmentandimplementationof theprojects relating to therecommendationsshouldincludemodificationsrequestedby Membersin thecourseof theCommitteesessions.Thirdly, thefact thataprojectcomesto anend,did not necessarilymean thattherecommendation’s implementationwasalsoconcluded. Fourthly, if theproject only


implementedapartof a recommendation,thenadditionalprojects or activi ties wouldbedrawnup,soasto implementtherecommendation concernedin its entirety. Lastly, sufficientbudgetary fundsshouldbeprovidedto guaranteetheimplementationof theThematicProjects,aswasindicatedby theDelegation of Brazil, theDelegation requestedthatsuchconditionsbeincludedin theChair’sSummary. Furthermore, theDelegation requestedthatthecostof theprojectsshouldnot reflect existing staff costs,but only additionalstaff costs.In conclusion,theDelegationof Argentinanotedthatthe45Recommendationshadbeenadoptedby theGeneralAssemblyand,therefore,all 45shouldbeimplementedthroughactions.

240. TheDelegationof theRepublicof Koreastatedthat it hadwaitedfor a long time todiscussthesubstantiveissuesrelatingto theimplementation of theprojects. It seemedthatmanyMember Stateswantedto implementtherecommendationsas soonaspossible,andalsoensure thateverysingleelementwasincluded in thoserecommendations. TheDelegationremindedotherdelegationsof theWIPOprocedure,andthatit waseffectively thelastsessionof theCDIP prior to theProgramandBudget Committee,in which thebudgetfor theimplementation of theprojectsshouldbeapproved.Therefore,theDelegation suggestedthattheCommitteediscusstheproposedprojects,and if therewereany MemberStateswhodidnot want to loseasingleelementin theimplementationof thoserecommendations,theyshouldcomeupwith suggestionsandproposalsonhowto implement andincorporatethoseideasinto theimplementationprojects.TheDelegationwarnedthatif the Committeedid notget into thesubstantivediscussionsof thesuggestedprojects, theremaybenoprojectsimplementedfor thefollowing two years. It noted theimportanceof discussing theprojectsas soon aspossible, in orderto moveforward.

241. TheChair declaredthathehadnot heardanything that implied thatthemethodologycould not work, andnotedthattheconcernswerefundamental concernsthatcouldeasily beresolved,andsuggestedthattheprinciplesonwhichMemberswerewill ing to moveforward,becapturedonasinglesheetof paper.As soonasthat wasdone,theChair statedthathewantedto meetwith theRegionalCoordinators,theCoordinator of the“Groupof FriendsofDevelopment”, andoneor two otherdelegationsthattheCoordinatorsmaywant to include,inorder to cometo anagreementon theway in which they wantedtheCommitteeto moveforward. He indicatedthatall of thesuggestionsmadecouldeasily beincorporatedinto theapproach,but wantedto makesurethathehadcapturedwhatthedelegationsconsideredto beimportant,andthemosteffectivewayto do thatwasto makeuseof theresourcesof theSecretariat, andsummarizethoseideason asinglesheet of paper. TheChair statedthattheSecretariat wouldneeda few momentsto put thenotestogetheron theprinciplesfor movingforward.

242. TheDelegationof Algeriasupportedthestatementmadeby Senegal onbehalfof theAfrican Group. It wastheDelegation’sopinionthatthenewapproachbased on theThematicProjects,wasperfectly valid andverypractical. However,sincetheChair hadtakentheinitiative to prepareaSummarythatreflectedthedebatewhichhadtakenplaceon thenewapproach, theDelegationwantedto emphasize that thebeneficiary countries of theprojectsand theprinciplesshouldtakeinto accounttheregionalbalance.

243. TheChair notedtheconcernof theDelegation of Algeria andsatedthat therewasabroader issueon which it wasimportantto reachagreementandthis was a concern thattheCommitteecould discussasit movedforward. TheChairthenrequestedtheSecretariat toreadout thesummaryof principlessothatit couldbeinterpretedinto theother languages.


244. TheSecretariatnotedthatthedocumentwasentitled “Conditionsfor ThematicProjectsApproach”. It readout thesummaryasfollows: “ (1) In preparing theThematic Projects,theSecretariat shouldmaintainthecontentsand formulation of theoriginal recommendationswhich wereadoptedby theGeneralAssembly. Theprojectsshould reflect thesharedinterpretationof MemberStates. (2) In thedevelopmentandimplementation of theprojectswhich addressthevariousrecommendations,anymodificationsmadeby MemberStatesduring thediscussionsshouldbeincludedandtheprocesswil l remainMember Statedriven.(3) Thefact thataprojectcomesto anendshouldnot necessarilymeanthattheimplementation of therelevantrecommendationsalsocomesto an end,andwill dependontheconsideration by MemberStates. (4) Wheretheprojects only implementpartof therecommendations(thatis theremainingpartis eitheraprinciple or implementedthroughregular activities), additionalprojectsor activitiesfor theimplementation of thoserecommendationswill beformulatedto implementthoserecommendationsin theirentirety.(5) Sufficient financial resourcesshouldbemadeavailable to guaranteefull implementationof ThematicProjects. Thecost of all humanresourcesfor implementing theprojectsshouldbe includedin theprojectbudgetandin order to maintain full transparency,internal andexternal costshouldbereflectedseparately. (6) Recognition thatin promoting theobjectivesof someprinciples,activitiesmayberequired. (7) Thereshould beflexibilit y to ensurethatMemberStatesmaygobackto reviewaprojectif it is felt thatit doesnot appropriatelyaddresstheconcernsbehindtheRecommendation. (8) Given themulti-thematic natureofsomerecommendations,individual recommendationsmay beincludedin morethanoneproject.”

245. TheDelegationof Indiastatedthatit had onecommentto makeon thefirst pointregarding thewordingof theparagraphwhich it stateddid not probablyreflect thecentralpoint madeby manydelegations,thatthediscussionson therecommendationsshouldbethebasisfor formulating theThematicProjects. TheDelegationsaid it had a revised text whichmaybettercapturewhattheMemberStateshadsaid, which readasfollows:“ Item 1. TheThematicProjectsshouldbepreparedto reflectthesharedinterpretation of therelevantrecommendationsby MemberStatesandimplementtheactivi ties agreeduponby themtorealizethespirit andobjectiveof eachrecommendation”.

246. TheDelegationof Brazil pointedout thatoneof theprinciplesthatshouldbereflectedwastheunderstanding thatfirst cametherecommendation, thentheproject. Thus,theCommitteeshouldbegiventheopportunity to discusstherecommendation first, to identifywhich activitiesshould beimplementedunderthat recommendation, and,basedon theoutcomeof thatdiscussion, theSecretariatwould developtheproject. In that regard,theDelegationagreedwith theformulationproposedby India andconsideredthat its formulationbe includedasanadditionalprinciple,i.e. principlenumber nine.

247. TheChair indicatedthatthesuggestion from theDelegation of India was a replacementfor thefirst itemratherthentheninth item. TheChairsoughtclarificationasto whetherthesuggestion by theDelegationof Brazil, to first discusstherecommendations,wouldbetheninth item on thesheet.

248. TheDelegationof Egyptsupportedthelanguageproposed by India. In addition,concerningparagraph6, it pointedout thatit wasnot clearwhatwere the“principles”referredto, as theCommitteehaddiscussedtherecommendationsandnodistinctionhadbeenmadebetweenprinciples andaction-orientedrecommendations. It stated thatthekey messagewas


thatall recommendationswereaction-oriented and hadthepotential of being includedin theprojects. Finally, theDelegationof Egyptsupported theDelegationof Algeria,on theneedtoemphasizethatin theprojectapproach,theoverall aim of sustainingabalancebetweenregionsshould betheguiding aim.

249. TheDelegationof Algeriasupportedthestatementmadeby theDelegation of Egyptand reiteratedtheneedto reflectin thenon-paper, theimportanceof havingabalancebetweenregionsandwithin regionsin projectimplementation. It stated thatthatguidingprincipleshouldbereflectedthroughouttheprojectapproachandin thenon-paper.

250. TheDelegationof Germanyenquiredabouttheword “modifications” in paragraph2,and wonderedwhatit meant,in thatcontext, asin its understanding,recommendationswouldnot bemodified. In thelatterpartof thesentencein paragraph3, theDelegationaskedwhetherit wasgrammaticallycorrectto saythat somethingwould dependon theconsiderationby MemberStates, andif it wascorrect, it askedwhatwould actuallydependontheconsideration by MemberStates. TheDelegation suggestedthat it might bemoreappropriateto replacethewords“will depend” with theword “depending”, soit would read“alsocomes to anend, dependingon theconsideration by MemberStates”. Onparagraph5,theDelegationenquiredaboutthemeaningof “i nternal” and “external” costs,andwishedtoadd to thatparagraph,anindicationthattheavailabili ty of thosefundswouldbesubjectto theapproval of theProgramandBudgetCommittee(PBC)andtheGeneralAssembly. Onparagraph6, it sharedthe commentmadeby theDelegationof Egypt,astheparagraphwasnot clear. On thelanguageprovidedearlierby theDelegation of India, theDelegationofGermany said thatit neededto seethestatementin writing beforeit could givesomeinitialthoughtson thesubject.

251. TheDelegationof Franceenquiredaboutparagraph4, andaskedtheSecretariat toexplain it, particularlywith respectto thepartof therecommendationsthatwouldnot beentirely implementedthroughoutaproject. Concerningparagraph6, theDelegationalsohadquestionsasto whatexactlyit meant. In its opinion, thatparagraphseemedredundantfollowing paragraph4, asparagraph4 alreadymentioned thatprincipleswould beimplementedthroughactivities.

252. TheDelegationof NigeriathankedtheSecretariat for capturingall thathadbeensaid.In thefirst place,theDelegationbelieved thatgoingby its thought process,thekind of thingsthathavebeen discussedwererecommendationsthatwouldbein clusters,andthenprojectsthatwouldbein clustersthatwouldbeusedto implementthoserecommends,andpossiblegapsin theimplementationwhethertherecould bemonitoringmechanismandthenfollow-upmodalities. TheDelegationsaid thatif it triedto situatethis in its thoughtprocessin thedocument thathasbeenprepared,it would takeit thenthat in paragraphone,theproposalmadeby theDelegationof Indiawouldbeveryvaluable. In thesecondonethattalkedaboutdevelopmentandimplementationof projects, theDelegation said that it would takeintoconsiderationwhathadalreadybeensaidby theDelegation of Brazil that is to theeffectthataproject should becounty-driven. In otherwords,even if theSecretariat madeproposalsonprojects, theyhaveto still tally with whatcountriesthemselvesregard as priorities. Thatmaybewhatwas missing. TheDelegationalsovoicedits agreementwith theamendmentsmadeand thereforewouldnot go into themin detail. On thefourthparagraph,which talkedabouttheremainingpart, therewasnoneedto go furtherin explaining it. Theimportantthingwasthatwhen parts of relevantrecommendationswerenot completed,additional projectswouldfollow up. Thatshouldexplainit without necessaril y giving further details. Additional


explanationswouldcreateanothermeaning. Then,also,theDelegationnotedthateffort wasmadeto addressreviewof gapandflexibility in projects,whilenotingalso thattherewouldbeaproblemin thatapproach.TheDelegationwas of theview that therewouldnot beanyneedfor paragraphsix sincetheprincipleswould generally guidetheimplementation.Therefore,therewould benoneedto betalkingaboutprinciples as partof therecommendations. Regardingparagraphssevenandeight, theDelegation was of theopinionthatbits of how to addressanygapsin the implementation arebeinglost. In otherwords,recommendationsthathavemadethatareclusters thathavebeen implementedbut for onereasonor anothersomeof themhavefailedshorthoware they to beknown? Thatis whydelegationshavekeptpointingout thattherewasneed for monitoringandassessmentmechanisms.And then,anotherquestion theDelegationaskedwas;what shouldbedoneifgapswere found? It suggestedthatthefollow-up modality is whathasbeen missingthere.TheDelegation referredto aproposal thathad beenmadeearlierby Algeriaandsupportedbysomeotherswould beput into consideration. It believed thateventhoughtheproposalswereto becountrydriventhereshouldbea fair balancewithin theregionsfor projects beingidentifiedand implemented.

253. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americastatedthat it wouldprefer to defer andlistento someof theotherinterventionsandthereafter take thefloor.

254. TheDelegationof Italy thankedtheChairandstatedthat,like theUnitedStatesofAmerica, it would reserve theright to makesomeinterventionson theissuelater in theprocessof thedebate.However,it wanted to makeanintervention on two main points.The first point referredto theproposalpreviouslymadeby theDelegation of India.TheDelegationof Italy thoughtthatin orderto continuethedebateon that point,which itviewedasquiteimportant,therewasaneedfor a writtenproposalof amendmentandcomments. TheDelegationrecognizedthattheintervention of India wassupportedby someother delegationsandrequestedthosedelegationsto explain theirpreoccupations,if theirconcernshadnot beencapturedin paragraph7. Thesecondpoint concernedparagraph5,in which it sharedthepoint of view expressedby theDelegation of Germany, andstressedtheimportanceof usingevery resourcefor theimplementation of therecommendation withinexisting limi ts andsubjectto approvalby theProgramandBudget Committee (PBC)andtheGeneralAssembly.

255. TheDelegationof Germany reiteratedwhat it hadstatedearlier in its national capacity.It notedthat someof theviewsandopinionsexpressedby theGroupB resultedfromdiscussions held duringthecoordinationmeetingprior to thesession. TheGrouphadaveryquick reasoning asto why apaperwasnecessary, asdelegationswerenot awareof anykindof proceduralrequirementswhentacklingtheThematic Projects,but wereof theopinionthattheywould immediately start with thesubstantivework on thefive projectsbefore theCommittee.However,sinceapaperwason thetable, theDelegation would beinterestedtoknowtheviews of otherMemberStatesonwhatwouldbethenatureof thatpaper.Shoulditbeconsideredas aCDIP workingdocument? TheDelegation statedthatit wouldbegratefulif theChaircouldenlightenthemon thestatusof thepaperunderconsideration, andwhattheCommitteewasactually askedto consider. It suggestedthat thereshould not beamentionoftheThematicProjectsapproachbut rather,that theelements outlined in thedocumentshouldserveto guidethework of theCDIP, whenit dealtwith Thematic Projects. TheDelegationbelievedthatthatwould answerthequestiononwhetherthepaperwould beaCDIP guidancepaper. TheDelegationreferredto thefirst paragraph,andnotedthatthere wasaneedtoidentify whichparagraphwasbeing referredto, as had beenindicatedby theDelegationof


Italy, or by thesuggestionfrom theSecretariat, andincludinganalternativesuggestionfromtheDelegationof India. It wouldbenecessary to identify theparagraphthatneededto beconsidered.TheDelegationnotedthework doneon theoriginal paragraph,thattherewasaquestionabout thesecond sentencethat statedthat theprojectreflectedthesharedinterpretationof MemberStates, but wantedclarification onwhatwasexactly meantby“sharedinterpretation”? Did it meananeedfor unanimity or wasit themajority line ofthinking? TheDelegationwasof theview thatit shouldbeclarified. Onparagraph2, thequestionremainedonwhatwasmeantby modifications,sinceit wasthoughtthatthemeetingdid not endeavorto modify therecommendations. TheDelegationsaid it hadraisedtheissueearlier concerningparagraph3, andat the endof thesentence, it should readasfollows:“dependingupon” andnot “will dependupon”. TheDelegationsuggestedtacklingparagraph4 andparagraph6 together,becausetherewas acertain overlap. It suggestedreplacingparagraph4 or 6 with thetext that wasactuall y based uponparagraph6. Thesuggestion wouldbeto deleteparagraph4 andrephraseparagraph6, in thefollowing manner:“ recognitionthatadditional activitiesmayberequiredto implement thecontents andformulation of all theagreedrecommendations”. TheDelegation repeated thatthis wouldbeanewparagraph6, but took into consideration thatparagraph4, wouldbedeletedandprobably thenumbering wouldneedto bechanged accordingly,howeverthetext would read:“Recognitionthatadditional activitiesmayberequiredto implement thecontentsandformulation of all agreedrecommendations”. TheDelegationwasof theopinion thatthenewparagraph6 would actuallycapturethemeaningof previousparagraphs4 and6. Forparagraph5, theDelegationstatedthatit had already indicated theneed to reconsidertheformulation to enable it to capturetheideathatit wassomething thattheCDIP hadalreadyagreedupon, namely, thattheresourceimplicationsthat theCDIP mayor maynot identifyduring thecourseof thedeliberations,wereof coursesubjectto theapprovalof thePBCandtheGeneral Assembly. TheDelegationalsonotedthatit hadindicatedthat theideawouldbeto replacethe first sentenceof paragraph5 with thefollowing sentence: “ Implementationcostsshouldonly draw fundsfrom theexistingfinancial resources,subject to thepreviewandapprovalof thePBC andtheGeneralAssembly”. Thentheparagraph would continueasoriginally proposed,but thequestion would stil l remain, asalsoraisedduring theGroupBcoordinationmeeting, asto whatwasmeantin thesecondparagraphby “i nternalandexternalcosts” sincetheChairhadhadaquickexchangeof viewswith theDelegation informallypriorto that Session.TheDelegationexpressedconfidencethattheChair wouldenlightenthemeetingon thatmatter. Turningto paragraph7, theDelegation thoughtthattheissuewouldbediscussed underAgendaItem 8, andnot underparagraph8, becauseit toucheduponproceduralissues. Therefore,it wouldbepreferable to discussandleaveit out of thatparagraph,asindicatedby theDelegation of Italy. It notedthattherecould alsobesomeoverlapbetweenparagraph1 andparagraph7. TheDelegationpointedout thatthosecommentsweresomewhattheoverallview of GroupB.

256. TheDelegationof SenegalthankedtheChair andnotedthat thework of theSecretariatto find aconsensusshouldbeupheld. It statedthatthemeeting wason theright pathandwasheadingtowardsthegoalthateveryonesought.A proposalwason thetablethatwasbeingenriched by inputs from thevariousdelegationsandfrom thatperspective, it would beasuccess.TheDelegationemphasizedthehopefor development in theframework of theimplementation of theDevelopmentAgendathat shouldbebalanced, inclusiveandsustainable, in orderto respecttheprincipleof balancein thedistributionof projectsbetweentheregionsandwithin thegivenregions,which wouldguaranteea fairnessandeffectivenessin theexecution of work. TheDelegationconcludedwith its supportfor Algeria with regard


to the inclusionof thatprincipleof balancein thelist of principles thatwouldbeadoptedregardingprojects.

257. TheDelegationof Canadafully aligneditself with thestatementmadeby theDelegationof Germany onbehalfof GroupB. TheDelegation wishedto repeatverybriefly,someof thepoints thatit consideredasvery important,andto clarify theintentof thatdocument on its statusor nature. It alsostronglysupportedthesuggestedchangeson thetitleof thedocument,which would read“guidance” ratherthan “conditionsfor”. In thefirstparagraph,theDelegation suggestedthedeletion of theword “original” in thesecondline. Itbelievedthattherewasa set of recommendationsthathad beenagreedupon,anddid not thinkthosewouldbechanged,whereby theword “original” could give thatimpression. It alsoagreedwith thecommentsmadeon thesecondandthird paragraph.It furthersupportedthedeletionof paragraph4, andthenewtext that was put forward for paragraph6. Similarly, itsupportedthenewlanguageof thefirst sentencefor paragraph5. With regardto theparagraph7, theDelegationalsobelievedthatthis itemcould bediscussed undertheAgendaItem8, andrequestedmoreclarificationin termsof whatwasmeantby “not appropriate…”in that paragraphon thesecondline. It alsoaskedwhatthecriteria wouldbeto assessit andifit meant thataconsensuswouldbere-opened?

258. TheDelegationof theCzechRepublic stated thatit supported changingtheheading forGuidelinesfor theThematicProjectsapproach, andalsothoughtthepaperunderdiscussionwasnot necessary. TheDelegationwaspreparedto discussit if therewasawish for such adiscussion andthework of theChairandtheCDIP. As far aspoint 4, theDelegationwasoftheopinion thatit wasnot very clearandthattheformulationwastoocomplicated. Itunderstoodtheidea,but pointedto thesecondpartof theparagraphwhich neededto bereformulated,andproposedto change“therecommendationswill beformulated” to “projectsmaybe formulatedto implementtheserecommendations”. TheDelegationwaspreparedtodiscussand considertheproposal of GroupB, but needed sometimefor anexchangeofopinion andto comebackto it later. As for point 5, theDelegation thoughtthat it wasnotvery clear onsomeformulationson theexternalandinternalcosts which should bebetterexplained, andnotedthatit might not betheproperlanguageusedin this case.It urgedcautionwhenreferring to budgetaryquestions. TheDelegation notedthatparagraph7 couldsomehowbecapturedby anewformulationof apoint madeearlier. TheDelegationaddedthattheproposalmadeby theDelegationof India wassomehowcoveredandcapturedinpoint 7, whichwasin theoriginal paper.TheDelegation saidit would comebackto thatpaperin thenextdiscussion,if therewasmoreinformation from othercountries.

259. TheDelegationof Tunisia observedthat themeeting seemedto bedriftingawayfromtheinitial purposeof theexercise,notingthatthosepointswereaimed at identifying theguaranteesthatwerenecessary for accepting thenewapproach. In its view, paragraph5and 6 werevalid, whetherbasedupontheold or newapproach.Paragraph5 stressedtheneedfor funding. Therefore,thetitle wasvalid whether it wasused in thecontext of thenewapproachor theold approach. Accordingly,theDelegation suggestedits deletion becausewhatwasneededwereguaranteeson theacceptanceof theThematic Projects.

260. TheDelegationof Burundisupported theproposalput forward by Algeria thatthereshouldbeabalancein fundingandtheprojectsthat wereimplementedin theregions,andalsowithin theregions.


261. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica stated thatsomegoodcommentshadbeen made. TheDelegationsupportedthecommentsmadeby India,whichcould also serve asabasisformodifying thefirst paragraph.Themost important point thathad beenraisedby othercolleagueswasonparagraph6. TheDelegationagreed with thepoint raised by theDelegationof Egypt andtheDelegationof Nigeria, in termsof theprinciples. In thatregard,it believedthattheDelegationof Egypt would alsoprovidespecific languageon thatsubject,so it wouldappreciatethatbeingmadeavailable. Thesecondpoint wasof courseto supporttheDelegationof Algeria, in ensuring abalancedgeographical andregionalapproach,andrequestedseeingsomethingin writing in thatregard. Finally, it notedthatthereweresomeminor detailsregardinglanguageclarity, whichhadbeenraisedby theDelegation of theCzechRepublic, for instancein paragraph5, in termsof thecostof internal andexternalpersonnel.TheDelegationsuggestedthatperhapstheSecretariat could rephrasetheparagraph.

262. TheDelegationof Angolaindicatedthatit hadtwo comments to make. Thefirstcomment wasonparagraph3. It suggesteddeleting theword “necessary”to readasfollows:“The fact that theprojectcomesto anendshould not mean…”deleting “thenecessary”.Thesecondcommentwason paragraph5. It suggestedthattheSecretariat maintain thelanguageand that “f inancial andhumanresourceswouldbemadeavailablein orderto guaranteethefull andeffective implementationof theThematic Project”. TheDelegation alsosuggestedthatin casetheSecretariatwantedto leavetheproposalmadeby theDelegationof Germany,it couldalsosaythat“the implementationcostshould bediscussed at thePBCor GeneralAssembly”.

263. TheDelegationof Egyptstatedthatit hadfivepoints to make. Thefirst pertainedto thenatureof thedocument. Earlierin thediscussions,thegeneral drift of theconclusionswerethatthenewmethodologywasuseful. However,it would besubject to particular refinements.Therefore,it suggestedlookingat thatdocumentas therefinementsas theChairhadsuggested. Basedon therecommendationof GRULAC, which wasa goodproposal,thedocument beappendedto theChair’sSummary. Thesecondpoint concernedthefirstparagraph. As indicatedearlierin its first intervention, it believedthat bothelaborationsbythedelegationsof India andBrazil, wereconstructiveandclarifiedastarting point for theproposed methodology. As such,it thoughtthattheDelegation of Brazil wouldbereadingout languagethathadthefull supportof theDelegationof Egypt. On theissueraisedby theDelegationof Germany on issues4 and5, particularly onparagraph6, theDelegationagreedthatthelanguagewasvague. However, theDelegationdid not really believe thatit wouldentail amajorchangein thestructureof thepaper,by deleting paragraph4 and6. It hadindicated thatit would preparethesuggestedlanguagefor paragraph6 and,if theChairallowed,would readit. It would readasfollows: “Recognitionof theequal treatmentsto beaccorded to all 45Recommendationsand thateachandeveryrecommendation is actionable”.TheDelegationnotedthatin orderto addresstheconcernsthatwereraisedby otherMemberStateswith regardto paragraph4, it should let theCommitteedeletethereferenceswithin brackets,sothatparagraph4 would read: “whereprojectsonly implementpartof therelevantrecommendations, additionalprojects or activi ties and…”. Thethird point relatedtoparagraph5. TheDelegationthoughtthat this wasanissuethat wasconsidered in theveryfirst Committeeit attendedat WIPO, undertheChair’spresidency lastJuly,whentheissueoffunding for theimplementationof therecommendationswasdiscussed,at thesecondsessionof CDIP. TheDelegationnotedthattherewasaconsiderablediscussionon thatissue,andonegoodthing aboutthefact thatprogresswasmadein thefirst sessionof CDIP,wasduetothefact thatperhapstherealready existeda languagethat hadaconsensus.Therefore,it


suggestedtheparticularlanguagefrom theChair’sSummary from thesecondsessionof theCDIP,with regardto thefundingof activities,shouldbeused,as guidanceon theroleof thePBC andthefundingof activities. TheDelegation notedthatif thatlanguagewastakenverbatim, then therewasnoneedto engagein furtherdiscussionson thatsubject because thelanguageobviouslyhadconsensus. Thefifth point was in relation to asuggestion madebytheDelegationof Senegalonbehalfof theAfricanGroupandoriginally raised by theDelegationof Algeria,on theneedto ensureabalance, whichwasimportant considerationthatshouldfind aplace,notingthatit would proposethatlanguage.

264. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americanoted that, asit wastaking thefloor forthefirst time, it woulddosoonamatterof substance.TheDelegationthoughtit wouldanswerthequestionthatmight beon theChair’smindor themindsof other delegates.Wheredid theUnitedStatesof Americastandon theThematic Project approach? Theanswerto thatquestionwasthattheUnitedStatesof America full y supported thatapproach. Therewerethreereasonswhy it supportedtheapproach. TheUnitedStates of AmericabelievedthattheThematicapproachwould increasetheefficiencyof theCommittee’suseof time,andpermitan acceleratedconsiderationof all recommendations. Secondly,aThematic approachwouldleadto asustainedanddeeperdiscussionof proposedactivit ies. As noted before,CDIPshouldassumethe roleasadeliberativeconfident Committeecarefullyanalyzing andevaluatingproposedactivities. Thirdly, at a time of constrainedresources,aThematicapproach wouldalsohelpto avoidredundantor duplicative programexpenditures. Againstthatbackdrop,theDelegationexpressedsurpriseanda li ttledisappointmentthatbymid-week,theCommitteeagainfounditself discussingsomewhatlessconfidently,adocument thatmight not evenbenecessary.Thatsaid, if that document provedto benecessary,theDelegationfully supportedthestatementof GroupB, on thewayto enhanceitand makeit moreprecise.It alsoinvitedparticular consideration to paragraph6, whichdealtwith thefundamentalissueonhowto proceed. In its understanding,basedon thefirst twosessions,themandateof theCommitteewasto implement the45Recommendations. Thiswasto bedonethroughproposedactivitiesthatwerecarefully deliberatedupon. TheDelegationthought thatagainst thatbackdrop,theamendedlanguageproposedby GroupBcaptured thefundamentalway in which theCommitteeneededto proceed.

265. TheDelegationof Brazil notedthatthefi rst point it wanted to makewas regarding thequestionsraisedby someMembersStatesasto therelevanceof theexercise,andthenitwouldcomebackto theinterventionby theDelegation of Tunisia,which madeaveryclearpoint thatthedocumentwasindeedrelevantfor manyMemberStates,asit wouldprovidethemwith thenecessary assurancesthatwhentheCDIP decidedto movefrom theoldapproach into thenewapproach,it wouldbetakingthebestof theold approach into thenewapproach. For theDelegationof Brazil, thebestof theold approachwasreally thepossibilitythatMemberStates hadto fairly discuss each recommendation. In that sense,it suggestedthatsomelanguagechangesbemade. It had already providedtheChairwith thetext,butwould readit for thebenefit of otherdelegations,whichcould beincorporatedinto thefirstparagraphandread: “The implementationof theDevelopment Agendarecommendationsshall bebasedona thoroughexamination by theCommitteeof eachrecommendationandtheidentificationof appropriateactivitiesto beundertaken. Basedon these, suitableThematicProjects could beagreeduponby Member States,whichcould includetheimplementationofmorethanonerecommendation”.TheDelegation viewed this paragraphasreally necessarybecause throughit theCommitteewould insurethattheprocesswould remainMember-driven. Thatwasbasically themainconcernof Brazil. It observedthatmanydelegationswereanxiousaboutmoving on to discussthesubstanceof theprojects. For those


delegations,it suggestedthatthatanxiety could beeasily resolvedwhenthenineprojectsthathad already beenpreparedandpresentedby theSecretariat on recommendations5, 8, 9 and10, wereconsidered. TheDelegationexpressedits readinessto discussthosenineprojectsand evensupportedthemastheyweredevelopedon thebasis of activitiespointedout by theMemberStates. Thatwasbasically thepart thattheDelegation wantedto ensure. Firstly, fortheCommitteeto discuss therecommendationsand thenfor theSecretariat to moveforwardand preparetheprojects. Referring to a remark madeby theDelegationof Germany,whostated thatit wasimportantto ensurethattheDevelopment Agendawould beimplementedwithin existing resources, theDelegationexpressed doubts for thefact that theSecretariat hadproposed aprojecton aconferenceon mobilizing resourcesundertheDevelopmentAgendaRecommendation2. TheDelegationaskedtheSecretariat howMember StatescouldbesurethattheDevelopmentAgendawouldbenefit from WIPOresourcesandalso fromextra-budgetaryresources thatcouldbemobilized by theConference? How coulddelegationsreallyaccommodatetheremarkmadeby theDelegation of Germany realistically, theDelegationobserved. Referring to theobservationsmadeby theDelegationof Germanyonbehalf of GroupB aboutparagraphs4 and 6 of thedocument,theDelegationof Brazil notedthatit wasreally relevantto haveamentionof theword “principles” in thedocument.Ofcoursethe“principles”couldbeimplemented,but astheDelegation notedduringthefirst dayof discussions,it believedthattheDevelopmentAgendawas apermanent bodythatcontainedprinciples. Principlesshouldbeimplemented by theSecretariat. Principlesshouldbeimplementedby MemberStatesthemselves.In thatcontext, a referenceto andtherecognitionof thatstatusof theDevelopmentAgendawas indeedvery important. TheDelegationconcludedits interventionby addressinganother question raised by theDelegationof Germanyregardingthestatusof thosedocuments,andnotedthat CostaRicahadmadeagoodsuggestiononbehalfof GRULAC, when it statedthatconditionsof negotiation formoving into theThematicapproach,couldbereflectedin theChair’s Summary. Therefore,theDelegationstatedthatmaybe thedocumentunder negotiationcouldbepart of thatSummary.

266. TheChair soughtto clarify apoint from theDelegation of Brazil. Hewantedto knowwhethertheDelegationhadcapturedsomuchin paragraph1, thatit was nowdiscountingorrecommending thedeletion of paragraphs2, 3, 4 and5. TheChairalsostated thathesaw theDelegationhadanoteon paragraph6 aswell, andaskedwhetherit toowas a replacement fortheexisting paragraph.

267. TheDelegationof Brazil statedthatit wasan addition, which it would like toincorporate, andcouldserveasanadditionwhen therenumberingwasdone.

268. TheChair suggestedmakingit analternative, andnot an addition,assuch mightcomplicatetheprocess.

269. TheDelegationof India notedthatafter listeningto interventionsby many delegationson thedocumentunderconsideration,it wouldappear asif themeeting wasstuckandprobably regressing, consideringtheprogressthathad beenmade. TheDelegation remindedthemeeting that it wasprobablynot a wasteof time,becausefor thefirst timeachangeofformatin executing theDevelopmentAgenda recommendationswasbeing considered,whichwasvery importantto manydelegations.It saidtherewasalsotheneedto bear in mind thatnot muchtimewasavailableto digestthedocumentbecausecontraryto thesix weeknoticethatwasnormally required,thedocumentswere given to delegationsa lit tle laterbecauseoftheinterveningEasterbreak. TheDelegation thoughtthat it couldbeapainful but necessary


exercise. Thedocument,whetherit wascalled“conditionsonguidelines with ThematicProjects”wasaveryessentialdocument.Thetimethat wasspent would probably benecessary.Thesecondpoint theDelegation wantedto makewasaboutmovingon tosubstantiveresults. It echoedtheviewsof theDelegationof Brazil, that it wastheagendaitemthatshouldhavebeendiscussed,insteadof theThematic Projects,if thesequencein theadoptedAgendaof themeetingwasconsidered, thatwastheconsideration of theprojectsunder recommendations2, 5, 8, 9 and10. It notedthatlike theDelegation of Brazil, it waswill ing to look at it, takeaconstructiveandearly decisionandmoveforwardtowardsanearlyimplementation. On theproposedparagraphby Brazil, theDelegation expressedits supportand noted thattheparagraphwasessential, becauseit triedandsummarizedthecore concernsexpressedby manydelegationsabout theprimacy of theindividual recommendations,basically by not puttingmoreimportanceon theprojectrather thanwhatwascontainedinrecommendations. TheDelegationsaidthatthoseparagraphswereimportantandsomedelegationshadpointedout thatif theproposed paragraphclashedwith otherparagraphs,which theDelegation thoughtwasnot thecase, thenit shouldperhapsbeexplainedin moredetail in subsequentinterventions. Onparagraph2 thatGroupB had pointedout, theDelegationclarified thatparagraph2 referredto modificationsmadeby MemberStatesduringthediscussionsto beincorporated.Referencewasmadeto modificationsin theprojectparameters,theprojectdetails, andnot to therecommendation itself. It was fairly clearthatnobody would touchthewordingof the45 recommendations. It wastheprojects parameters,and theprojectsdetails thatwerebeingreferredto in paragraph2. Therefore, if greaterclaritywasneeded,perhapsaphrasecouldbeaddedin line2 after anymodificationsin theprojectdetails,whichwould makeit clearsothatanymisconceptionabouttherecommendationswouldbedispelled. On paragraph3, theDelegationwas mindful aboutthefive pointsmadeby GRULAC, andstatedthatit wasclearfrom thestatementmadeby theGRULACcoordinatorthatthose five pointshadbeenmadeasaguideline for theimplementationof theThematicProjectapproach.It lookedat thefive pointsGRULAC hadmade,thefirst onestated thattherecommendationshould not bere-interpreted,andnowherewas thatreflectedin thedocument. Theotherpoint theymadewasthefollow-upactivit ies,following theendofproject,whichwere considerednecessary.It noted thatwordson “foll ow-upactivities” couldnot befoundanywherein thedocumenteither,andthatperhapstherewasa needto addit toparagraph3, whereit stated“implementation of DevelopmentAgendarecommendationsalsocomesto anend”. Furtherfollow-upactivities wouldbeundertakenafter agreementof theMemberStatesor after approvalby theCommittee”. Pointing to theobservation madeby theDelegationof Germany onbehalfof GroupB about mergingparagraphs4 and6, theDelegationof India thoughttherealfocusof paragraphs4 and6, wereessentially different.The first onewasaboutclosinggapsthatmaybein theThematic Projects. Paragraph6 on theother hand,recognizedthattheprincipleswerealsoactionable.TheDelegation,however,agreedwith GroupB, thattheparagraphwasnot veryclear,but it hadsomedifficulties withthelanguagethathadbeen proposed,notably thephrasethat stated “implementationcostsshouldonly draw fundsfrom theexisting resources”. TheDelegation pointed out thatin theSummaryby theChair, in thesecondsessionof theCDIP, it was statedthat “theDirectorGeneralassureddelegationsthattheappropriatebudgetaryresourceswouldbemadeavailableto supporttheimplementationproposalscontainedin theDevelopmentAgenda”. TheDelegationfelt thatthesamelanguagecouldbeused, if preferredby otherdelegations,but theproposal madeby GroupB wouldnot beacceptable. Theother paragraphthatGroupBofferedin placeof thecurrentparagraph6, “recognition that additional activit iesmayberequired to implementthecontentsandformulation of all agreedrecommendations”, theDelegationnotedthattheword “formulation” did not captureneitherthespirit nor the


objectiveof therecommendationaswaspointedout, however thosecouldbeworkedout inmutually acceptable text.

270. TheChair observedthatheshouldnot haveproposedthepreparation of thepieceofpaperunderconsiderationin thefirst place, but hadmadethat proposal becausehethoughtthemeeting wasdealingwith asimple issue.Henoted thattheThematic approachwasacceptableto all delegations,havingheardnoobjectionsto theproposal.His concern wasguidedby howtheCommitteeshouldgetfrom whatit waslast year, in termsof aprocess,totheThematicapproach?Oneor two thingappearedto becritical. Onewasto discusstherecommendationsasit wasdonein thepast sothat each recommendation wouldbediscussedand theactivi tiesthatwould implementtherecommendationsarriveat. And thatwouldbecalledasharedinterpretationor to usesimple language, agreementof theCommittee.Out ofthediscussionswouldcomeanagreement asto themeaningof a recommendationandtheactivities thatwould give effectto thoserecommendations. Nothingnew had beenproposedthanwhat theCommitteehadalreadydonetheyearbefore,andexpected to repeatthis year.Whatwouldbedonenow in additionwasto lookat theactivit iesthatoverlapped,activitiesinonerecommendation thatoverlappedwith activit iesin otherrecommendations. All thoserecommendationsthatweresimilar should bebroughttogetherandstructuredin theactivitiesin aprojectformat. Theonly newthing thatcouldbedonewasto bringactivi tiesandrecommendationswith similaror overlapping activitiestogether, andstructurethework underaproject approach. TheChairthoughtthat themeeting could havecomeupwith threeor maybe four bullet pointsthatcapturedthatobjective. Heobserved thatlastyear a lot of timewasspent comingupwith four bullet points, withoutremembering whatwasstated exactly, butwerediscussed within thecontextof therecommendations. Theseactivitieswouldbesubmittedto theSecretariat.TheSecretariatwould addthehumanandfinancial costs,andthedocument would comebackto theCDIP on theactivitiesthathad beenagreedupon,withdetails of thefunding,andthecostimplications,that theSecretariathadattached,andthenafinal documentwouldemerge.TheChairstatedthatit should bethat simple. Whatwasbeing doneor wasproposedto bedoneduringthecurrentyearwasnot whathad beensaidand wasnot a greatdeparturefrom whatwasdonetheyearbefore. TheChair agreedthatemphasisshouldbeplacedon thepremiseof theadopted recommendations. Al l were inagreementthattherecommendationsthathavesimilaritiesshouldbebroughttogetherin orderto avoid theduplicationandoverlappingandsave costin deliveringthesameresult. All werein agreementthattheproposedThematicapproach,based onprojectdocumentationwasgood. TheChair askedwhat all theargument wasaboutandwhy theCDIP alwayshadtodisagree?Thepaperwouldhavebeenjust apaper,but it seemedthemeeting wasgettingintoanewprocessof negotiationall overagain, andsuggestedthat if themeetinggot to this stage,it couldsimplygo into smallergroupsto try andredraftthelanguage.He acknowledgedthatit wasanerrorto introducethepaperat all, andappealed to themeeting to moveforward.TheChair calledupon themeetingto agreeon thefollowing: (1) That theCommitteewoulddiscusstherecommendationsin thecurrentyearas it did theyear before, (2) Whenit wasfound thattherewereactivitiesin differentrecommendationsthatoverlappedor weresimilar,thoserecommendationswouldbebroughttogether underonetheme; and(3) Implementationof thoseactivitieswouldbestructuredin a Thematic Project approach. TheChairnotedthattheCDIP neednot look beyondthoseproposalsnorgoback to issuesrelatedto funding.Years hadbeenspenton thatprocess alreadywhichhadbeenaccepted. It wasunderstoodthatit wouldbereferredto thePBCandtheGeneralAssembly. TheChair askedif themeetinghadto go throughthatagain?TheChair agreedwith theDelegationof Tunisiaandnoted thattheCommitteedid not haveto go throughthatprocessagain. As regardsthephrase“sharedinterpretation”, theChairwasof theview thatit meantcoming to somecommon


agreementasto whattheissuemeantandviewedit in terms of theexpectation that theCommitteewoulddiscuss andcometo acommonagreement. Hestated thattherewereindeedambiguitiesin theadoptedrecommendations,sowhentheactivitieswerebeingdiscussed,theymustbediscussedin thecontext of asharedunderstandingresultingfrom adiscussion, andhepointedout thatMemberStateshad acquiredtheexperiencenecessaryfrom theyearbefore. TheChairaskedthemeeting to agreewith him thatwhattheCommitteewantedto dowassimple. If themeetingagreed,it should proceed accordingly.TheChair promisedto capturethespecific pointsin his Report whichwouldhopefully satisfyeveryone. Hestatedthat eachrecommendationwould bediscussed asit wasagreed.Wheretherewereoverlapsin theactivitiesor similaritiesbetween different recommendations,thoserecommendationswould bebroughttogether undera theme,and thentheimplementationoftheproposalandactivitieswouldbestructuredaccordingly. Implementation wouldbestructuredin aprojectapproachthatall MemberStates would findacceptable. TheChairwasnot sureat that stage,if datesshouldbeadded to theproject documents. However,ifstakeholderswished,andashehadbeenadvisedby expertsthat aproject documentmusthaveastartandfinish date,thatit couldbedone. It was pureprojectmanagementtheorytheChairnoted,thatwouldberespected.TheChairnotedthat thedateswereindicative,andthatfuturework, astheCommitteehadalwayshadon its Agenda,would allow for therepeatof aproject, to addto it, or changeit, in any shapeor form, astheCommittee’smandatehadestablished.TheChairadvisedthattheCommitteeshouldnot strugglewith languageto agreeon what it should do. Its mandatewasclear. TheChairalsohoped thatMemberStatescouldagree to do thosethreethingsthatwereoutlinedandthey were addedto theChair’s Summary.By midweek,theChairstatedhewaslooking forwardto gettingstartedon whathewassupposedto do,andthatwasto advancethework of theCDIP. TheChair noted thatit wasimportantto makebetteruseof theremainderof theweek havingmostof it ondeliberations.TheChair statedthatif delegationsagreedwith him theyshouldnot takethe floor, but calledthemeeting to makeanotherstart. He proposedto startthemeetingby moving to AgendaItem7, whichhadthreedocuments. Hecalled on theSecretariat to introducethedocumentCDIP/3/3,as it provideda foundationonwhich themeeting coulddraw,by wayofrecognizingthework thathadalreadybeendone onRecommendation 20. Thereafter,heaskedthemeeting to look at Recommendation 16 that hadnot beendiscussedbefore,sothatitcould beconsideredin detail. Theoriginal activitiesproposedby theSecretariat wouldbefound in documentCDIP/1/3. Recommendation16startedat Annex III of page25.Therefore,themeetingwouldexaminetheactivities proposedby theSecretariat in thesamewaythatit did theyearbefore. TheChair madetwo observationsat this point,whichhesaidwereup to theCommitteeto agreeonor not. TheChair notedtheSecretariat’s proposalthatrecommendations16and20,couldbecombinedundera themethatsaid “IP andthePublicDomain”. In orderfor theCDIP to reachthatposition, it shouldconsider thatit mayhavetodiscusstheactivitiesproposedby theSecretariatin documentCDIP/1/3,onpage25. Thework should berelevantto Recommendation 16. However fi rstly, theChairrequestedtheSecretariat to speakonRecommendation20 thathadbeen previouslydiscussed.

271. In introducing thedocumentCDIP/3/3, theSecretariat explainedthelink with documentCDIP/3/4. TheSecretariatrecalledthatin thesecondsession,Recommendation12 from thelist of 19,and recommendations20,22,and23, from thelist of 26,werediscussed.It alsorecalledthat in orderto makequickprogress,theCommitteein its secondsession,decidedtoshift its focusto thelist of 26. As explained in thepresentation madeearlier, theThematicProjects,in maintainingthat sequence, first look to Recommendation20. ThedocumentCDIP/3/3containedactivitieswith regardto Recommendation 20,asdiscussed andbroadly


agreeduponby theCommitteein its secondsession.In document CDIP/3/4, thefirst projectgroupedrecommendations16and20,astheThematic Project on IP andthePublicDomain.

272. TheChair proposedaproceduralapproach.He invited thedelegationsto first look attherecommendation20 in thedocumentCDIP/ 3/3, containedin anannex, to refreshtheirmemoryregardingtheactivitiesthattheyhadalready agreedupon. This hesaid wouldhelpto seeasto howthoseactivitiesrelateto theactivi ties for recommendation 16,astheCommitteediscusses thatrecommendation.

273. TheDelegationof Argentinawantedto makea general commentthatit felt wasvalidfirst for recommendations16and20andall theotherrecommendationsin ClusterB. It statedthatthefact thatthoserecommendationswere in ClusterB implied thattheimplementation ofall activitiesunderthatClusterwereof anorm-settingnatureandwereto bedone in thecommitteesthatdealtwith suchactivities. Whatwascentral for theimplementationof thoserecommendationswasthecoordinationwith thosecommittees. That waswhy in itsstatement,GRULAC requestedtheDirectorGeneral to produce anannual reportto theCDIPon theimplementation of recommendationsrequiringcoordination amongdifferentWIPOcommittees. Theproposedprojectconcernedwith studiesandactivit iesimplementedapartof therecommendations, but not thecentral part. Thecentralparthad to beimplementedbythecommitteesdealing with norm-setting. Therefore,theCommitteehadto decidehowtocoordinatethework with thenorm-setting committees. TheDelegation pointedout thatitwasnecessarybecausetheproposedprojectdid not implementthewholeofrecommendations16and20,but only theparton norm-setting.

274. TheChair statedthattheDelegationof Argentinahadpresentedaway forwardfor themeeting,but statedthathepreferrednot to discussprojects yet,but only to refreshthememoryof delegatesregardingtheactivitiesproposed underRecommendation 20, thatMemberStateshadagreeduponasa foundation. Hewould then askthemeeting to look atRecommendation16,andhavediscussionbasedon theactivit iesproposed by theSecretariaton documentCDIP/1/3,ashadbeendonethepreviousyear. Hestatedthat thepoint raisedfrom theDelegationof Argentinawasrelevant to Recommendation 20,andalsoRecommendation16,which hadbeenidentified asprinciples,andwhich theCommitteeagreedwouldbereportedonby theDirectorGeneral.

275. TheDelegationof Argentinarestatedthat it wantedto avoidcreatingadifferencebetweenprinciples andnon-principles. It said that what wasagreeduponin theCommitteewere recommendationsandnot principles. Recommendationshadto beimplementedthereforeall therecommendationswereactionable. They werenot recommendationscontainingparts,andwereall actionable,according to theDelegation, especially thoserecommendationsdealingwith norm-setting. Othersmight consider themasprinciples,but asfarasthat Delegationwasconcerned, theywererecommendationsthatwereactionableandhad to beimplementedby thenorm-settingcommittees. Therefore,theDelegation reiteratedthatin thesedocumentsadditionalactivitieswere beingconsideredfor implementing therecommendations,but thecentralactivitiesthatwould needto theimplementation of therecommendations,hadto becarriedout within thenorm-settingcommittees. Therefore,coordinationwith thesecommitteeswaskey. Theactivit iesthat theCDIP might agreeuponmight not implement thewholeof the recommendation. That wouldonly bedonewhenthenorm-settingcommitteeswereinvolved.


276. TheChair statedthathewastrying to gettheCommitteeto proceedslowly on thismatter. He remindedthemeetingthathehadasked theMember Statesto lookatRecommendation20 thattheyhadalreadyapproved. Hesaid hewouldallow themeeting afewminutes to look at therecommendation to refreshits memory. TheChair notedthatthematter thattheDelegationof Argentinahad raisedcameunder Recommendation 16,andassuch, wouldbeconsideredwhenthatpoint wasreached. TheChairurgedthemeetingto lookthroughtheactivitiesproposedby theSecretariat lastyear in documentCDIP/1/3,andseewhetherthepoints thattheDelegationof Argentinahad raisedwerenot captured in theactivities proposedby theSecretariat.Themeetingwould thentakeconsiderationof theDelegation’ssubmissions.TheChairstated hewas not discountingwhattheDelegationofArgentinahadsaid.

277. TheDelegationof Argentinaobservedthat it was only referring to Recommendation20,but whatit saidwasvalid with regardto theinterpretation for theothersaswell.

278. TheChair notedthathewouldhavea look at Recommendation 16,andall therecommendationswerecapturedin documentCDIP/1/3,whichwastheworkingdocumentwheretheSecretariatmayaddadditionalproposals. TheChair, therefore, suggestedlookingat theactivitiesonRecommendation16, to seewhatto addor amendastheCommitteehadbeendoingsincelastyear.

279. TheDelegationof Bangladesh requested clarification in respectof therecommendationunder discussion. TheDelegationenquiredif theChairintended to returnRecommendation20 at a later stageandstill look at thetext thathad beenrevisedby theSecretariat undertheproposed activities. Accordingto theDelegation’sunderstanding,theChair seemedto havemovedon to Recommendation16.

280. TheChair answeredaffirmatively thathehadmovedonto Recommendation16sayingthathedid not hear anycommentsonRecommendation 20,but onRecommendation16. TheChairexpressedhis willingness move to Recommendation 20, if theDelegationofBangladeshsowished.

281. TheDelegationof Bangladesh thanked theChair for theclarification andstatedthatiftheChairsowished,theDelegationwould speak abouttheRecommendation 20, andthengoback to Recommendation16, andif therewasanagreement,themeetingcouldmoveto theproject,whichwas containedin documentCDIP/3/4. TheDelegationsaid it would reserve itscommentsondocumentCDIP/3/3,Annexto Recommendation20,andfor thetimebeing, itwouldspeak ononly oneissueonpage2 of Annex II, underbullet point 4. TheDelegationstated thattheCommitteehaddiscussed, in thecontextof this recommendation, publicdomain. TheDelegationnotedthatamention was madeof TK and genetic resources,buttherewas no mention of traditionalcultural expressions. TheDelegation believedthatit wasan omissionthatneededto becorrected,becausein thecontext of thepublic domain,traditional cultural expressionsdid havean importantrole, andmany countries wereinterestedin seeingthat reflectedunderbullet point number4.

282. TheDelegationof Brazil statedit hadtwo activi ties to proposewhich fittedunderbothrecommendations16and20. Thefirst activity it proposedwasfor theSecretariat to look intotheparticularproblemof thenamesrelatedto biodiversity. TheDelegation statedit onlyreferredto thenamesof biodiversity,suchasthe names of fruit, landandtrees, thathadbeendeemedasgenericin Brazil, andtherestof theAmazoniancountries. TheDelegationnoted


thatBrazil sharedtheAmazonianforestwith nineother countries,which were Amazoniancountries,andhadahugebiodiversity,andthereweremanynames of fruit that wereregisteredastrademarksin third countries.TheDelegation gaveexampleof the“Açai” fruitthatwasfoundin Brazil, whichwasdeliciousandusedfor making juices,ice-cream,amongother things. Thename“Açai” theDelegationstated,wasfoundto beregistered in thirdcountries,andtheproblemwasthatwhena genericnamewasregisteredasa trademarkin athird country, thatactionimpededBrazilianexportersto accedeto thattrademark. Only thecompanythathadthenameregisteredasa trademark couldoperate in thatmarket. Brazil hadnot only proposed,but hadcommunicatedto theStandingCommitteeonTrademarks(SCT)two yearsago at least5,000namesof biodiversity. TheDelegation requestedtheWIPOSecretariat to look into thepossibility of taking thatlist presentedby Brazil andsupportedbyother biodiversity countries. It wasa list of nameswhichhadnothing to do with theissueofTK andgenetic resources,andit requestedtheSecretariat to look into thatlist, andseethepossibilityof developingadatabaseof genericnamesrelated to biodiversity. TheDelegationobservedthatit couldbeoneconcreteactivity that could beimplementedeither underrecommendations16and20,or within theIP andpublic domain project. TheDelegationsaidthatit wasaconcretecasewhenit could beobservedhowthepreservationof thepublicdomain,thegenericsof certainnameswerereally importantfor developingcountriesandalsovery importantfor SMEs,whichwerestarting to explorethemain products thatwereavailablein thecountry’sbiodiversity. TheDelegationconcluded by saying thatit wasthefirst concreteactivity thatit wishedto proposeto theSecretariat. TheDelegation concurredwith thesuggestionmadeby theDelegationof ArgentinathattheDirector Generalshouldreport regularlyon theimplementationof principlesandexpressedthatthepoint raisedby theDelegationof Argentinarelieduponthecross-cutting natureof therecommendationsthatwere relatedto norm-setting. TheDelegation saidthatit hadan evidentcross-cuttingnaturebecause whattheystatedwassomethingto beimplemented not only by thatCommittee,butby otherWIPOcommittees. In thatsense,theDelegation supportedthesuggestion madebytheDelegationof Argentina,andpointedout thatthestatementmadeby that Delegationwasindeedimportant, asit wasanissuewhichwould comeupagain when discussingAgendaItem8.

283. TheChair askedif theDelegationof Brazil hadlookedon theright handsideof theparagraphof page26of documentCDIP/1/3. TheChairstatedthattheparagraph addressedthepoint raisedby theDelegationof Brazil. TheChairnoted thatit might haveto adjustit interms of theDelegation’srequestto theSecretariat.

284. TheDelegationof Chileexpressedits satisfaction on thecontent andmentionedthatasthetopicof public domainwasimportantfor Chile, it wished to makeaproposalwith regardto that topic. Chilehasactuallymadeproposals on this topic in thepast. TheDelegationagreedin generalwith theactivitiesthathad beenproposedwith regardstoRecommendation20, in documentCDIP/3/3, as in caseof Brazil, referredtorecommendations20and16,assetout in document CDIP/3/4. TheDelegation thoughtthatin recommendations16and20, in generaltherewere three ideas. Thefirst part ofRecommendation16wasfundamentalandit wasagoodsuggestion thattheDirectorGeneralcould reporton to thepermanentcommittees. With regardsto thegoalsof theThematicproposal, theSecretariatproposedto work primarily on thesecondpartofRecommendation20, to assistMemberStatesto identify thesubjectmatter that hadfalleninto thepublic domainwithin their respective jurisdictions. TheDelegation referredto thefirst partof theThematicProjectentitled“Brief Description of theProject”. Thelastthreelinesmentionedideasto undertakestudieswhich it supported,but alsosuggestedthedeletion


of theword “possible”in thelastline. It notedthat it would helptheMemberStatesdeterminehowtheycoulddealwith thesubject matter in thepublicdomain. TheDelegationstated thatit took thatRecommendationextremely seriouslyandits PatentOffice wasworkingon coming up with periodicalreportson thingswhich fell within thepublic domain,including for instance,inventionswithin thepublic domain that weredeemedto berelevantfor certaindevelopment-relatedtopicswith regardto processing information, and trying tofacilitateits use. Thoseperiodicalreports werepublishedon thewebsiteshowingwhich caseshad fallen into thepublic domain. TheDelegationagreedwith thecommentmadeby theDelegationof Brazil with regardto namesrelating to biodiversity,andstatedthatit waswellawareof thelist thathadbeenpresentedto theTrademark Committee. TheDelegationstatedthatin thesection dealing with “DeliveryStrategy” in thepart relating to trademarks, it didnot reflectthepart relatingto “ProjectDescription” and“Trademarks”.The“ProjectDescription” referredto theneedto incorporatedescriptivenamesandtherewasalso aneedto talk abouttheinclusion of genericnames.With regardto deliverystrategiesfor thepartentitled “Trademarks”and thesubtitlebelow,theDelegation suggesteddeleting theword“distinctive.” Theideaof theprojectwasthat therewouldbenodescriptiveor generic words,theDeliveryStrategyunderthetrademarks section did not capturewhat wassetout in theProjectDescription. It discussedveryordinary violationsof trademarks. In thepart onDeliveryStrategies,therewasamentionof pilot projects. TheDelegation stated thattheprojectsshouldbecarriedout andit wouldbevery interestedin participating in suchprojectsand pilot studies. With regardto copyright anddelivery strategies,theDelegationwassatisfied thattherewasanupdateon thevoluntary registration survey. TheDelegationproposed a globalsurveythatcouldbesent out to all MemberStatesof theOrganization.Althoughit wouldbemoreexpensive,it wouldgiveamuchbroaderoverview. Finally, theDelegationemphasizedthatthoseguidelinesand toolsshouldberealized. TheDelegationreferredto thefirst part of Recommendation 20,“activi ties relatedto IP thatsupport a robustpublic domain in WIPO’s MemberStates,including thepossibili ty of preparingguidelineswhich couldassistinterestedMembers,” which theDelegation felt would beveryuseful.With regardto copyright, theDelegationinformedthatChile wasin theprocessofintroducingvariousrobust sanctionsfor thosewhohadundulyappropriated namesthathadfalleninto thepublicdomain. TheDelegation pointedout thatall of thosestudieshadbeencarriedout on theanalysis of thebenefits of aneasily accessiblepublic domain,andthatsuchkind of studies wouldbevery useful. It suggestedastudyon theideaof doubleprotection.TheDelegation felt thatthattopicwasvery important andthatthebenefits anddisadvantagesshouldbeconsidered.TheSCThaddeveloped, for example,very usefultoolsondoubleprotectionundercopyrightsandtrademarksin that connection.

285. TheDelegationof Bolivia congratulated theChair onhis re-electionandon his skillfulchairingof themeeting,andextendedits congratulationsto theSecretariat for theirunflaggingefforts to preparetheworking materials. TheDelegation followedtheDelegationof Chile in workingon recommendations16and20,within theframeworkof documentCDIP/3/4,as thosewerethedocumentswhich they had beenworkingonby liaisingwith theircapitals. With regardto recommendations16and20, theDelegationagreedthatlike othercountries,whenit cameto norm-settingandacross-cutting processthat wasusedby variousWIPO bodies,it supportedtheproposalmadeby theDelegation of Argentina,namely,thatinfuturemeetingsof theCDIP, theycould receive reports specifically with regardtorecommendations16and20,norm-settingactivitieson IP. Thefi rst partofrecommendation20,wasvery importantfor theDelegation,giventhatin otherbodiesof theOrganization,newnormslinked to IP hadbeendeveloped. TheDelegation alsoreferredtoconcernsspecificto its country relatingto traditional cultural expressions.It calledfor clarity


with regardto TK andtraditionalculturalexpressionsasthosewerenot really in thepublicdomain. TK waspartof thecommunityof theindigenouspeoplesof a greatmanycountries,and in thecaseof Bolivia, it wasevenincorporatedinto its Constitution. It did not falldirectly within thepublicdomain. Al l of thoseelements had to betakeninto considerationbytheIGC, andwithin thatframeworkthere, hadto beefforts to comeupwith a sui generismechanismto ensuretheappropriateprotection for suchformsof knowledge. To date,theyhad not beenableto comeupwith that sui generis mechanismandbecauseof thattheDelegationhadsomequestionsrelatingto theneedfor adatabaseonTK, whichcouldbepartof thesui generis mechanism for protection for such forms of knowledgesoasto avoidcaseswheresuchTK couldbemisuseddespitegoodintentions. Thedatabasecould serveasabetter platform for combatingundueappropriationof TK and thosetraditional culturalexpressions.Thosewerequestionsandconcernsthat hadto beaddressed.Therewasaneedto developspecific activitieswith regardto TK and traditional cultural expressions. Inconclusion,theDelegationreferredto theimportanceof coordinationwith other bodiessoasto promotenorm-settingactivitiesrelatingto IP, especially with regard to TK andfolklore. Itsaid thatit would beagoodideato coordinatewith theCommittee thatdealt with suchtopicsin orderto seewhetherit waspossibleto developnorm-setting activitiesthatwould enablethemto extendtheappropriateprotection of TK and traditional cultural expressions.

286. TheDelegationof Egyptexpressedthattherewas a risingconsensuson theneedtoestablishanactivity pertainingto thecoordination of thework of theCDIP with theothercommitteesof WIPO. TheStandingcommitteesandtheothernorm-setting bodiesof WIPOspecifically implementedthefirst partof Recommendation 20,whichwereconcernedat thatstageon norm-setting activities. In thatregard,theDelegation drewtheattention to oneimportanttool in IP legislationthatwouldenable all concernedto preservethepublicdomainpertainedto theissueof exceptionsandlimitations. At least in two of thenorm-settingcommitteesof WIPO,therewasdiscussionon thatparticular issueof exceptionsandlimitations,wherestudiesthathadbeenpreparedin thelast sessionof theStandingCommitteeonPatent(SCP)andtheAgendaItemonexceptionsand limitationsin theStandingCommitteeonCopyrightand RelatedRights(SCCR). As suchtheDelegationbelievedthatactivities pertainingto how exceptionsandlimitationscouldbegearedtopreservethepublic domainshouldfigure in thestudiesbeing prepared, particularly in theSCP. TheDelegation requestedanindependentstudywhichwouldbeconductedasmandatedunder thepreviousSCPsession, includingaspartof its focus,theissueon thepreservationofthepublic domain. Ultimately, therewasaneedto figurethecoordination mechanismbetweentheCommitteeandtheothernorm-setting bodies of WIPO. Under thatparticularRecommendationaswell asRecommendation 16, therewasanimportantrole for exceptionsand limitationsin implementingtherecommendations.

287. TheDelegationof Switzerlandjoinedtheotherdelegationsin congratulating theChairon his election,andexpressedthattheCommitteewas reassuredthattheyhadreallymadetheright choicein electing him to Chair theCommittee. TheDelegation alsothankedtheSecretariat for preparingexcellentworkingdocuments thathadbeensubmitted andtheexplanationsprovidedto date. With regard to thequestion of public domain andrecommendations16and20, theDelegation commenteddirectly ondocumentCDIP/3/4andindicated its regrets thatit took theCommitteeawhile beforeit could dealwith substantivequestions.TheDelegationthoughtthatit wasimportantto avoidunduemonopolieswithregard to IP, thingsthatwerein thepublicdomain should not beprotectedby IP andthatshouldberecalled. Carrying out studiesandsurveysin orderto better understand therelationshipbetweenIP andthepublicdomain andthedevelopmentof appropriatetoolssuch


as thecreationof databasesin sectorswherethatcouldbedeemedappropriate in ordertoreachthegoalsof recommendations16and20,could only bebeneficial to all WIPOMemberStates. In thatconnection, andwith aview to avoid leaving asideanimportantactivityrelating to IP andthepublicdomain,theycouldperhapscomplementtheproposedactivitiesby introducing moreclearly, thequestionof quality of titlesof protection for IP, thatwereissued,for thatwasanimportantdimensionwhenconsidering thepublic domainandit ofcourseappliedto thedifferentfieldsof IP. It wasparticularly importantwith regard to patentsand beyondthequestionof disseminationanddisclosureof information. Thequestionalsoemerged relatively frequentlywith regardto trademarkswhere titles of protectionwereissued,aspointedout in documentCDIP/3/4,to persons or companies, for example,withregard to geographical names.TheDelegation of Brazil providedanother examplewhichthenled to problems with manufacturersandproducerswhowished to usethatdenominationto identify their productsof origin. TheDelegation statedthat it couldbea goodideawithregard to thefindingsof studiesin thefield of trademarks,in addition to thatdiscussionon thequality of titlesof protectionanddevelopingnewinstrumentsandtoolssuchas databases.TheDelegation alsounderscoredtheimportance of theprincipleof territoriality whichwasinherentto IP, andalso to point out thatthosedatabasescouldneverbeexhaustive. Withregard to theestablishmentof databasesin thefield of TK, theDelegation took thatopportunity to recallthatit supportedthatkindof initiativeandrecalledtheproposalthatwasmadeto set upaportalthat would link theexistingdatabases in thefieldof TK. TheDelegationfelt thattheideaof launchingapilot studyto createnational databaseswouldhelpin elaboratingamethodologyandprinciplefor national databases to beextremely positiveasan initiative. With regardto theelementsrelating to copyright,theDelegation felt thatit wasimportantto carryout studiesandsurveysbut not to losesight within theframework of thosestudies,of howdifficult it wasto comeup with a voluntary registrationsystemgiventhat itwasimpossible to havecompleteregistersthatensured thepredictability of rightsbecausethatdependedon thedurationof copyright. In orderto realizetheimportanceof establishingvoluntaryregistrationsystems,it wouldalsobeagoodideafor studiesto look at mechanismsfor consulting thosedatabases,giventhediversityandcomplexity of theworksprotectedandto ensurethatthefindingsof thatresearchwerereliable. With regardto theimplementationof thoserecommendationswith theideaof reporting to theothercommittees, or informationprovidedby theDirectorGeneralwith regardsto theprinciples regardingthenorm-settingactivities in thepublicdomain,theDelegation felt thatit couldall bediscussedunderAgendaItem8. TheDelegationstatedthatonapreliminary basis,theCommitteewasmandatedtoreport to theAssembly, and thatwouldbethebestway of moving forwardin thatrespect,andeveryMember Statecouldreferto thepublic domain when taking thefloor in thecommittees,without preventing themfrom respondingto thoseissues.

288. TheDelegationof Colombia referredto Recommendation 20,andstatedthatin light oftheactivity proposedfor distinctivesigns,it supportedtheideaof astudyon thebadfaithregistrationof distinctivesigns. TheDelegationbelievedthattheappropriation ofgeographicaldistinctivesignswassomething thathadbeenalready coveredby otherdisputesettlementprocedures. In thecaseof sacredsigns,it statedthatonewouldnot bedealingwithbad faith either,but rathersomethingagainstmorale, goodcustom andappropriatepractice.With respectto theproposalsmadeon copyright, theDelegation of Colombiawasgratefulfor theeffort thathadbeenmadeby theSecretariat, in particularas it pertained to awarenessraisingwith respectto copyrightsandrelatedrights. It addedthatthestudiesonandanalysisof nationallegislationandregistrationsystemswereusefulin theareaof copyright,butneverthelesstheDelegationconsideredthattheidentification of legal and technicalinstruments facilitating accessto copyrightin thepublic domain wasnot necessarysincein


order for worksto go into thepublicdomain, it only requireda certainamountof time to haveit passed.TheDelegationemphasizedthat in Colombia theregistration of workswasquitewide-spread andwasnot compulsoryfor authors.Therefore,theDelegation statedthatanattemptto developadatabase,whichwould contain theworksin their entirety,wouldbesomethingthatwouldbeextremelydifficul t. Furthermore,it believedthatpublicandgovernmentinstitutionswerenot responsible for establishingwhichworkshadgoneinto thepublic domain. Theonuswasoneachindividual concernedto takeinto accountthetermsofprotection,in accordancewith whatwasestablished by thenational legislation. In addition,theDelegationwasof theopinionthatlocating material in thepublic domain andpreparingdatabasesonworks,whichwerein thepublic domainwereissueswhichwentbeyondthecompetenceof theOrganization.TheDelegation thereforebelieved thatsuch activitiesshouldbefinancedby thebeneficiarieswho wereconcernedby them. TheDelegationthenreferredto patents, in particularto theactivi tiesproposedfor thePatentsCommittee. In thatconnection,theDelegationfelt thatit wasnecessaryto proposemoreaggressiveactivitieswhich would helpcountriesto developpoliciesto deal with theuseof thetechnologicalinformation held by patentbanks,and which were in thepublicdomain. TheDelegationconcludedby stating that with respectto TK, it was to benoted thatindigenousorganizationsin Colombiahadalready expressedtheirdisagreementwith that issue,andassuchtheDelegationwould not beableto supporttheactivity proposedin thatarea.

289. TheDelegationof El Salvadorreferredto recommendations16and20. It statedthatitsDelegationconsideredthework beingcarriedout on thepublic domain to beaverypositivestep,in particularasit relatedcopyrightandrelatedrights. TheDelegation reiteratedthefactthatcopyrightandrelatedrightswereprotectedin avery particularway, includinginaccordancewith theBernConvention, andthat therewas noneedto register theworks for therights to beenjoyed. TheDelegationcongratulated theSecretariat for theimmenseamountofwork it hadaccomplishedin particularin thearea of voluntary registration. TheDelegationaddedthatin thecaseof El Salvador,thecountrypossessedvery little information onvoluntaryregistration,but thecountry did recognizetheprotectionof all works,assoonastheywerecreatedin accordancewith stipulationsof theBern Convention. TheDelegationbelievedthatthestudy beingsuggestedshould becarriedout,but it shouldnot beconsideredas anexhaustive list. TheDelegationsuggestedthatother documents thathad beenusedorwhich werebeing workedonshouldbeinvestigated,astheymayproveto beextremelyuseful. TheDelegationthenaddressedtheissueof trademarksandreferred to distinctivecommercial marks. It believedthatconsideration needed to begivennot only to badfaithregistration,but alsoreasonsfor cancellationor refusal of marks,and thatof coursein closecollaboration with nationIP offices. On theissueof patents, theDelegation wishedto ensurethatthework whichhadbeenaccomplishedsofar by LATIPAT wastakeninto account.TheDelegationsawthatwork asextremelyusefulandexpressedhopethatit would beincluded.OnTK, theDelegationagreedentirelywith theinitiative presentedto by theSecretariat.However,it felt thatit wasessentialto takeinto consideration thework whichhadalreadybeing doneby theIGC. TheDelegationunderscoredthatthesaidCommitteehadproducedalot of documentation andreached majorconclusions,andassuch thatwork shouldbetakenintoaccountwhenimplementingtheproject.

290. TheDelegationof India referredto recommendations16and20,andstatedthateachofthoserecommendationsconsistedof two partsandthereforethereweretwo aspectsinRecommendation16,andtwo in Recommendation 20, to beimplemented. TheDelegationnoted thatin documentCDIP/3/4, theimplementationof thesecondhalf of theRecommendation20,hadbeenfocusedupon. TheDelegation stressedtheimportancethatit


attachedto preservingandenrichingthepublic domain in theinterestof thelargercommunity. However,it addedthatgiventhevaryinginterpretationsandnuancesasto whatconstitutedthepublicdomain,theDelegation felt thatbeforegetting involvedin any concretework programunderthatrecommendation, it wouldbeimportant to arrive at aconceptualunderstanding of whatconstitutedapublic domain. After arrivingat sucha definition, theDelegationbelievedit would thenbenecessaryto definewhatthepreservation of apublicdomainmeant. Whetherpreservationmeantcreation of conditionsthat allowed publicdomainto surviveor thecreationof conditionsthatalsoallowed it to expandandenrich itselffrom varioussourcesof sustenance? TheDelegationstatedthattherewasa need for moreconceptualclarity on theconceptof preservation of public domain, andthat suchaperspectivewould in turn leadto aconsiderationof thepublic policy aspect of publicdomain.It addedthat it wouldbethenormsin theform of public policy that should nurture thepublicdomain. TheDelegationthenproposedthatastudy bepreparedashad beensuggestedinRecommendation16 thatwoulddeepentheanalysis of theimplicationsandbenefits of a richand accessiblepublicdomain. With respect to theapproach for implementation, theDelegationstatedthattheproposedproject in documentCDIP/3/4,did not appearto acceptpublic domain as abodyof knowledgethatwascapableof self sustenance. In fact, it believedthattheproject viewedthepublicdomain in only two ways. One,by way of knowledgegoing out of IP protection,andtwo, theownershipof knowledgeandexpressionwasunknown. In thatcontext,theDelegation wasof theopinionthatTK andtraditional culturalexpressionwould standa risk of beingconsideredin thepublicdomain, andconsequentlybeavailablefor freeuse. In thecaseof copyright,theDelegationbelievedthat thescopeof theproposed study to belimited. It suggestedtwo specific additional areasthat could merit someexamination; (1) Measurespossibleto preserveandrepopulatethepublic domain in thecontextof imposing limitationsoncopyrightlaw; and(2) Protectionof traditional culturalexpressionfrom misappropriationin theform of adaptation. In otherwords,claiming newexpressionof anexistingideaor modification that waspossibly violating moral rightsin suchexpression.With respectto patents,theDelegation believed thattherecouldbeapossiblemergerof bothissuesunderasinglecategorysincein its view, therisk to TK essentiallyemanatedfrom thepatentregime. In thatcontext, theDelegation suggestedthreepoints. (1)Therewasaneedto examinethestrengthening of postgrantopposition regimesin thecontextof consultation of publicdomainandTK; (2) Therewasalsoaneedto examinetheuseofpenal provision for insufficientdisclosureof theincluded TK; and (3) Theexaminationofever greeningandpatent ticketsin thepatentingsystemsoas to repopulate thepublicdomainand limit theimpedingof thecreation of newknowledge.TheDelegation suggestedthatintheproposalof thedevelopmentof apilot national TK database,anobjectiveandin-depthanalysisof hownational TK databasesprotectedTK should precedethedatabasedevelopment.Thestudy couldalsolook at theissueof public domain against thebackdropof biodiversitylegislation in differentcountries thatprovided for sui generis systems of TKand benefitsharingfor productsthatwerederived from theuseof TK. TheDelegationassociateditself with thestatementsmadeby thedelegationsof Argentina,Brazil, ChileandEgypt, with respectto norm-settingin recommendations16and20. It believedthatthenormativecross-cutting requirementof therecommendationsshould inform thework of otherWIPO committeesandin norm-settingprocesses.Thoserecommendationsshouldbecommunicatedto other WIPOcommitteesandthecommitteesshouldbeaskedto report backto theCDIP in relation to theiractivitiesincluding technical assistanceactivities. TheDelegationof India recognizedthatthecoordinationmechanismswerediscussed underAgendaItem 8. However,it expressedthedesire to seethecoordination issuereferredto asan actionablepoint in thework programundertherecommendation beingdiscussed.The


Delegationconcludedby seekingclarification asto how improvements in theIPC andPCTminimal documentationwouldhelpachieve theobjective of thatrecommendation.

291. TheChair remindeddelegations including theDelegation of India, thatlengthyinterventionsshouldbesubmittedin writing.

292. TheDelegationof India thankedtheChair for thereminder andstated thatit wouldsubmit its statementin writing.

293. Speakingonbehalfof theEU andits 27MemberStates,theDelegationof theCzechRepublic referredto therelationship of theCDIP with otherWIPOcommittees, whichhad beenraisedby other delegations.TheDelegation statedthatit hadacommon view of theissue,and it wouldbepresentedunderAgendaItem 8 whereappropriate. However,itcautionedthatthesilenceof theDelegationduring thediscussionunderAgendaItem 7should,therefore,not beunderstoodashavingconsensuson thematter.

294. TheChair thankedtheDelegationof theCzech Republic for thereminder andstatedthatalthoughhehadmadearemarkafterthestatementmadeby theDelegationof Argentina,hewantedto reiteratethatdiscussionsoncoordination activi ties shouldtakeplaceunderAgendaItem 8. Hestatedthatin thediscussiononprojects, it wasessential to haveacrosstheboard,acceptableandimplementableideascomingout of discussionssoasto moveforward.TheChair addedthatoncecoordinationmechanismshadbeen resolvedunderAgendaItem8,all othercoordination issuespertainingto projectswould fall into place.

295. TheDelegationof Brazil referredto theissueof namesassociated with theAmazonianbiodiversityandstatedthatthereweremanyexamplesof Amazoniangeneric namesof rootsand other products which hadbeenerroneously raisedastrademarks in third jurisdictions.TheDelegationsubmittedthatthemisappropriationof Amazonian genericnamesdamagedtheinterestsof thepopulationof Brazil andotherAmazoniancountries. In thatconnection,theDelegationwishedto recallthelist of 5,000generic nameswhichwas presentedby itsDelegationto theSCT in 2006. It believedthatthe list should bemainstreamedinto theproject beforetheCommittee, andsuggestedthree actionsto theInternational Bureau. (1)Thepublication of thelist on theWIPOwebsiteaswell asdistribution of thelist to trademarkofficesaroundtheworld. Thepublication of thelist would allow othercountriesto assistinupdating the list andprovideinformationto trademarkofficessoasto avoid thegrantoferroneoustrademarks;(2) TheInvestigationand carryingout of research on themisappropriation of genericnamesassociatedwith Amazonianbiodiversity; and (3) Theelaboration of animpactassessmentof how themisappropriationof namesof thebiodiversitywouldnegatively impacton theforestcommunity aswell asSMEs thatintendto sustainablyexploit thelargely unknown flavor of theAmazonianforest. TheDelegation believedthattobeaconcrete example of how themisappropriation of thepublic domain andtheregistrationof genericnamesastrademarkscoulddirectlyaffect poorpopulationsin developingcountries.TheDelegationelaboratedthatthefruit of Amazonianforestwerelargelyunknown, even inBrazil, andassuch,theregistrationof thenameof a fruit asa trademarkwouldcompletelyclosethemarketandpreventthedevelopmentof small businesses in theAmazonianregion.It addedthat theAmazonian regionin termsof naturewas a luxuriousregion,but thepopulationof thatregionlived in verypoorconditions. In thatconnection, theDelegationrequestedtheSecretariatto takeits threeproposed actionsinto account. TheDelegationofBrazil thenreferredto thedevelopmentof databasesonTK andreiteratedits positionthatthemisappropriation of TK andgeneticresources couldonly beeffectively addressedby a


disclosurerequirementin theTRIPS Agreement. It added thattherewasaneedto amendtheTRIPSAgreementin order to requirepatentapplicantsto disclosethesourceprovidingcountryof inventions,basedonTK andgenetic resources. TheDelegation reiteratedtheproposal by Brazil andanother108countries in theWorld TradeOrganization (WTO) alongsimilar lines,andaddedthatadatabasecould beusedto complimentdisclosurerequirementsand that theSecretariatcouldlook into theeventual conditionsof accessto thecontentof suchadatabasesoasto avoidmisappropriation. It added thattheSecretariat shouldalsolook intohow alternative licensing schemesfor preserving thecontents of thedatabasefrommisappropriation and for enhancing its content.Theissueof misappropriationneededto becarefully thought through,andit is for that reasontheDelegation of Brazil had objectionstotheproposalfrom Japan.

296. TheDelegationof Ecuadorstronglysupportedthestatement madeby theDelegationofBrazil andstated thataneventualdatabasewould not only beuseful for accessinggeneralinformation on trademarksanddistinctivesignsbut alsofor thedeclaration of cancelledorvoid trademarks.TheDelegationreferredto documentCDIP/3/4 andstated thatit wasimportantto addaparagraphonwell-knownmarks which,dueto theirusetheyhadbecomegenericand thushadfallen into thepublic domain.

297. TheDelegationof Pakistanexpressedit contentmentwith thefact thattheCommitteehad finally enteredinto discussionsonsubstantive issuesand,confirmedthatit wasfor thatreasonPakistanhadrefrainedfrom theprocedural discussionsduringthepast two to threedays. TheDelegation notedthatin pastdiscussionsmanydelegationshadreferredtoprinciplesandactionablerecommendations.It felt that theactionablerecommendationswereimportant,but alsounderstoodthatthenatureof thoseactivit ieswassuchthattheywouldkeepevolvingbasedon thelevel of development of aparticular country. With respectto theprinciples,theDelegationfelt thattheywould makethereal differencein thework ofdifferent committeesin WIPO. TheDelegation statedthat in its opinion,therealaim of theDevelopmentAgendawasto makeadifferencein thework of differentcommitteesof WIPOand assuch,theprinciplesweregoing to beconstantly partof thework of WIPO. TheDelegationaddedthatit wouldbemaking specifi c proposals on theimplementation of theprinciplesin thefollowing agendaitem. On thesubjectof thepublic domain, theDelegationbelievedthattherewasa needfor astudythat would addressandanalyze theimplicationsandbenefitsof a rich andaccessible publicdomain. TheDelegation statedthat thestudycouldtakeonahorizontaldimensionwhichwould addressall IPRs,look at differentsectors andanalyzehowarichpublicdomaincouldbebeneficial, not only to promoteextensiveknowledgein technology, but also to promoteinnovationandcreativity. TheDelegationconsideredthepublic domainto betherawmaterial usedby creatorsandinnovatorstodevelopnew works of technology. It felt thatthroughexamplesfrom different sectors,thestudycouldil lustratehowabroadaccess to that raw material wascentral to theinventiveandcreativeprocessors.TheDelegationelaboratedthat thestudycould alsohighlight issuesofconcernsuchastheprotectionof researchtoolsthat might resultin shrinking thepublicdomainthuspotentially undermininginnovation. With respect to digitization of TK, theDelegationbelievedthatdigitizationwasnot theonly or adequate responseto themisappropriation issueandthatbeforeembarking on theproject of digitization, WIPO neededto analyzethegapsin theexistingmodelsof digitalization soasto avoidrepeatingthesamemistakein futureprojects.On theissueof thestudy regardingcopyrights,theDelegationreferredto documentCDIP/3/2,andrecalledthat its understandingwasthatfollowing thestudy,whichhadbeensuggestedby theSecretariat, adatabaseon work in thepublicdomain


wouldbedevelopedby WIPO. TheDelegation pointedout that nomentionwasmadeto thateffect in thecurrentprojectproposalandrequestedthatthenecessary modificationbemade.

298. TheDelegationof Canadareferredto AnnexI of documentCDIP/3/4andnotedthattherewas no internationalconsensuson thedefinitionof thepublic domain. It submitted thattheissueof whatshouldor shouldnot beconsideredin thepublicdomain varied from countryto country and theDelegationthereforeagreedwith theDelegationof Indiawith regardto theadditional clarity thatwasrequiredin thatrespect. With respectto thedelivery strategyof theproject for implementationof therecommendationsin question, theDelegation statedthatitwouldappreciatehavinginformationasto whether reportswould bepreparedwith theinformation thathadbeencompiledfrom thecopyrightsurveys. It added thatstudies oncopyright and relatedrightsin thepublic domain, should takeintoaccountthemanyinitiativesandtools whichwerenot necessarily theinitiatives of governmentbut ratherofinstitutionssuchaslibrariesandarchives.TheDelegationsoughtclarification onwhethertheimpactof norm-settingon thoseorganizationswouldalsobetaken into considerationin thestudy. TheDelegation suggestedthat MemberStatesbeallowed to reviewandcommentonthestudyrecommendationsfor furtherwork to beundertakenby WIPO,beforepublication.As it pertainedto trademarks,theDelegation of Canadaalsosoughtclarificationconcerningthereferenceto badfaith appropriationof distinctive signsandpossibilitiesof preventingsuchpractices.In fact,theDelegationwasnot clearonwhethertheintentof therecommendationwasto assistMemberStates identify subject matter thathadfallen into thepublic domain. With respectto TK, theDelegation suggestedthat a thoroughevaluationofthepilot exercisebecarriedout beforedevelopingamethodology thatwouldbereadilyapplicable,in orderto assess theresultsachievedand,theimpact of such a database.TheDelegationalsosoughtclarificationon someof theelementsof thebudgetfor thoseThematicProjects, namely thereferenceto theconference for theamountof 30,000Swissfrancsandthecategoryentitled“Other”. TheDelegation thensuggestedthatabudget breakdownbyproject, for non-personnel cost, wouldbehelpful in further identifying andassessingresourcerequirements. TheDelegationfurthersuggestedthat thesummaries section of thedocumentcould also includeabreakdown of thepersonnelcosts,soasto distinguishbetweenthecostofexistingandnewhumanresourceswhereapplicable.

299. Onbehalf of GroupB, theDelegationof Germany informed theChair thatGroupBsupportedhis earlier ruling andstatementwhichstressedthatissuespertaining to coordinationmechanismsbedealtwith underAgendaItem8. TheDelegation statedthat at thatstage,GroupB did not seea risingconsensusthatsucha mechanismwouldbeimplemented.However,theDelegationconfirmedthatit would stick to theconclusionof theChair’ssummaryfrom thelast CDIP Session,whichstipulatedthatduring thecurrentCDIP Session,theCommitteewouldstartdiscussionon thoseissues.

300. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americastressedthatfor example, remoteandobscuregeographicplacenamesof onecountry werenot necessaril y knownin anothercountry. As a result, thedistinctivenessanalysiswouldultimately havevery differentoutcomesin thosedifferentjurisdictions. Thesameappliedwith respect to cultural referencesin onecountry thatwereunknownin anothercountry, and thedistinctivenessanalysisin thosetwo differentcountrieswould, therefore,bevery different. Thus,theUnited Statesurgedcautionin thedrafting andconclusionsof anystudyundertakenon this topic. TheDelegationof theUnited Statesof AmericathankedtheDelegationof Brazil for remindingtheCommitteeof theextensivediscussionof its proposal on thenon-exhaustivelist of customarynamesusedin Brazil associatedwith biodiversity.


301. TheDelegationof Bangladesh referred to Annex I aswell asto all theprojectsthathadbeensubmittedsofar underrecommendations9 and5 andrecalled that someof themhadbeenidentifiedwith possiblerisksandpossiblemitigation strategies. The Delegationwishedto proposethatall theseprojectsincorporatedasection wheretheriskswouldbeidentifiedand mitigationstrategiesalsorecordedfor assessmentandmonitoring functions. It proposedthataseparatesection for eachbedonethroughasupplementary informalpaper. Thesecondpoint concernedTK, thefourthcomponentof theproject. It stressedthatit washappy to seethatthepilot exercisewouldbedonefor theestablishmentof aTK database. It notedthatthiswasmostlyrelatedto patentsandaccessingthem, but thattherewas alsotheidea,asstatedindocument CDIP/3/3partIV – underproposedactivities– abouteventually facilitatingcreationof nationalTK databasesandother databases. It called for astudy or acomparativestudyon theexisting databasesor thosethatwerebeing testedandcreated to bedone,beforethepilot exerciseitself. Thatwouldprovidewiderinformationon thevariousattemptsthathad beenmadeandwouldactually helpmanycountries,not only one,as thepilot projectwoulddo in theshortrun,but by bringingout bestpractices andoffer amenuof choiceorpossibilitiesthatindividualcountriescould find usefulin their context, it added.Withparticularreferenceto traditionalculturalexpressionsandTK, it remindedtheCommitteethat, asCoordinatorof LDCs, thePermanent Representativeof Bangladeshhadheldanambassadorialmeeting. Therewasa reporton thetwo studieswhichhadbeenundertakenonTK andtraditional culturalexpressions,amappingexercise,for two countries,namelyBangladeshandSenegal.In thatmeetingtheLDCs ambassadorshadquestioned whethertherewereothercountriesinterestedin similar studies. TheDelegationhighlightingthattheBangladeshandSenegalstudieswerenearingcompletion andwithin existingbudgetaryresources,proposedfor studiesto beundertaken on traditional cultural knowledgeandtraditional cultural expressionin two moreLDCs. It believedthat this wasnot acostintensiveeffort andthattherewasapossibilit y of doing it within existing resources.It,therefore,strongly suggestedthesetwo additional studies to beundertaken. Finally, withreferenceto page5 of AnnexI, 1.2–project outputs, it stressedthat when theoutputwasasurveyof privatecopyright documentationsystemsandpractices,it wonderedwhetherthissurveycouldalsocontainasmallanalytical part that wouldevaluatethefindingsat least in apreliminaryevaluation of thefindings.

302. TheChair drew theattentionof theCommitteeto page3 of documentCDIP/3/4,whichstated “the projectwill focusasa first step”. Hestatedthatsomeamendmentswouldbemadefollowing thesuggestionsof thedelegationsheard earlieron that day,yet did not expectthateverythingcouldbereflectedin this first project. Hehighlightedthat it would captureall ofwhatwasconsideredacceptablein termsof what hadbeenproposed andwhatothers hadsaidin termsof, particularly theissueraisedby theDelegation of Brazil and theresponsemadebytheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America, whichmight needfurtherdiscussions.Herecalledthat therehadbeenlots of studiescalled for under this project, andalthoughhebelievedthata few more studiescould beadded,whichheexpectedwould increasethecost,hewishedto stressthatthis wasjust a first step.

303. TheVice-Chairstatedthatso far thediscussionhadbeenveryhelpful andverydetailedin respectof thequestionswhichwereof considerableinterestandimportancebothtodeveloping anddevelopedcountries. Hehoped thattheywouldbeable to bring this partofthediscussionto a fruitful conclusion.


304. TheDelegationof Barbadossupported, amongst,other thingsastudyrelatingto thebadfaith registrationof trademarksconcerningsignsof cultural significance,or geographicallydescriptivesigns. Increasingly, signsof culturally significanceand geographically descriptivesignsof small-islanddevelopingStatessuch asBarbadoswerebeingusedto marketproductsin othercountries. This wouldhaveanimpact on theaccessof theSMEsto themarketsofthosecountries. TheDelegationrequestedtheSecretariat to examinethebadfaith registrationof signsof cultural significanceandgeographically descriptivesigns,asproposedin theproject document.

305. TheDelegationof Brazil, with reference to its proposal regarding theissueof namesassociatedwith thebiodiversity, stressedthat its countrytreasured theprincipleofterritoriality of IPRs. TheDelegationbelievedthatthedistinctivenessof a nameor of asignwassomething thatcouldonly bejudgedin national jurisdictionsby theTrademarkOffice. Itfurtherstressedthatthis distinctiveness wasaccording to thetimeandthejurisdictionor tothatspecificmarket. This wasthereasonwhy it wasverycareful in presenting its proposalbecause theonly thing thatit requestedwas to increasetheavailabili ty of informationtotrademarkoffices,not encroachingupontheprincipleof territoriality. It underscoredthatthelist presentedat theStandingCommitteeonTrademarks,which it wantedto bepublishedontheWIPOwebsite,wasmerelyrequestingWIPO to providemoreinformation to Trademarkoffices. It alsowantedWIPO to distributesaid list to theTrademarkoffices, in orderto allowtrademarksexaminersto haveamoreinformed decisionwhen decidingon trademarks. It hadalso requestedWIPOto investigateandproducean analysisof impactof how theregistrationof trademarkof namesassociatedwith biodiversity canimpactpopulationsin developingcountries. Highlightingthat,to its opinion,producingstatisticswas somethingwhichdid notaffect at all theprincipleof territoriality. TheDelegationdid not quiteunderstandwhy theDelegationof theUnited Statesof Americaobjected to its proposalwhich did not imply thevery sensitive issueof distinctiveness.Reiterating its earlier statement “pi lot exercisefor theestablishmentof aTK database”,theDelegationstressedthatit couldnot supportthisproposal becauseit wasbeingdiscussedelsewherein WIPO andelsewhereoutsideWIPO. Itthereforedid not believethattheyshouldrecognize,acceptaspecific proposalthatwasbeingdiscussedelsewhereandin awayto legitimize thatproposalherein WIPO,andcouldnotsupportthis proposalsince,if onecalledfor a “pi lot exercisefor theestablishmentof aTKdatabase”,why not havealsoapilot exercisefor theestablishment of exclusion requirements.TheDelegationwasof theopinionthatit couldnot legitimizeonecountry’sproposalandignore what 108countrieswereproposing elsewhere,which was unacceptable.

306. TheDelegationof Australia thankedtheSecretariat for drafting theproposedprojectsindocument CDIP/3/4on recommendations16and20. It welcomedthestudies andanalysisinthis projectplanas ausefulcontributionto its understanding of thepublic domainanda goodstart in abig field. This wasasuitablewayto organize their work which would of coursebeon-goingin fully implementingtherecommendations. TheDelegation alsowishedtoacknowledgethecommentsmadeby thedelegationsof theUnitedStates of America andBrazil on theneedto avoid duplicationin thecommittees. Finally, it alsowishedto thanktheChair for his helpful andconstructivecommentsin takingthecorebusinessof theCommitteeforward.

307. TheDelegationof Indonesiawishedto commenton theThematic Projects AnnexI.The two recommendations16and20,althoughshowingsimilarities,emphasizeddifferentaspects. Both recommendationsshowedsimilaritieson theneed to promotenorm-settingsinsupportof public domain,which indeedareelementsthataremutually reinforcing. However,


it believedthatRecommendation16emphasizedon theanalysisof thenecessityto haveadeeperunderstandingon theimplications andbenefits of a rich andassessablepublicdomain,whileRecommendation20emphasizedon theformulationof guidelines. TheThematicProjects shouldcapturetheaim of theRecommendation 16,namely, undertext “studiesthatcould deepentheunderstandingastheusefulnessof thepublicdomainto economic,socialand cultural development”. It thereforewasof theopinion that suchanalysis beconductedbeforehand,which couldafterwardsserveasabasis for formulatingnorm-setting andguidelines. On thecomponentof TK, it called for theanalysis on thedefensiveprotectionmeasuresandthepublic domainto bestrengthened in orderto prevent themisuseormisappropriation of datathatcouldeventually run againstthevery intention for theprotectionof TK andfolklore. It wishedto call for reassurancethattheelementsthatappearin theThematicProjectshouldnot beconsideredexhaustive, thatit shouldtake into accountall theessenceof therecommendationsin thecourseof its implementationwhetherthroughtheseThematicProjectsor in anotherphaseof projects.

308. TheDelegationof Chilestatedthatall theproposals madewerevery valuable. Itreiteratedtheimportanceof theneedto haveastudyon implementing thesecondpartofRecommendation16, in otherwords,“deepen theanalysis of theimplicationsandbenefitsofa rich and accessiblepublicdomain”. This wastheStudywhichwouldbethecornerstoneofall theactivitiesto beundertakenandtasksto becarriedout proposedby theSecretariat andby MemberStates. It alsoagreedwith theDelegation of Pakistan,amongothers, thataStudycould startwith patents andcopyright and thenperhapslater expandin order to berealistic,taking into accounteverybody’s concerns. It wasnot aquestionof it beingexhaustive,whichin its opinion wasnot necessary. It considered theproblem of definition for exampleasimportant,but it couldalsobecomplicatedto comeupwith adefinition of public domain. Itfurtherstressedthatthere wasnot aninternational definition, yet viewedtheproposalfrom theSecretariat asa goodone.

309. TheDelegationof Pakistanwantedto flagaconcernbefore theSummarywasmadebytheSecretariat. After carefullylistening to all thediscussionsregardingpublic domain,itsconcernwasthataprettyvalid point hadbeenraisedby acoupleof delegationsregardingdefining thepublic domain. TheDelegation’sconcernwas thattheycoulddiscussanddefineand keepdefining this public domainfor thenext five years. It wonderedif this shouldstopWIPO from undertakingthework whichwasproposed.In its opinion, it should not. ItremindedtheCommitteethatthediscussionswereof a generalnature. Therewasa de factodefinition or understandingof thepublicdomain. Therewasnot even aconcretedefinition ofopensource,but all knewwhatit was. Thegeneralcontoursarewell -known. Thesamewasalmost truefor thepublic domain. Sothequestionor theconcernwas,pendinga finaldefinition of thepublic domain,shouldall theprojectsor theworkswhich werebeingundertakenin thatarea,whichmight not bevery clearlydefined, should theywait, or shouldtheybecontinued? In theDelegation’s opinion, theyshouldcontinuebecauseif theycontinuedto work on theseareas, ultimately probably thework in theseareaswouldhelp indefining thepublic domain. So it couldbetermed achickenandeggdebated,but in itsopinion theyshouldcontinuethework on that. TheDelegation felt thediscussionwasslidingabit into thatareasoit requestedtheSecretariat to takethis concern onboard whensubmittingits final conclusions.

310. TheChair statedthatthedifficulties theyhadcomeacrossshouldnot beastumblingblock to thecontinuationof discussionsanddebate.


311. TheSecretariatsoughtto summarizethediscussionstating that all thecommentsandsuggestionswouldbeincludedin thereport. It thanked thedelegationsfor their suggestionsand veryconstructive commentsaswell astheadditional suggestions.Referring to theproject proposal, theSecretariatstatedthatmostof theproposals anditemsincludedin thedocument receivedgeneralsupportwith a few exceptions. Theactionable itemswhichweregenerallysupported,the Secretariatwould immediately implementthem. Forotheritems,which theSecretariatwasaboutto mention, theywouldneed to beeither modifiedor theirdirectionof implementationwouldbe revisedsignificantly. As far asthenewproposalsoradditional proposalsor additionalcommentsandsuggestions, asmuchaspossible, theSecretariat would try to absorbandincorporate thoseinto theproject. TheSecretariatinformed thatit would not providespecific informationonhowtheproposal would berevisedand implemented, however,all commentsandsuggestionswouldbeduly reflectedin thecourseof projectimplementation.As far ascoordinationwasconcerned,theSecretariatassuredtheCommitteethattheactionable itemsunderthis projectwould becoordinatedcloselywith thestaff membersresponsible for therespective StandingcommitteesandalsoIGC asfar asTK and traditionalculturalexpressions,andgenetic resources wereconcerned.RegardingtheTK database,theSecretariat recalledthat oneor two delegationshadopposedor expressed reservations on theproposalto undertakethepilot exerciseasproposedundercomponent4 “traditional knowledge”onpage3 of Annex I of documentCDIP/3/4. In thisregard, a few otherdelegationshadmadeveryusefulcommentsto theeffectthatalongsidewith othersurveysandstudies,it might beuseful to look at theexistingTK databaseswhichwere currently runningandoperatedby certain countries andstakeholders of TK. BecausethoseTK databases might havealready givencertain impacts, whethertheymight benegativeor positive impacts on local societyandthenational economy,aswell astheexperienceandlessonslearntcould besharedwith othercountries. So theexperienceand informationcontainedin thesurveymight facilitatefurtherdiscussionson thequestion whethera TKdatabasecouldhelp thepreservationandidentification of subject matterwhich hador whichshouldhave falleninto publicdomain. Therefore,theSecretariat offeredto reformulatethispropositionby suggesting thatasurveyof theexistingTK databasesbeconductedin anumberof MemberStatessoasto clarify andanalyzetheimpactof TK databaseon thestakeholdersof theTK andalsothenational economy. Theimpactmight needto beanalyzedin connectionwith theavailability of theTK database,theterms of referenceof theTKdatabase,who shouldupdateit, whoshould begivenaccessto it andhow thedatain suchadatabasecouldbecommercially utilizedor licensed. Thoseconditionscouldbeincluded inthesurveyto theextentpossible.TheSecretariat agreedwith theinterventionsthattheTKdatabasewasoneof thecomplimentarytools andwasnot everything to solve theproblem ofTK issues. However,astheChairhademphasized,this wasa fi rst stepto undertaketheproject. TheSecretariatbelievedthatthis surveyof fact-findingandclarifyingcurrentstatusof theexistingTK databaseshouldbeveryuseful to thesubsequentdiscussionson this issue.In connectionwith TK this wasasignificantly revisedproposalnow thattheSecretariat wasproposingfor generalapproval.

312. Continuing, theSecretariatinformed thatanewproposal wasmadeby theDelegation ofBrazil in connection with trademarksand thenon-proprietarynamesassociatedwithbiodiversity in theAmazonianregion. It recalledthat this proposalhad beenorally madeandconsistedof threecomponents.TheSecretariatrecognizedthatit couldhave respondedin abetter way if suchaproposalhadbeenpresentedin writing prior to themeeting andevenincluded in theSecretariat’sproposal.However, it wishedto respondto theproposalmadebytheDelegationof theBrazil ratherpositively, yet with caution. As far asthefirst componentof theproposalwasconcerned, thepublication of a list of 5,000of non-proprietarynames


associatedwith biodiversity, theSecretariat did not haveany technicalor financial problemsin publishingthatlist on theWIPOwebsite. It wastechnically doable andtheSecretariatwouldappreciateif theDelegationof Brazil couldprovideit with theupdatedlist of thosenames, if this proposalwasindeedapprovedby theotherMemberStates. Thesecondandthird elementsof this proposalconcerned investigationof casesof misappropriation andalsoelaboration of theimpacton theSMEs. Here theimplication could besignificantandalsoitmight needextensive resourcesto undertakethis kind of analysis and investigation, if theDelegationof Brazil wishedtheSecretariat to undertakeauniversalsurveygoingbeyondBrazil. TheSecretariatpresumedthatthe intentionof theDelegation of Brazil wasto providespecificcasesor anecdotalepisodesof thosemisappropriation cases in Amazoniancountries.So if theDelegation of Brazil providedtheSecretariat with such information, it couldreflectthatadditionalinformationin thestudywhichwouldbeconductedandprepared for thetrademarkelement.This wassofar thereaction to thenewproposal madeby theDelegationof Brazil.

313. TheSecretariatfurtherstatedthatseveral delegationshadreferred to thesecondpart ofRecommendation16andsuggestedthat,in addition to thesix studies, theSecretariat shouldundertaketheoverallacross-the-boardstudy pertaining to thepublic domain in general.Whileagreeing in principlewith this suggestion, theSecretariat statedthatwith thelimitedresourcesand time, whichwasvery tight, for undertaking thealready approvedsix studies,theyshouldperhapswait beforethedelivery of theinitial six studies, on thebasisof whichdiscussion on furtheraction, includingtherequest for thegeneralstudy, could takeplace.This approachmight haveamerit becausetheacross-the-boardstudywouldalsobeabletotakeadvantageof theresultsof thosestudiesseparately conducted. TheSecretariat statedthattherewere anumberof specificquestionsandclarifications sought, but dueto theshortageoftime, it could not coverthemall. It, therefore,offeredto addressa few suggestionson thedatabasein connection with trademark,rathertheTK.

314. On thesuggestion madeby thedelegationsof Switzerlandandof theUnitedStates ofAmericaon theportalof TK database,theSecretariat statedthatthis suggestionwouldbetakenupasthenormalactivitiesof WIPOfor review by theProgram andBudgetCommitteeto investigateandexplorethepossibility of enriching andenhancingthecurrentPatentscope®database,to expandit to othertypesof IP suchastrademarks andTK. TheSecretariat addedthatportalmeanta gatewayto theexisting national databaseof TK. It furtheraddedthatother commentsanduseful suggestionswouldbereflectedin astudyandimplementationoftheproject,aswell assomequestionswhichhadbeenraisedon thewayof calculationofresources. Moreover,the scopeof TK could beexpanded according to somedelegationstoincludetraditional cultureexpression andgenetic resources. TheSecretariat wouldbeinclusiveasmuchaspossible andwould take into accounttraditional cultural expressionaswell asin thefutureafterthefirst stageof discussion.Thesestudieswould bepreparedinanticipation of furtherdiscussion onguidelines,aswell as thecompilation of bestpracticeswhich would alsobeincludedin thescopeof thefutureproject.

315. TheVice-ChairthankedtheSecretariat for summarizing thedebate, respondingtoalmost all thequestionsaskedandall thecommentsmade. Headdedthat somenewprojectswouldobviouslyalsohaveto beincludedaspart of thefutureactivitiesplanned by WIPO.TheVice-Chairwishedto stressthattheseactivit iesweremerelythebeginning,thevery firststepin implementing theDevelopmentAgendaand theChair was of theopinionthattheCommitteehadtakena giantstep. It wasmovingtowardswhatwould really betheachievement of thedreamfor many developing countries and LDCs. TheVice-Chair also


wishedto takethis opportunityto statethatthis wasanexcellent opportunity for developingcountriesto proposeor suggestactivitiesandit would alsobevery usefulfor MemberStatesto propose thembeforethemeeting.He encouraged all MemberStatesto look forward to thefourth sessionof theCDIP andproposeanyprojects they mayhaveandwhichmaybediscussedbeforesaid session in orderto make furtherprogress. Thatwould certainlyhelp theCommitteeto makethebestpossible useof thetimethat wouldbeavailable in that session.

316. TheDelegationof Bangladesh thanked theVice-Chair for leading themeetingandforthewisecommentsmade,bothin termsof theearly submissionof projects for thenextCDIPsession,andas a first stepfor thefuture. TheDelegationalsothanked theSecretariatfor thepresentation,which took into account its suggestion, namely thestudyon theexistingdatabasein therevisedproposal.TheDelegationwas alsosatisfied thatthescopeofComponent4 hadbeenwidenedto includetraditional cultural expressions,which in its view,wasof particular importance.TheDelegation wasawarethatall theotherspecific proposalsmadecouldnot beall takeninto account, but wishedto seethemreflectedin theSummarybytheChair. TheDelegationremindedthattherehadbeennocommenton thesectionon risksand mitigationstrategiesandit hopedthat duenotehad beentakenon theProjectOutput1.2in which thesurveycouldalsoincludeananalytical section.

317. TheDelegationof Brazil recalledthat whenthedecision to moveto theso-calledproject basedapproachhadbeentaken,theCommitteehadattemptedto havecertainassurancesthatthediscussionson theproject would departfrom thefact thattheprojectswereopen,andthatMemberStateswereallowedto includechanges to theprojectandto suggestadditionsanddeletions. Basedon this, theDelegation requested theSecretariat to refrainfrom sayingthatproposalsby MemberStates shouldhavebeensubmittedearlier in writing.Moreover,theDelegationwasof theopinion thattheSecretariat shouldalso refrainfromsaying thattherewasnomoney, andthattheproject hadnot beenforeseen before. TheDelegationstatedthatthewholeprojectremained open,andonce theCommitteeagreedon it,adecisionon havingmoreor lessmoneycouldfollow. TheDelegation, reiteratedits call fortheSecretariat not to mentionthattheproposalsshould havebeen submittedin writing. ItthenthankedtheSecretariatfor its Summary.TheDelegation believedthatit wasamorebalancedapproachif onehadapilot exercisefor studyingandsurveyingexisting databasesrather thanestablishing a pilot database.On its proposal, theDelegation of Brazil recalledthethreeelementsof theproposal, namely, thepublicationanddistributionon theWIPOwebsiteof the5,000names;theinvestigation; andthesurvey. TheDelegationaddedthatit wouldprovide theSecretariatwith a list of casesof misappropriation associatedwith namesofbiodiversity in thehopethattheSecretariat would takethatlist as apoint of departureforundertakingabroadinvestigationandsurvey.

318. TheDelegationof El SalvadorcongratulatedtheSecretariat on its excellent Summary,and enquiredaboutthecoordinationandcooperation in theSecretariat,moreparticularly,whethertheLAC Office wouldbeparticipating in this project.

319. TheDelegationof India referredto thecomment madeby theDelegation of Brazilabout this beinganinitial discussion,andtaking intoaccountthefact thatMemberStateshadnot had much time to processthesedetailedproject documents,andnotedthatexpectingwrittenproposalsin advancewouldhavebeenprobably misplacedin this context. Moreover,considering theshortnoticeMemberStateshadbeengiven,theDelegation consideredthatvery goodprogresshadbeenmadeandin that spirit it welcomedtheSecretariat’s detailedresponseto theissuesraisedearlieron that day. TheDelegationalsohada few queries. First,


whentheSecretariatmentionedtheinclusionof traditional cultural expressions,it thought ithad heardthephrase “in thefuture”. TheDelegation stressed thatit shouldbeincorporatedinthepresentproject. Therewerealsoa coupleof pointstheDelegation of Indiahadmadeonincluding theissueson limitationsoncopyright law in this studyandit wished to know if thiswouldbefactoredin. Furthermore,it believedtheSecretariat hadmentionedthattherewouldbesix studiesin this Project. For sakeof clarity, it called theSecretariat to indicatewhichonesthosewere.

320. TheChair reiteratedhis requestedthatlengthystatementsto besubmittedto theSecretariat in writing so asto ensurethat what waslost in quick dictation couldbeobtainedfrom thenotes. He remindedthatit couldnot beguaranteedthateverythingsaid wouldbetakenonboardin thatproject,but thefocusof that project wasjust thefirst step. Whilst somestudiesandactivit ieswereaddedto thatproject, basedon thediscussions,any activity or anystudiesthatcouldnot beaddedtherein that first stepwouldbeaddedat asubsequentstage.However,all of theinformationwould becapturedandusedasappropriate. Theonly caveatwasthata judgmenthadto bemadewhenarequest wasmadefor A, B, C and therewerecommentswhichexpresseddifficulties with C in which theycouldcomfortably go aheadwithA andB and theremaybeaneedto comebackanddiscussC further. But nothingthathadbeensaidwouldbediscardedor lost. TheChairassuredthat theproject documentwould beamendedappropriately,meaningthateverything thatcould betaken onboardin thatprojectwouldbedone. Somethingswouldhaveto bedeferred basedon thefact thatthatwasjustthefirst stepin addressingthosetwo recommendations. Therewould befurther stepsandbasedon oneor two areaswherethereweresomediffi cultiescoming from somemembers thatwould leadthemto bea little bit morecautiousin doingoneor maybetwo of thethingsrequestedof them.

321. TheDelegationof Brazil mentioned that in thediscussionsthepreviousday,adecisionwasreachedto changethemethodof work thattheCommitteehadfollowedsofar andto takeachanceandto pursuetheThematicProjectapproachto which theDelegation of Brazil hadmanyconcerns. TheDelegation’sconcernswerehowevercaptured andrespondedto by thethreegolden rulesthat theChairhadlaid downthepreviousday. But what concernedtheDelegationat thatjuncturewasthatbeforedeciding to adopttheThematic approachandwhenselling theThematic approachto MemberStates,theSecretariat wasvery clear, statingthatnothing was agreedupon, everythingcould bechanged or modified,theprojects werenotwrittenin stoneandthewholeprojectwas only a proposal. Member States could changeithowsoevertheywished. Andwhenproposals weremadeon thefi rst project, two thingswereheard from theSecretariat. Thefirst onewasthat this Delegationshould havesubmitteditsproposal beforein writing; andthesecondthing wasthat there wasnomoneyavailableforimplementing whatthis Delegationwasproposing. SotheDelegation’s concernwasthatthereshouldnot bedoublestandards;onestandardwhenselling theapproachandanotherstandardaftertheapproachhadbeenapproved.TheDelegation’s understandingwasthateverythingwasopenwhereMemberStatescould changewhatevertheywanted in theproject.TheDelegationsaid thatit wouldmakethechangeastheprojects werediscussedandtheSecretariat shouldtakenoteof whateverit proposed.And regardingthemoney issue,thewholeproject, includingthemoneyforeseenfor theactivit ies,wasonly anindicativefigure.If theSecretariatbelievedthattheyneededmoremoney to implementwhatever theDelegationproposed,theycouldamendtheproject andpresent thenewsum, addthenewvalueandsubtractfrom themoneythattheyhadforeseen andtheycouldpresentit at thenextsession.TheDelegationhopedhis understanding wasin conformitywith theChair’s threegoldenrules laiddownthepreviousday.


322. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America expressedpleasurein continuingthediscussion of AgendaItem 7 andthethematic project, “ IP andthePublic Domain”, andwelcomedtheopportunityto furtherreflecton theproposalby theDelegationof Brazil. TheDelegationwishedto sharesomeof its thoughts on both thesubstanceandtheprocessrelatedto thesubmissionof thatproposal.With respectto theprocess,somedelegations hadsuggestedthattheprocessfor tablingproposals for theconsiderationby theCommitteewasentirely unfettered. At thefirst session of theCDIP, theCommitteeadopted therulesofprocedurethatincorporatedthegeneralrulesof procedurethat governedall WIPOcommittees. TheDelegationinvited theattention of fellow delegatesto Rule21onproposalsby delegations.Under thatrule,proposals for theadoption of amendments to thedraftssubmittedto theGeneralAssemblyandall other proposals might besubmitted orally or inwriting by anydelegation,but theGeneralAssembly could decideto debateandvoteonaproposal only if it wassubmittedin writing. Unlessit decidedotherwise, theGeneralAssembly shoulddiscuss or voteonawrittenproposalonly if it had beentranslatedanddistributedin thelanguagesin which thedocumentsof theBodywereconsideredsubmitted.TheDelegationdid not intendto engagein aseries of rule-fettereddiscussions.However,whenamajordeparturefrom those ruleswasthrustupon it, it felt it necessaryto respond.Not only wastheprocess underwhich theproposalsubmittedapparently in contraventionofthecommittee’sagreeduponrules,evenassuming thattheproposalwasproperlysubmittedby theDelegation of Brazil, it did not appearto haveattracteda widespreaddiscussionmuchlesstheconsensusneededto go forward. TheDelegation submittedthatproposalsfor duedeliberationby theCDIP oughtto besubmittedin writing,with appropriatetime for thedelegationsto analyzeandrespond. Proposalsoughtto besubjectto informed deliberationsand shouldleadto consensusrecommendations. With respectto thesubstanceof theproposalat issue,theDelegationreservedits judgmentuntil it hadtime to duly deliberateon theproposal, but onapreliminarybasis, theproposalappearedto bestructurall y weak. TheDelegationsaidthatit supportedfact-basedanalysis, but astudy thatwould begin withanecdotalevidencesubmittedby theproponentof theproposaldid not suggest a fact-based,neutral analysisuponwhichmembersof theCommitteecouldmake informed judgments.With thoseconsiderationsin mind, theDelegation submittedthattheamendmentwasprematureandit lookedforwardto asustained,robustdebateon theproposalwhenit wasappropriately submittedandfollowing full anddue deliberationsby thecommittee.

323. TheChair proposedavoidanceof conflict, astheCommitteewas not in aprocessthatwassubstantially differentfrom whatit wasdoingthepreviousyear. In thepreviousyear’ssessions, first andsecondsessions,theChairwasnot awarethatMemberswere askedtosubmit proposals in writing beforetheycould beconsidered.Members baseddiscussionsondocument CDIP/1/3whichwasthework of theChair andtheSecretariat, li sting activitiesthatwere consideredto give effectto theadoptedrecommendations. Membersmadetheircommentsincludingrequestsfor additional activitiesor amendmentsto activi ties;theSecretariat took thosecommentsinto consideration andcameup with anamendeddocumentappropriately pricedhumanandfinancialresources. Theycameback to that Committeewithsometimesminoradjustments. But theywereable to approvethatdocument andtheSecretariat wentaheadandimplemented. Thatpartof theprocesswas to beadheredto forthatyear. Theonly differencewasthatonce theyhad definedrecommendations,rules,activities or similar onesoverlapped,theywould seek to deal with thoserecommendationstogether, meaning thattheydealtwith theactivi ties thatwouldgiveeffect to thoserecommendationstogether. Theseconddifferencewasthat theSecretariat wouldstructure theactivity in aprojectformat. TheCommitteehadtheproposedproject format which the


previousdayreceivedverygoodandquickdiscussionon recommendation 20and 16. Somemembers focusedon theactivitiesseparately. Somemembers focusedon theactivitiesthatwerestructuredin theprojectdocumentandtheyhada gooddiscussionthatshouldleadthemto a revisionof theprojectdocumentwhich wouldentail somerevisionto thepricingwhichtheywouldwanttheSecretariatto implement. Theyhad hadenoughof adiscussionthepreviousdayon theprocessandtheyapplaudedtheconclusion thatwasreached. Thatwastheconclusionthatwasreach.TheChair saidhedid not knowRule21,but heunderstoodRule1 asmeaningthat theyshouldbring their best, continueto bringout thebestspirit, thebest endeavor to advancein thatwork in thewaythatthey hadbeen doingoverthepastthreeyears. TheChair did not knowwhathappenedbefore then, but wantedRule1 that soughtbest endeavor and full cooperationto advancing thatwork. He recognized thattherewouldbedifferencesbut whentheyhadto rely onother rulesto restrain behavior, it took thespirit outof theCDIP. Thespirit in theCDIP wasto discusswhile theSecretariattooknoteof thediscussions. Somethingscouldbetakeninto theprojects,andthat couldbedonecomfortablywhilesomethings cannotbedonethatwaybut theSecretariat wouldexplain thereasons.TheChairdid not wantto getinto aconflict overthatissue,but shouldtherebeadifferencebetweentherequestfrom theDelegationof Brazil andthatof theDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americaon howthingsweredone, theChaircalled for thethree partiesto talk over.TheChair also felt thatif thedialoguewascontinuedin thatforum, hefeared thatRule1wouldsuffer, with Rule 1 beingmore importantthanRule21.

324. TheDelegationof Brazil agreedto follow Rule1. It said thatlookingat theprojectsand thewholeprocessof implementingtheDevelopmentAgenda,and thewholeprocessthattheyhadbeen engagedin for thelasttwo yearsof requesting theSecretariat to makethings,therewereonly four modelsof thingsthattheSecretariat coulddo. Thefirst modalitywasinimprovingWIPOwebsite;thesecondmodality on makingapublication; thethird modalityonmakinga workshop;andthefourthmodality wasprovidingasurvey. Thatwasthewholething thattheyhadbeendiscussing sofar. Theyhadbeenagreeingon workshops,agreeingon improvingtheWIPOwebsite, newportals,newdatabasesandthey had beentalkingabouthaving publicationsandconductingsurveys.Thosewerethebasicfour modalitiesofactivities thattheSecretariatneededto carry forwardto implementtheDevelopmentAgenda.That morning theDelegationhadproposed its first proposalonmodality onewhichwasonimproving theWIPO website.TheDelegationasked for thelist thatBrazil hadpresentedtobeput in on thatwebsiteandthenit movedto thesecondmodality. TheDelegationaskedforproviding aninvestigationandasurveyon thespecific caseof thelist but agreed thattherewasnothingoriginal in its proposal. TheDelegation drewinspiration from whatwaswrittentherein thatsection of Trademarks, it wasonbad faith, appropriation of distinctivesignsandpossibility to preventsuchpractice. TheDelegationdrewinspiration from thereandbasedonthatproposedthattheSecretariatundertookaspecific study of casesof misappropriation,ofgenericnamesassociatedwith thebiodiversity. TheDelegation alsounderstoodthattheyhaduntil theend of theweekandin Novembertheyweregoing to keeponproposingthingsto theSecretariat. TheDelegationstatedthattheactivitiesit couldaskfor were to organizeworkshopin Brazil, improvethewebsite,makea publication,andprovidethem asurvey. TheDelegationstatedthatnowwheneverit proposed anactivi ty, theUnitedStatesof Americawantedit to besubmitted30days in advance. But thatwasnot thespirit in which it decidedto moveonandto discusstheprojectapproach.TheDelegationpointedthattheChairacceptedits mistakewhenthepreviousdayit presented thatpaperandthendecidedtowithdrawit. TheDelegationof Brazil toohad committedamistakewhenit decidedto moveon to theproject-basedapproach.TheDelegation suggestedabandoningtheproject-basedapproach, takinginto accounttheresistanceby theSecretariat, andtheresistanceby


developedcountriesto acceptproposalsto theproject. TheDelegation faced resistanceto thefirst proposaland the first amendment,andsuggested thecompleteabandoningof theThematicapproachandmoveon to theold way in which theyhadbeenworkingsofar,because that wasnot whatwasagreeduponthepreviousday.

325. TheChair requestedtheDelegationfrom Brazil not to insist onabandoning thatapproach for two reasons:onewasthechallengeit hadencounteredin thelastfew minutescould haveoccurredthepreviousyear. It couldhaveoccurred thepreviousyear,but thefactthatit occurredthis time wasnot relevantto theThematic Project approach.TheChairhopedthattherewassomemisunderstandingthattheSecretariat wouldhavemadein termsof thecommentsthathadbeenheardbeforelunch. TheChair apologizedfor that andfelt thattheDirectorGeneralwantedto addressthataswell. TheChair clarified thatit wascertainly notthesituation. TheChairsoughtassurancefrom theDelegationof theUnited StatesofAmerica to moveon asdonein thepreviousyear with thediscussion thatled to theamendmentsandthengo backto theSecretariatin thesamewaythat wasdonethepreviousyearin order to settle thatissue.

326. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americasoughtto beclear aboutRule1 andthevision for theCommitteeas abody. It viewedthat bodyasevolving into a confident,deliberativebodythatcouldundertakedebateandanalysisaboutproposals to implementthe45 agreed recommendations. Thereweresomedelegationsin that roomthathadoneviewabout thewaythe IntellectualProperty system might bring thebenefits of developmentto allcornersof theworld. Therewereothersthatdiffered in their approach. Theviewof theUnitedStatesof Americawasthatthatbodyought to beamarketplaceof ideasfor theinter-relationship of IP anddevelopment.Thatwas its Rule1. It wasonly with thegreatestreluctancethattheDelegationwasforcedintoaposition of looking towards amore rigidRule21. Theproposalhadbeensubmittedwithoutthebenefit of advance noticeor informeddeliberations amongcommitteemembers, andtheDelegation thereforeremaineduncomfortablewith theproposal,evenasit lookedforwardpositively to thatCommitteeasamarketplaceof ideasto discusstheinter-relationshipsof IP in development particularly astheyhadbeen set forth in avery promisingsetof proposals tabled by theSecretariat.

327. TheDelegationof Brazil saidit believedin havingamarketplaceof ideasandwasalsoamarket believer,but whatit did not believein wasin having redtapebureaucracy. So iftheywanted to haveamarketplaceof ideas, let thedelegationsput forwardtheideas,withoutbureaucracy,withoutaskingdelegationsto presentproposals in writing in advance.In thatsensetheDelegation waswith theUnitedStatesof America.

328. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica saidthatwhile it desired to assist theChair in solvingtheproblemit wasnow moreconcernedby listeningto theconversation. TheDelegationfirstsharedtheconcernof Brazil. TheDelegation then statedthatit understoodfrom theChair’sconclusionthepreviousdaythattheprojectdealtwith two recommendations,namelyrecommendations16and20. But theactivit iesfor theRecommendation 20 hadnot yet beenagreedto or finalized. Delegationfelt that MemberStates shouldbeallowedto addactivities,and debatethem, but theresponsestheygot thatmorningfrom theSecretariat and thatfromtheChairhimself wasthatthatcouldbedoneat a certain point of timeat a later stage. TheDelegationsoughtclarificationwhether theCommitteewasaccepting thatdocument,aswasor theDelegationwasconfusedabouttheprocess.


329. TheDelegationof Argentinasaidthatwith regardto theactivit iesrecommendations16and 20,andbeyondtheproject, thecoordinationmechanismto bediscussedunderAgendaItem8 wouldbeappliedacrosstheboard. which they relate to, underAgendaItem 8 dealingwith coordination with theWIPO committees who carry out norm-setting thatwouldapplytorecommendations26and20amongstothers, if they were to beappliedacrosstheboard.

330. TheDirectorGeneralsoughtto addressthestatement by Brazil thattherewasresistancefrom theSecretariat. TheDirectorGeneral agreedwith theChair’s summary of how theCommitteewasapproachingthatandwhatdelegationscouldor could not do in sofarasitconcernedhim. TheDirectorGeneralclarified thattheOrganization’s taskwas to implementwhattheCommitteewould like to seedonewith theDevelopmentAgendaandsotherewasno questionof resistancein anywaywhatsoeveron its part. TheDirector Generalregrettedthemisunderstandingashethoughtthatwasindeedthecase.Hesaidthat theSecretariat’sattitudein putting forwardthosedocumentswasto makea goodfaith attempt to suggestto theCommitteefor its considerationonewayof implementingwhich it understoodwouldnot beacompletewayandwould alwaysbesubject to evaluationand to aninter-activeprocessinwhich theCommitteewouldnaturallyimprovethedocumentsandthroughaprocessofevaluationandinter-activeevaluation, thedocumentswould beevolutionary. And theywouldoverthecourseof timebeaddedto in accordancewith theCommittee’swishes,butWIPO’s taskwassimply to implementwhattheCommitteewould like to dowith theDevelopmentAgenda. Of course,occasionally aunanimousview might not exist but thematter couldbediscussedassuggestedby theChair. Concerningthefinancial considerations,theDirectorGeneralstatedthatwhattheChairthoughtwasabsolutely right, thatthosebeingevolutionarydocumentswouldbeaddedto andsubtracted from in thecourseof time. Inaccordancewith theirevaluationthebudget would beadjustedaccordingly and theywereallon thesamepagein understandingthatthosewereindicative budgets andthat thoseindicativebudgetsultimately madetheirway into apot which needed to bedecideduponfinally by thePBC or theGeneralAssembly, in thefinal instanceby theMember States.

331. TheDelegationof Nigeriaexpressedthattheproblemseemedfundamental, andemphasizedthattheDelegationof Brazil hadeveryright to maketheproposals it madeandlikewise theUnitedStates of Americatoohadevery right to referto therules. TheDelegationreferredto theDirectorGeneral’s statementthattheSecretariat implementedtheirdecisions,anddid not decideanything. It was thedelegationsthatdecided, while theSecretariat wentforwardto implement.Theproposalmadeby theSecretariat wasto enabletheCommitteeto cometo conclusions.Once theSecretariat hadmadetheproposals, theCommitteewassupposedto give it theownershipandtheownership was thedecisionthattheSecretariat implemented.TheDelegation felt thatoneof theproblemsfaced wasthattherewere toomuchelaborationin thoseactivitiesandprojects.

332. TheChair said thatthediscussionon recommendation 16and20andtheprojectproposals associatedwith thoserecommendationsandthediscussionsthepreviousafternoonand that morningwentwell. TheCommitteehad encounteredsomemisunderstandingat theconclusionstageof thatdiscussion.TheChairandtheDirector Generalhadsoughtto clarifythemisunderstandingand understoodconcernsof thedelegationsof Brazil, theUnitedStatesof AmericaandNigeria,andbasedon thesmoothrunon thatfi rst project, theChairagreedtotakeinto consideration all of theinterventionsmadeandadjusttheproject documentaccordingly, including the indicativefundingandcostsandthat shouldbe,to enablethemtoget to thema reviseddocument.TheChair cautionednot to expect everysingleproposal tobe reflectedin thatreviseddocument,asthat was justastartwhichhadbeen reflectedin the


project documentitself. But heassuredthatastheDirector Generalhadsaid, theirwishesasbroadlyexpressedwill betakeninto considerationas theyhadfurther revisionsto projects astheywentforward. All theChairsoughtwasahappyconclusionto thatdiscussiononrecommendation16and20on thatfirst projectandstarton thesecondproject, whichwasrecommendation7, 23and32 in thesamewaythattheydealt with 16and20andtheywouldmakesurethatat theconclusion of thatdiscussion therewasnomisunderstandingthatcouldcauseanyproblems.

333. Speakingonbehalfof LDCs, theDelegation of Bangladeshsaid that it hadmadeaconcreteproposal, andit hadso far heardnoobjectionsandnoconcernshadbeenraised.TheDelegationstatedthattherewasaneedfor revisionin theproject documentfor identifyingalso thekeyWIPOsectorsinvolvedandlinks to WIPOprograms. Sothat shouldalsoberevisedin accordancewith theproposalthattheDelegationmade.

334. TheChair felt thatall hadsettledtheir misunderstandingsandtheywould beabletomove to thesecondprojectdocument.TheChair then calledon theSecretariat to introduce7and 12andAnnexII to documentCDIP/3/4.

335. TheSecretariatmentionedthattheAnnexII to documentCDIP/3/4 groupedthreerecommendations,namelyrecommendation7, 23 and32. It recalled thatamongstthesevenrecommendationsin thelist of 19,Recommendation 7 had been discussedby theCommitteein thepast. Therevisedwork programof Recommendation7 wascontained in theChair’sSummaryfor thesecondsession of theCDIP. Recommendation 23was discussedby theCommitteein its secondsessionandthedocumentbefore themdocument CDIP/3/3containedtherevisedwork programor activitiesasdiscussedby theCommitteeandtheSecretariat,onthebasisof thosediscussions,hadrevisedthoseactivities. Recommendation32hasnot yetbeendiscussedby theCommitteeandtheactivi tiespertaining to thatrecommendation,asproposed by theSecretariat,werecontainedin documentCDIP/1/3.

336. TheChair invited theCommitteeto look at theactivi ties associatedwithRecommendation7, refresh theirmemoryon thoseactivitiesthattheyhadagreedto in theChair’sSummary for thesecondsessionof theCDIP. If therewereanydelegationsnot inpossessionof theChair’sSummaryfor thelast meeting, then theycould getacopy of thoserelevantpages1, 2 and3. With respectto Recommendation 23, theyshould havetherevisedactivities in thedocument CDIP/3/3.

337. TheChair enquiredwhetheranyMemberStatewishedto makeacommentor askaquestiononRecommendation7. TheChair drewto theattentionof themeeting thatRecommendation7 wasalreadydiscussedlast yearandthattheactivi tiesthereinwere agreedto, but if therewereanycommentsor questionson that,theywould beentertainednowbeforemoving to thenextrecommendation.

338. TheDelegationof Uruguaysought clarification from theSecretariat ononepoint in thedocument underconsiderationso thatits understandingof thingswascorrect. TheDelegationstated thatin theChair’sSummaryandAnnex to thereport of thesecondsessionof theCDIPon Recommendation7 onactivitiesinformation, it statedthatWIPOwould provideforlegislativeassistanceasregardsanti-competitive practicesin thecontext of licensingcontracts. TheDelegationfurtherstatedthatit hadlookedat thedocumentCDIP/3/4andanalyzedtheactivitiesproposedthereinandit hadnoticed thattherewasno referenceto


legislativeassistancein thecontextof theinterfacebetweenIP andanti-trustlaw. It requestedtheSecretariat to clarify thatpoint.

339. TheSecretariatreferredto page9 of AnnexII of thedocument CDIP/3/4,secondparagraphfrom thebottom. TheSecretariat explained thattheactivi ty wasnot directlyreflectedby theprojectcomponentsbecauselegalandtechnical advice wasanormal on-goingactivity of theInternationalBureau. It wouldcontinuebeing carriedout uponrequestofMemberStatesona routinebasis.Suchadvicewasalsolinkedto recommendationsdealingwith publicpolicy andflexibilities whichwereoutsidethescopeof thatparticularprojectevenif inter-relatedto it.

340. TheDelegationof CostaRicarecalled that at thelastsessionof theCDIP,asindicatedat page6 of thatdocument,delegateshaddiscussedanti-competitive practicesandin thedescriptionof thatproject,it sawmore referencesto franchiseslicenseandpolicies. TheDelegationsoughtinformationfrom theSecretariat asto whereit couldfind theanalysisoftheabuseof permanentmarketpositions andcartelsto preventaccessto marketsor to theemergenceof newtechnologies.

341. TheSecretariatrepliedthattheprojectwas not aimedat analyzing anti-competitivepracticesin general, but only thosethatwere linkedor weredirectly associated with IP.Therefore theprojectonly referredto thepractices thatwereabusiveof IP thatmayhaveananti-competitive impact. Replyingdirectly to thequestion, theSecretariat notedthattherewere two specific componentsof theprojectthatforesawthatkindof analysis and inparticular,thepossibilityof exchanging of experiencesbetween MemberStatesthathaddealtwith thatissueinternally, while its secondcomponentreferredto astudyon IP andcompetitionin selectedcountriesandregionsandthethird componentreferred to meetingsonIP andcompetitionat theregionallevel. But therewas anothercomponentwhichwasonlydescribed,but hadbeenleft openwhenit cameto topicsor themes. TheSecretariat saidthatit wouldbemorethanhappyto receivesuggestionsonspecific topicsin regardsto thecomponentsmentionedin AgendaItem 5 which wasto organizeaGeneva-basedsymposiumon emergingnew challengeson anti-competitiveuseof IP. It said thatif delegationshadconcernsaboutspecificissuesthat theywould like to betreatedspecifically, thenthatwouldbe theright placeto coverthosematters.

342. TheChair said thathewould like to requestdelegationsthat whenaquestionwasraisedto pleasepoint to thedocument,thepageandthe paragraph thattheywerereferring to so thatwhentheSecretariatwasrespondingto thosequestionsthedelegationscould follow themclearly.

343. TheDelegationof Thailandsaid it was actually referring to theRecommendation23aspart andparcelof theprojectthatwasunder discussion. However,lookingat page4 ofdocument CDIP/3/3, it noticedthatall or mostof theactivitieswereGeneva-basedandmostof it wasnot addressedto theneedsof theappropriateaudienceor targetwhich wastheSMEsand thoseenterprisesin developingcountriesand LDCs thatwouldbeable to receivetheknowledgeandunderstandingonhowto useIP competitively. TheDelegationwonderedwhetherit could receive someclarificationson that issuefrom theSecretariat.

344. TheSecretariatnotedthattheProject approach was being developedto provideaholistic treatmentof all recommendations. TheSecretariat wasmainly concernedaboutensuring thatit did not losethenuancesof eachrecommendation. Therefore, theDelegation


of Thailandwould probablynot find aspecific component of thatproject that specificallydealt with Recommendation23,but therewere7 componentsof that project that wouldbedealt with underthatRecommendation.TheSecretariat alsodrewtheDelegation’s attentionand that of theCommitteeto item 1 onpage3 of Annex II. Item 1 of theproject introducedtheissueonWIPOtrainingprogramson technology licensing. TheSecretariat saidthatWIPO, in particular thePatentDivision, had carried out for yearsaprogram on trainingnegotiatorsin theareaof transferof technology. Therewasa tool kit with anexplanationofbest practicesandsomerecommendations on licensingthatwasprepared. Thenovelty in thatproject would betheinclusion of specific concernsonanti-competitive clauses in licensingagreements.WhattheSecretariatwould try to doessentially with theassistanceandcooperation of MemberStateswhenteachingor trainingnegotiatorsor futurenegotiators,wouldbeto includetrainingto detectclausesthat eitherwereblatantly competitive or mayhaveananti-competitiveimpact. So thatwasthespirit of item1. Item 2 alsospokeof theissueor mayspeakto theissueof anti-competitive clauses in licensingagreementsbecausethesestudies wouldexploreor assess experiencesandpracticesby countriesandwouldnecessarilylookat nationallawsandnational practicesin licensingagreements.This waslinkedto thecomponentof item 7 dealingwith publication of studiesandproceedings ofregionalmeetings.

345. TheDelegationof Chileexpressedits generalsupportfor theproject andagreedwiththeactivities proposedby theSecretariat.TheDelegation said it waslookingat documentCDIP/3/4, for exampleRecommendation32,whereactivit ieswereproposedwhichwouldfaithfully reflectwhatwasthere. It agreedwith CostaRicaand recalled thatit heldrelateddiscussions in thelastmeetingof theCommittee. It believedthat theobjectivesof theThematicprojectasreflectedonpage3 did not faithfully reflect Recommendation7. It alsobelievedthatthesenseof thesethreerecommendationsweretwo-fold. Firstly, workingtowardscompetitive practicebut alsoconsidering anti-competitivepractices. And while theissueof anti-competitivepracticeswasavery importantpart of Recommendation7, it did notseetheword includedin theobjectivesanywhere.Forexample, in theactivitiesproposalanddeliverystrategyin point 2, thestudyneededto addressanti-competitive practicesnot justreferringto licenseswhichwastheemphasisgiventhere. Not justtheemphasisbut therewasasole focuson licensegranting. Now with regard to proposed activit y 1, theDelegationaskedwhetherthetool kits andpublicationsfor trainingprograms mentioned in theprojectwerepublicor whethertheyweremadeon anad hocbasisfor certainactivitiesor whetheritwasacombination of bothof these.It notedthat therewasconsiderable interestin Chile inthesepublicationsandtool kits andit would like further information on those. In activitynumber2, theDelegationsaidit hadnothingto proposebut aquestion to askwith regardtothecriteriafor selectingcountries.TheDelegationbelievedthatthis wassomething thatAlgeriahadraisedon thepreviousday at themeetingand it wasvery importantthatregionalrepresentationwasensured.TheDelegationassuredthattherewasno reasonto believethatitwouldnot participatein theseactivitiesthatwerealreadyfoundto bevery useful. TheDelegationalsostatedthat its viewswere thesamewith regardto activity number3 relatingto holdingof regional seminarsandmeetingson this issue.It wasof theview that thesewerevery important andobviously it would like to participate in them. Financial help for holdingsuchmeetingsin developingcountrieswouldbebetteralthoughit understood thattheorganization’s resourceswerelimited. TheDelegationstated what was mostimportantwas toemphasizethatthereshould beabetterreflectionof anti-competitivepracticesandwaystoreflect thatin theobjectivesof theProject. Forexample, it might beconsideredwhetherArticle 10bis of theParisConvention,onunfair competition, could beusedasamodel. But


perhapsthatprovisionwasveryold andneededto beupdated. Theseweremattersthatneededto betakenintoconsideration.

346. TheSecretariatagreedwith theDelegation that probably theProject put toomuchemphasis on licensingagreements. It wasknownthatanti-competitivepractices couldbebilateralor unilateral(for example,refusals to licensewhenassociatedwith someothercircumstances that makethepracticeanti-competitive). So,sometimes theIP ownercouldrely onhis marketpowerto abuserightswithouttheneedof thecontribution of a third party.WhattheSecretariatwouldsuggest in a revised versionof thedocumentwasto eliminatethesentence“the focuswouldbeprimarily on thecompetitive effects of differentlicensingprovision” from item2. In thatmanner theemphasison licensingagreements couldbeeliminated. Regardingthequestionon whether thetool kits werepublic, theanswerwas yes,theywereWIPOpublications,so theywereavailable, theyweretranslated into differentlanguagesandnecessarilytherevisedversionwould alsobepublished andtranslated. As totheregional representation,theSecretariat agreedthat it was oneof its main concernssoitwoulddiscussthatwith MemberStates.TheSecretariat restated thatits activi tiesweredemand-driven;thereforeit wouldbewaiting for therequeststo comefrom MemberStates.TheSecretariatalsopointedout to the list of activit iesandtimescheduleat page7 for holdingof theregionalor sub-regionalmeetingsandnotedthatalready onehadbeen heldfor theAsian countriesin theRepublicof Korea. Sotherewerefour otherregionsto cover.Therefore,theSecretariathadtakenthis regionalcoverageinto considerationalready. Toconclude,theSecretariatpointedto Article 10bis of theParis Convention,which wasaboutunfair competition andnot aboutcompetition law. Therefore,onecouldof courseincludeunfair competition into thebroadnotionof competition to theextent that onecould includeIPin thewholenotionof competition. But in this case,theexamination of anti-competitivepracticesmight leadto examinationof anti-trustpractices,to usetheAmericanlegalterminology. TheSecretariatconcludedthatunfair competition would beoutsidethescopeofthis study. Thereweresomeareasof anti-trustthatcould touchuponthetwo fields, forexample, dumping. Dumpingcouldbeseenasact of unfair competition, but it couldalsoconstitutean anti-competitivepractice.TheSecretariataddedthatthelegal framework forwork on IP andcompetitionlaw waselsewhere:in Article 5(A)(2) of theParisConvention,which wasintroducedat therevision of theHague, in 1925,andwasindeedadatedprovisionthatmight no longerreflecttheconcernsof MemberStates. But at thattime theSecretariatwasnot thinkingof proposinganassessment of theappropriatenessof Article 5(A)(2), butrather implementing thethreecompetitionpolicy-relatedrecommendationsof theAgendaforDevelopment.

347. TheDelegationof Egyptstatedthatunder AgendaItem 6, when discussingdocumentCDIP/3/5,it hadraisedtheissueof thesharingof experienceonanti-competitivepracticesinthevariousjurisdictions. It notedthattheSecretariat had pointed out thatit would elaborateon this issueunderAgendaItem 7. TheDelegation’s particularquestionandsuggestedactivity that touched uponrecommendations7, 23 and32was first of all to askif WIPOhadaguide in thesenseof apublishedor anavailabledocumentaboutthesortof varioustreatmentsof theanti-competitive effectsof IP andhowthis wasbeing treatedin differentjurisdictions,particularlyhow this pertainedto theuseof compulsorylicensingunderanti-competitivepracticesaswell assomeof theanti-competitivenatureof licensingagreements. TheDelegationrequestedto know if a guideexistedand if it wasbeingused in technicalcooperation activit ies. If it did not existtheDelegationsaid it would proposeasanactivity,thatWIPO coulddevelopsucha guide. This pertainedin generalto recommendations7, 23and 32. TheDelegationalsostatedthatit hadsomecommentson thedrafting of theproject


document but at this stage,following theprocedureof just commenting on therecommendationsat thefirst stage,it would leave at that.

348. TheSecretariatrepliedbriefly andstatedthat it did not actually havesucha guideasmentionedby theDelegationof Egypt. However, thelegalframework to dosoexistedbecause Article 5 of theParisConvention referredto abusivepracticesof IP. It did not referto anti-competitive effects,but it referredto theabuseof IPRs. In this casetheSecretariatnoted thatit wasin thehandsof theMember Statesto decideona courseof action.

349. TheDelegationof Brazil reiteratedtheimportance that its Government attached to theissueof competitionpolicy. IP andCompetitionpolicy wasindeeda crucial strategicandindispensableelementof theWIPODevelopmentAgendaandthoseelementshad beenreflectedin 3 of the45agreedrecommendations. TheDelegationbelievedthat theessentialcomponentof theprojectbeforetheCommitteemustbeto ensurethatWIPOtechnicalassistanceandlegislativeadviceincorporated thetopicof IP andcompetition. Whendeliveringtechnical assistanceactivities,WIPOshouldtake thatinto accountandprovidedevelopingcountrieswith asmuchinformation aspossibleand inform themon theneutralbasiswhattheycando to nationallyimplementrobustcompetition legislation. TheDelegationstatedthatit hada few specificcommentsto make. Thefi rst onewasregardingpage3 underitem4 concerninga globalmeetingonemergingcopyright licensingmodality,and askedif theSecretariatwouldcomment on therealization of that meeting. It, however,proposed to includeasimpleword in thatparagraph,whichwastheword “free” wheretherewasa referenceto proprietary software,andanotherreferenceto opensourcesoftware,andincorporatetheword “free software”hereto ensurethat this global meetingwould beaspluralisticas possible.And if themeetingreally wishesto bepluralistic, it couldnot ignorealargecommunityof freesoftwaredevelopers andusers.TheDelegationalsostatedthatit hadamorespecific commentto makeunderAgendaItem 2 on IP andcompetition in selectivecountriesand regions. It wonderedif theSecretariat couldprovidefurtherinformationonhow thosecountriesandregionswouldbeselected. TheDelegation alsomadeasuggestionregardingRecommendation23whosescopewasbroaderthan theissueof competitionitself.The recommendation pointedout theneedfor fosteringcreativi ty, innovation andthetransferand disseminationof technologyto interestedcountriesand in particular, developingcountriesand LDCs. It statedthat it would like to encouragetheSecretariat to takethatinto accountand to incorporatethatbroaderapproachwhencarrying out thatproject. And on theitem 2,theSecretariat couldidentify possibletoolsandmeasuresthatcountries wereimplementingwith aview to fosteringcreativityinnovationandthetransferanddissemination oftechnologyto developingcountries. It alsoadded thatthescopeof this third itembebroadenedto encompassacomparativeanalysis of national legislations,noting thatthedevelopedcountriesmight havein general amorerobustcompetition legislation thandevelopingcountriesandin thatparticularregard, it believed thatdevelopingcountriesmighthavea lot to learnfrom theirmorerobustregimeof competition. So acomparative analysiswould reallyallow for anenhancedunderstandingof how thecompetition policy andlegislationvaried from countryto country.

350. TheSecretariatbriefly commentedon theproposalby theDelegation of Brazil tobroaden thescopeand includethecomparative analysisof practices andexperiences.Itassuredthat this wasexactly thespirit of theexerciseconductedby theSecretariatin thatfield. But it notedthat thoseexperiencesandpracticescouldnot beisolatedfrom thelaws.Regardingthemechanism of selection of countriesandregionswhichhad been raisedby theDelegationof Chile, theSecretariatstatedthattheprocesswouldbedemand-drivenand


wouldneedto lookat countriesandregionsthathavealready acquired someexperiencein theareaof anti-competitivepracticesin theareaof IP. Brazil for examplehasacompetitionauthority for thelast 47 years. It wasfirst establishedin 1962andvery recently theSupremeCourt of Brazil held anopinionextremelyimportant andinnovative in theareaofanti-competitivepracticesin theareaof IP. SotheSecretariat would look at specificcountries andspecific regionsthathavethis experience. Theideawasto shareexperiences.It wastherelationshipin thosecountrieswherethereweretwo authoritiesthat might haveattribution in theareaof IP andanti-competitive practices thatis competition authoritiesandIP agencies.TherearesomecountrieswheretheIP agencieslook at anti-competitiveclausesin licensing agreements. How would thoseauthoritiescooperate; howwould theysharetheirattribution; their competencewassomething thatof course, would belookedat.

351. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America waspleasedto sharewith themembersof theCommittee,its viewson theactivitiesundertheThematic Projecton IP andcompetitionpolicy. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof AmericabelievedthatanyWIPOactivities relatedto thecomplexrelationshipbetweenIP law andcompetition policy shouldbeguidedby certain limiting principles-- namely thenormative principle, thenon-duplicativeprincipleandthepolicy neutralprinciple. Theactivitiesin this areashouldavoidnorm-settingleading to bindinginternationalagreementsandshouldnot stray into areasthatwentbeyondthelimitedscopeof theagreed recommendations. TheDelegation furtherexplained that undernon-duplicativeprinciples,theactivitiesshould becarefully craftedtocomplementratherthanto duplicateprogramsandactivi ties in otherinternational fora.Regardingthepolicy neutralprinciple,theDelegation noted thatin light of thefactthatcompetitionpoliciesvarywidely amongcountries and regions,theUnitedStatesof AmericabelievedthatWIPO activitiesin this areashould bepolicy neutral, drawingondifferingnational andregionalapproachesto illustrate rather thanto prescribespecific policyapproaches.With thosegenerallimiting principlesin mind, theUnitedStatesof Americaalsosoughtclarificationanddiscussion amongdelegationsonanumberof specific issues.One,whatinvolvementif any,wouldcompetitionauthorities,organizationsor expertshave in theproposed activities? Two, hadanysuch activitiesor personsbeeninvolved in pastWIPOcompetitionrelatedactivities? Three,howdid theSecretariat envisagemaking theprojectoperational? Four,whatwould bethefocalpoint of theaudiencein theproject, would theybeNational CompetitionAuthorities,NationalIP Authorities,or perhapsevenIP Licensors orLicensees?Five, would theprojectdealwith all typesof IP includingpatents, trademarks andcopyrights? And six, in seekingto broadenthediscussion,had MemberStatesconsultedwiththeirownnational competitionauthorities on theactivitiesproposedin this project? If so, dothoseauthoritiesagreethat WIPO is theappropriate forum for this project? TheDelegationoftheUnitedStates of Americawould like to place its viewson this projectwithin thehistoricalcontextof WIPO’s engagementwith IP andcompetition issues.An information documentpreparedby theSecretariatfor thesecondsession of theCDIP stated as follows: “To datetherehavebeenvery few requestsfrom MemberStatesfor technical assistancein thefield ofIPRsandcompetition policy apartfrom WIPO’s involvementin meetingsin which thetopicwasincludedin theprogram”. Thesamedocumentwent on to state that “So far WIPOhasnot received anyspecificrequestsfor assistanceon matters of competition policy anditsinterfacewith IPRs”. Giventhecomplexity of theseissues and giventhis background,theUnitedStatesof Americasaid it remainedskeptical whether WIPO wastheappropriateforumfor all of theactivit iesproposedin theproject. If on theother hand,WIPO wereto undertakestudiesandholdmeetingson this topic, theUnitedStatesof Americaencouraged theSecretariat to consultwith internationalorganizationshavingprovenexpertisein thatarea.Finally, for manyof thereasonsdiscussedin theabovepoints andprinciples,theUnited


Statesof Americawasnot preparedto supporttheproposalby theDelegationof EgyptforWIPO to preparean interpretativeguideon IPRsand its anti-competitive effects.

352. TheChair askedif theSecretariatwould like to respondto thesuggestionby theDelegationof Brazil on freeandopensourcesoftware.

353. TheSecretariatstatedthatin respectof theproposedglobal meetingonemergingcopyright licensingmodalities, andthesuggestion that freesoftwarebealsomentionedin theoperativelanguagewherethevaryingformsof software creation, licensingandprotectionmodelsarementionednamelyproprietarysource,theanswer would beyes.TheSecretariatwouldnot excludefreesoftwarebut it wasaninterestingpoint becauseastheprocessmovedintowhatwascharacterizedasthethird generation of freeandopen softwarecreationandconceptionin themid 1980’stherewereinteresting divergences anddifferencesof approachbetweenfreeandopensourcesoftwarethat werebeing takenparticularly with respecttocopyright licensing. Theprovisionsof GNU licensedversion3 served asanexample.Itwouldbevery interestingto includefreesoftware aswell asopensourcebecausethosewereinteresting issuesto considerso theanswerwould beyes.

354. TheDelegationof Chinaobservedthatit wasavery goodideato haveabetterunderstanding of theinterfacebetweenIP andcompetition policy, asameansof respondingtotheuseof IP in theformulationof policy of competition. TheDelegationthoughtthis wasvery necessaryandhopedthatWIPO would assistthedevelopingcountriesparticularly theLDCs soasto providemoreinformationin thatfield.

355. TheDelegationof Argentinapointedout thatRecommendation23wascontainedwithinthedocumentandalsoit wasa recommendation thatwasapprovedby theMembersStateswhowereinvolvedin thegroupthatdevelopedstandardsfor therecommendations. TheDelegationthenreferredto theproposalsfrom the“Groupof theFriendsof Development”thatamongotherthings,also proposedexchangeof national experiences. As far astheDelegationunderstood,thatwasanactivity that hadbeenacceptedandin fact thereeveninvitationsto expertshadbeenmadeon thesubject. It therefore requested to knowwhathappenedto thatproposalfrom the“Groupof Friendsof Development”.

356. TheSecretariatrespondedvery briefly to thecomments madeby thedelegationsof theUnitedStatesof AmericaandArgentina. It notedthatsomeif not all of thecommentsof theDelegationof theUnited Statesof Americawereaddressed not only to theSecretariat, butalso to themembership. As suchit would not respondto thoseotheraspects. It agreedfullywith thethreegeneralprincipleslaid out by theDelegation of theUnitedStatesof America,but it did not seethemaslimiting thescopeof thesubject. On thecontrary,whentheprincipleswould benon-normativeandpolicy neutral, it would giveamuchbroaderarrayofpossibilitiesif thework wasboundby normative purposes.However,extremecareandcautionwould needto beexercisedsoasnot to appearbiasedandbelimitedby this bias. Itagreedthatpolicy neutralitywasthebestwayto go. On thespecific topics,theSecretariatstated thatit expectedandhopedthatcompetitionpolicy agencieswouldparticipatein thosediscussions. As regardsthesecondquestionfrom theDelegationof theUnited StatesofAmericawhethersuchagencieshadbeen involved,theSecretariat recalledits interventiononMondaywherebyit informedthemeetingthatsofar, theSecretariat hadbeeninvolvedinonly oneconferencespecificallydealing with competitionpolicy andit washeld in theRepublicof Koreain Daejeonwhererepresentatives from 13countries participated. For thosecountriesthathavecompetitionauthorities,thesebodieswe invitedto theconferenceaswell


as nationalIP authoritiessothattheycouldsharetheir variousexperiences.OnhowtheSecretariat envisagesthe deliveryof theproject, it explainedthattheseprojects werelike theothers but thepresentprojectin particularcorrespondedto theessential natureof aninternational Organization,which is to providea forum to discusstheemerging issues.As towhowill bethetarget audience,theSecretariat statedthatit will comprisepolicy makers,competitionauthorities,IP authorities,users of IP, lawyers,economists,otherinternationalorganizations,non-governmentalorganizations,andsoon. It notedthat it would beanopenexercisethatprovidedopportunityfor understandingandsharingof theexperiences. As towhatkindsof IP will bediscussed,theSecretariat statedthat it would involveall kindsof IP.TheSecretariatnotedthattheideaof consulting MemberStatesin thediscussionto involveother agenciesis amatterto bedecidedby theMemberStatesthemselves.As regardstheconsultationwith otherwith theInternationalOrganizationswith expertisein theareaofcompetitionpolicy, WIPOwill dosoasit is linkedto thegeneral principlethatit agreed with,which is theprinciple of non-duplicativeefforts. WIPOwouldnot repeat whatotherInternationalOrganizationshavedone;thereforeit will consultwith them. TheSecretariatcited therelevantexampleof theinvitationextendedto astaff of theof theSecretariatof theWTO to attendtheconferenceorganizedlastyear in theRepublic of Koreawhosharedtheexperiencesof theworkinggroupin thatorganization. Regarding thequestionwhetherWIPOwastheappropriate forum to discussthis subject, it left to MemberStatesto decide.

357. TheChair statedthataswassaidbefore,themain objectiveof at leasttwo of theactivities wasto makeit possiblefor MemberStatesto sharetheir experiences. Referring totheinvitation of expertshesaidthatthatwassomething thatwas outsidetheproject. The ideaof bringingexperts to theCDIP andto speakaboutcompetitionpolicy, thatwasaproceduralmatter thatstill hadto bediscussedandorganizedinternally and it wasnot includedin theproject.

358. TheSecretariatthankedtheChair andaddresseda partof thequestionfrom theDelegationof Argentina. On thelastpageof documentCDIP/3/3, thelastactivity, said“subject to theapprovalof theCommittee, experts on theinterfacebetween IP andcompetitionwould beinvited to addresstheCommittee”. It wasincluded andif theCommitteeagreed,theywouldbeundertaking thatactivit y in thefuture.

359. TheDelegationof ColombiathankedtheChairandsaid it agreedwith therecommendation. It believedthatit represented animportantconcernwith regardto theissueof IP, which related to theuseof exclusiverights grantedby thepatentsandotherformsof IP.It believedthatcertainelementscouldbeaddressed assuch theissuesrelating to TRIPSAgreements or anti-competitiveconduct. However, document CDIP/3/3Annex II suggestedanumberof comments, which it believedwith regard to theproposed activitiesin thatrecommendationhadalreadybeenmentioned. Thenegotiating models it believedhadto beestablishedby individual andfrom that prospective, Colombiadid not believethatthecontrolovercreativework shouldbelost. It wouldbeimportant thereforeto ensurethatfinancingwasavailable from government.It addedthat developingcountriesdid not havesufficientresourcesin theareaof communicationmedia, theyhadpotential in literaryandartistic work,which wereimportantfor productionmediaandcommunications. TheDelegation thereforereiteratedits position in saying thattheOrganizationshouldnot call uponMemberStates toadopt for onemodelof negotiationtakinginto accountthat thepublicsector of eachStatewasnot thepolitical driver in promotingopen-sourcesoftware,but it wastheprivatesectorwhichwasresponsible for thatwork, governedby theprinciplesof freecompetition.


360. TheDelegationof Egyptstatedthatit wishedto moveto recommendation32whichrequestedWIPOto provideanopportunity to exchangeinformation relating to nationalandregionalexperienceson thelinks betweentheIPRsandcompetitionpolicies. First it hadamethodologicalquestionrelatingto this recommendationand thenasubstantive proposal tomake. Methodologically, if theSecretariat couldsharewith them how it hadgone with regardto thepracticeof sharing informationand theexchangeof national andregionalexperienceswith regardto particularIP issues. Specifi cally hadWIPO, in conducting suchanexercise,producedpublicationsthatincludedacomparative approach,andhadit createdadatabaseofvariousnationallegislationsandpoliciesonparticularareas.TheDelegation thought thatitsmethodologicalquestionwouldenable them to tackletheessenceof Recommendation32better. Thesecondpartof its questionrelatedto thesubstance. It believedthereweremeritsin creating,not only a guidebookin thevariousIP andanti-competitive practiceapproachindifferent jurisdictions,but it believedin theCollectionof Lawsfor ElectronicAccess(CLEA)website. It believedthatanimprovementto suchawebsitewouldbeto includelawsthatdealwith theanti-competitiveeffectsof IP. It believedthatthis would provideamoreholisticapproachonhowdifferentMemberStatesprovidedtreatmentto theissueof thedownside,theproblematicaspectsof IP, andit wishedto particularly suggestperhapsasort of adatabaseoncompulsory licensingthathadastheiressenceanti-competitive practices. TheDelegationstated thattherewasavery goodprogramof cooperationon IP in Egyptwith someof theMemberStatespresent.Unfortunately, thoseprogramsdid not entail anti-competitivepractices. TheEgyptianLaw2002issuedin 2001, whichwas the current applied IP law hadparticulararticlesdealingwith compulsory licensingas theypertainedto anti-competitivepractices. It wasimportantfor theirexperiencethattheydevelopedpolicy in IP andanti-competitivepracticesandthattheyrealized whatotherjurisdictionswereapplyingin thisregard. And perhapssomeof theMember States,particularly thosewhohadthetraditionofissuingcompulsorylicenses wouldbeableto contribute to this undertakingby WIPObecause at theendof thedaythat hadthebenefit of providingabalancedapproachto IP.

361. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America apologized for takingthefloor again,but did wantto taketheopportunityto thanktheSecretariat for its thoughtful responsesto itsmanyquestions.Therehadbeenparticular interestin its Capital on thatparticularissue, soitsDelegationwould takethosethoughtfulresponsesbackto Washingtonfor furtherreviewandanalysisItalsowishedto mentionthatit would,atan appropriate time,seek abilateralconsultationwith theDelegationof Egyptto determinewhethertheir guideamountedto asimplecompilation of laws, which theUnitedStatesof Americawouldhavelittle or noobjection to, or whetherit comprisedamoreinterpretive guidewith aparticular policyorientation,whichwould raisequestionsfor them.

362. TheDelegationof Brazil supportedtheproposalby Egypt. It believed that in thatparticularfield thedevelopedcountriesmayhavehad amorerobustandmoredevelopedsystemof promoting competition,andlegislation alsomoreorientedto promotecompetition,and it believedthatit wouldhavea lot to gainfrom shedding light uponnational legislationsand compiling thosenationallegislationsandmaking them availableon thewebsite. TheDelegationthought it wouldbein theinterestof thewholemembership andalsothestakeholdercommunity thatworkedwith WIPO. Soin that regard it wishedto support theproposal by Egypt.

363. TheSecretariatrespondedto thecomments from Colombiaconcerning thesponsorshipor creationof softwarein publicandprivatesector. In relation to thatproject, themeetingthatit intended to organizedid not reallygo into theissueof who financed production of


softwarebut moreon thedifferentcopyrightlicensingmodalities. And specifically theissueof apublicsector support,publicsectorpoliciesfor softwaredevelopment, may beincludedin termsof discussionon thedifferentlicensingmodalities but therewould not beaseparatesubjectof policy analysisor approachduringtheglobalmeeting. Themeeting wasjust toreally illustratethedifferentwaysthatcopyright li censesweredevisedin relation toproprietarysoftwareto otherformsof copyright content without indicating,at leastfrom thepoint of viewof theSecretariat,apolicy preferenceonewayor theother. It was verymuchafirst cut to assemble informationondifferentlicensingoptionsandpractices,andon thebasisof themeetingandtheresults of themeetingthen theMemberStatescould decide forthemselvesif acertainpolicy directionshould beconsidered in theframeworkof theCommitteeor a furtherWIPOactivity.

364. TheSecretariatthenaddressedthecomments by theDelegationof Egypt andfirstly toits methodological question. TheSecretariat stated thattheexperience it hadsofar in thefield of competition policy wasobtainedin theSeminarit organizedin Daejeonthepreviousyear, andwhereit took theinitiative of providingor makingpossible for MemberStatestosharetheir experiences. It wasa3-daySeminar. Thefi rst dayandahalf werededicatedtonormallecturesfollowedby Q&A sessions,and thenoneday andahalf sessionswith therepresentativesfrom theCompetitionAuthoritiesandIP Agenciesfrom different countriesrepresentedthereto give their testimony,sharingof their experiencesin implementingcompetitionlaw policiesin associationwith IP. It hadnot publishedthatinformation; justcollectedthepresentationsinto aCD-ROM. It hadnot shared it publically becauseit wasatestingof thewaters. But it wasgoing to do this,of course,duringtheproject soin amoreconsistentandcoherentmanner.Regarding thesubstancetheguidebookwasamatterforMemberStatesto discuss.Referringto theproposalto broadentheCLEA websiteandincludecompetition law thatwassomething thattheDirectorGeneral would announcesoon.Therewasaninitiative to reviseCLEA andmakeit moreconsistent, moreactivated,morereliable,andin thatcase it wasgoing to havespecific topicsoncompetition law. Referringtothedatabaseof compulsorylicensing,experiencesandpractice, theWIPOSecretariatwasorganizingdatabasewith examplesof licensingagreementclausesandin thoseclauseswereanti-competitiveclauses.But specificallyon compulsorylicenses,it thoughtthatit wouldbedifficult to haveabroadandexhaustive list of compulsorylicensingpracticesin countriesbecause therewereverymanydifferentways of approachingcompulsorylicensing. Thebestknown andprobablytheeasiestwayto detecta compulsory licensewereto identifycompulsory licensesgrantedby countriesin anadministrativeprocedure. But in manycases,compulsory licensesweregrantedby Courts in durationof an infringementlaw-suit. In thatcaseit wasextremely difficult to gocaseby caseand identify thecompulsorylicenses.Whatit wouldproposeif theMemberStatesagreed,wouldbesamplingcompulsorylicensescases.So it suggestedto identifyseveralinstancesor several modalitiesandthendiscusstheparticulardetails of eachcase.

365. TheDelegationof CostaRicastatedthat in light of thedocument andtheactivitiesprovided,it consideredtherehadbeena goodeffort madeby theSecretariat in orderto bringform to theactivitiesin theform of therecommendationsandtheproject. It wasanexperiencewhich wasbeginning andhad not lastedmany yearsbut overtimewassure thatineachoneof themeetingsandeachoneof thecountrieswould beableto presentadministrativeandjudicial decisions,which related to anti-competitive practicesandIPRs. Itsuggestedawayof compiling suchcasessothatmembers throughtheinternetor someothermeanscouldfindout about thecasesthathadbeen resolved,whatruling shouldhavebeen


made.Quiteoftencaseswereduplicatedfrom countryto country, andsoif through WIPOexchangescould bemade,this couldleadto eventual bilateral agreements.

366. TheSecretariatsummarized themain points madein its activit iesfollowing thesevencomponentsbut wishedto addtheremarksandsuggestionsmadeby Membersduring theveryinteresting andrelevantdiscussionsession. To startandbroadenthescopeof thesharedexperiencesit wouldnot look only at licensing agreement,but at anti-competitive practicesingeneral. It wasabsolutelyclearthatit wasnot lookingat normative exercise. This wasanon-normativeexercise. Its aim wasnon-duplicating theefforts of otherorganizations,andthiswasits mandate, its majorobligationasinternationalcivil servants,it wouldbepolicy neutral.In thesecondremark, the samepoint woulddependondiscussionsto beheld amongMemberStates. Its lastremarkwasthatit would rely verymuchonexperiencesof MemberStates andfollowing thesuggestionby CostaRica, it would taketheproactive role of askingMemberStatesto submit theirexperiences.It would think of somesortof survey or questionnairesothatit could obtain abroadsampling,withoutpromising to beexhaustive but it couldprobablyobtain averygoodandbroadpictureof practicesby MemberStates.

367. TheDelegationof India took thefloor stating that it got theimpression thatit wasreachingtheendof discussionson the recommendation. TheDelegationwishedto echothethoughtsof ChileandCostaRicathattheobjectivesmentionedin documentCDIP/3/4did notadequatelyreflectthespirit of Recommendation7, andit preferredthatthelanguagebealteredto better reflectasit did not hearany particular referenceto that suggestion from theSecretariat. Perhapsthesentencing,theaim shouldbespecific stating thatWIPOshouldpromotemeasures to countriesto dealwith IP relatedanti-competitive practices,shouldbethereandnot just merelyto promoteanunderstandingof theinterfaceof IP andcompetitionpolicy. Also thescopeof recommendation7 in its view wentfar beyondIP licensingpractices. This neededto bereflectedin thebrief descriptionof projectsectionbecauseit sawthatsomeelementsof recommendation7 werenot there. TheDelegationnotedthattheliteratureonanalysis of theinterfacebetween IP andcompetition policy hadgenerallyfocusedon theexperienceof a few developedcountries. Sinceaone-size-fi ts-all approachwouldnot bethebest one,thesharing of experiencesandbestpracticescouldfall shortofexpectedresultsfor developingcountries.It thereforesuggestedthat work on the threerecommendationsandrecommendation7 in particular, berootedin developingcountries’experiences,particularly theLDCsdueto thespecific natureof thechallengesfacedby them.It could alsobereflectedbetter in thesection2.3ondelivery strategy. In that contextitwishedto seegreaternorth-southexchangeof experiences in theworkshopsthat wereplannedand wishedto suggest thatin thestudiesthatwereproposed,theneedto look into aspecificsector. TheDelegationwasvery interestedif asectoral analysis suchasthedrugandpharmaceutical sector.Thebio-technology sector,nanotechnologysectors, etc., couldalsobe looked at. This couldbevery helpful sincetheIP and thecompetitionpolicy interfacevariedfrom onesectorto another.Lookingat thedocument CDIP/2/4, whereagainsttheRecommendation7, therewasavery detailedexplanation of whatkind of legislativeassistanceandadvicecouldbegivento developingcountriesandLDCson request.Itmentionedspecifically properscopeof exclusive IP rights,includingappropriateexceptionsand limitationsto thoserightsaswell astheuseof legal optionssuch ascompulsorylicenses.TheDelegation thoughtthatit wouldbehelpful to keepthis elaboration in theendof theproject document. This wasasuggestion thatit would leavewith theSecretariat,but if wouldbepossibleto incorporate,it thoughtit wouldbeuseful.


368. TheChair agreedthattherequests seemed reasonableandvalid, andunlessheheardany objections,hethoughttheycouldbeincorporated.

369. TheDelegationof Egyptwishedto referto its earlier comment on theprojectdocumentas awhole,retaining exactlyto thepoint alludedby theDelegation of India, thatit believedthatthesevenobjectivesdid not capturethespirit of therecommendations,particularlyRecommendation7, so it wishedto addavoiceof supportto that. TheDelegation wishedtonotethatit welcomedthebilateralconsultationswith theDelegationof theUnitedStatesofAmerica, but just to clarify thattheproposalfrom Egypt wasto produce a guidebookonnotonly thelegalaspectsbecausethatpertainedto thesecondproposalthat it providedfor anactivity, which wasto updatetheCLEA database. On theguidebookit believed thatitspecificallypertainedto IP andanti-competitive practice asit pertainedto policy experiencein not only pertainingto compilationof lawsbut actually onpoliciesasto howdifferentjurisdictions haddealtwith theproblem. It still presentedthis andif theDelegation of theUnitedStatesof Americastill objectedto having it asanimplementationactivity forRecommendation32, thenit wouldhaveto present its objection. It could still do thebilaterals, but it wishedto explainthatthis wasthenatureof theactivi ty beingproposedfromEgypt. Referring to theideathatit proposed updating theCLEA websiteto includelegislationpertaining to anti-competitivepractices, it welcomedthat theDirector General wasproposingto haveaninitiative; howeverit wouldhavelikedanactivity to beincludedincarryingout this Recommendation. It added that it wouldbeinteresting to seewhattheDirectorGeneralproposedbut it wishedto specifically mention this as aMemberStaterecommendationandit askedthatit would bereflectedin theproject. Finally, onamoreconceptualissue,theDelegationsaid it was concernedaboutreferencesto otherwork in otherFora. It wasnot awareof themultilateralforathatdiscussedIP andanti-competitivepracticesthatwouldhinderWIPOin engagingthatissue.And assuchit did not believethattheSecretariat shouldbeconstrainedin its effortsto caution to amultilateraleffort thatdid notexist. It wishedto expressthattheSecretariat should beunhindered in its examinationonsuchissueon theinterrelationship between IP andcompetitionpolicy.

370. TheDelegationof India wishedto noteits satisfaction with thework programoutlinedunder therecommendationsandit wishedto thank theSecretariat for theverywell-consideredand put togetheractivities. Referringto thestatementmadeby theDelegation of Egypt,itwishedto addthatit supportedthework programs in thatCluster,and it thoughtthatmeritdetailedstudy regardless of whetherit hasbeendoneelsewhereor not.

371. TheChair askedfor clarification if theDelegationof India reall y meantwhetherit hadbeendoneelsewhereor not,askingif it hadbeen doneelsewherewhetherWIPOshouldstilldo it again.

372. TheDelegationof India clarified thatit wasagreeing to thepoint madeby theDelegationof Egypt that if thesubjectof IP andcompetition law hadbeendealt withelsewhere,it wasnot awareof it, andtheareathat hadbeenspecifiedthere met with itsexpectationsandit sawmerit in undertaking thoseactivi ties.

373. TheDelegationof Argentinareferred to Recommendation23andasfar asit understoodit aboveandbeyondtheproject,whichwouldonly beimplemented partiall y giving thatit wasa recommendation of ClusterB, whichwasnorm-setting. Soin Item 8 of theAgendaoncoordinationmechanism with theWIPOcommitteesresponsible for norm-setting, themechanism agreeduponwouldalso apply for this recommendation to beimplementedfully.


374. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americastatedthat in depth expertiseon thecomplex interfaceof IPRsandcompetitionpolicy, wasbeingdoneby UNCTAD, by theintergovernmentalcommitteeof experts,by theOECD,andcoordination work wasongoingby theInternational CompetitionNetwork. It alsomorebroadly reaffirmed its view thatin theperiodof constrainedresourcesfor WIPOfor theMemberStatesaroundtheWorld, andin aperiodwhere thedemandsuponthis Committeefor focusedwork with apredictableandtangibleoutcomeweregreaterthanever,it would reaffirm its non-duplicative principlethattheactivities of theCommitteeshouldbecarefully crafted to complimentrather thanduplicate,programs andactivitiesin otherinternational fora.

375. TheDelegationof Nigeriastatedthat thecurrentargumentwasnot goinganywhere. Itagreedthatonanti-trust lawsandanti-competitionslawstheremight beotherintergovernmentalprocessesthatmaybedoingwork on it, but that did not stopthemtakingadecisionto exploretheidea. Whatcouldhappenwouldbethatevenif othersweregoing towork on it, therewouldbecollaborativearrangementin which thosein theSecretariat relatedwith thosethatweredoing work on it to comeupwith something thatmaybeadaptedto whatit wantedor whatit wasrequesting.Evenwhen othersweredoing thesamething, it wasneverexactlythesameasrequestedor asthedecisionimplied. TheDelegation wishedtoclarity thatif theCommitteetookadecisionandtherewason-goingwork in otherintergovernmentalfora thentheSecretariat would liaisewith all thosefora, to seewhattheyhad doneandseeto whatextenttheSecretariat woulddo in orderto accomplish thespecificrequestor recommendation.

376. TheChair wishedto look at it beforemaking anydecisionandthoughttheyhadhadagooddiscussionon recommendations7, 23and32. TheSecretariat had givenabriefsummaryandtheChairwaspleasedthattherehad not beenany objection to any of theactivities proposedbut just somerequests for amendments,which would bemade. Therehadbeena couple of problemswith acoupleof proposals which wouldbelookedat to try to cometo somecompromise.Onewasthattheywould requirea responsefrom theUnitedStatesofAmerica. Thesecondone,whichwasspecific to theguideline, wasthat hewould try to find abalancebetweentheexpectationandtheconcerns. Hewouldalso try to seeif hecouldfind abalancebetweenthis non-duplication. It wasasensibleprinciple but it took thepoint thatEgypt, India andNigeriahadmade.Hewould look to see if therecould besensiblewayofdealingwith it. Theywouldhaveto beableto definethespecific difference that developingcountrieswantedfrom WIPO anddifferentfrom what. In theChair’s opinionit madenosenseduplicating but sometimesthereweredifferences thatcouldbeseenin somerequestsascomparedto others.

377. TheRepresentativeof ESEuropethankedtheChairandonbehalf of theFreeSoftwareFoundationEurope(FSF) wishedto congratulate theChairfor having beenre-electedasChairof theCDIP and thankedhim for his kind consideration andallowing NGOsto speak.It alsocongratulatedtheSecretariatfor thework on theimplementationof theDevelopmentAgenda,which wasclearlybeing pursuedwith constructive engagement. It followedthedeliberationsof MemberStateswith greatinterest andhadanumber of commentspertaining to theissuesrelatedto SME Empowerment,Innovation,competition, aswell as IT deploymentby WIPO.Mindful of thetime, it would limit its oral intervention to issuesof competitionpolicy andrequestedto begrantedpermission to submit its full writtenstatementto theReport whichhad beenprovidedon thetableoutsidethemeeting room. ESsawa gapfor theproductaddressingrecommendation7, 23and32 regardingtheinterfacebetween exclusiverightsand


competition. As discussedthroughout thepreviousStandingCommitteeon theLaw ofPatentsSCP/13,exclusiverightsandcompetition werestronglylinkedin theareaof standardsand openstandardsfor informationtechnologiesin particular. Dueto theubiquityof IT andits enablingrole for economyasa whole,thesecompetitive issuesleveragetheireffectsintoall sectorsof economyandweretherefore central for theproject. It believed thatit wouldbeusefulfor theproject to beconnectedwith thework of theSCPand takeintoaccountthework of competition authoritiesin that field as well astheEuropeanCommission’s initiativefor interoperabledeliveryof EuropeanE-GovernmentServicesto public administrations,businessesandcitizens,theIDABC. Anotherrelevantsourceof information wasthefindingsof EC onabusivebehaviorregardingstandardsin thework observermarket,and theon-goinginvestigationregardingabuseof webstandards.It alsosubmitted to theSecretariat thattherecordsof theEuropeanCourtof First Instance(CFI) provided apractical evidenceregardingdominantvendorsattemptto assert exclusiverightsasgroundsfor refusing to supplycompetitorswith essentialinter-operabilityinformation. Regarding theGlobal meetingonemergingcopyright licensingmodalities,it welcomedthebalanceandinclusivenessthattheSecretariat showedin theinclusionof freesoftware. As correctlyhighlighted,thefreesoftwaremodelhad beenevolvingovertheprevioustwentyyears intowhatwasnowamulti-billion dollar industryfor whichGardenerGroupexpectedanadoptionrateof 100percentbeforetheend of this year. It would, therefore, submit thatfreesoftwarehadalreadyarrived in themain street of this industry andsubmit that while it still thefastestgrowingmodel, it might no longerbemerging.

378. With regardsto theprojecton IP, Information andCommunicationTechnologies(ICT)and theDigital Divide,therepresentativeof theFreeSoftwareFoundationEurope(FSFE),madesuggestions,beginningwith a referenceto theUnitedNationsConferenceon TradeandDevelopment(UNCTAD) Information EconomyReport2007-2008. Thereportemphasizedhow growth andinnovationenabledby Information andCommunicationTechnologies(ICTs)acrossall of economiesoutweighedgrowth andinnovation in theICT sector itself. Thesecondpoint highlightedwastheroleof OpenInnovationModels, whichwere responsibleforthemajority of innovativeleaps, asalso shownin thestudiesof Mr. Eric vonHippel,Professor andHeadof the InnovationandEntrepreneurship Group,MIT SloanSchoolofManagement. Hesaidthat from it, onecouldderive two importantprinciplesthatshouldguide their work: Maximizing ICT ubiquity andavailabili ty, which wouldmaximizeinnovationanddevelopmentacrossall sectorsof theeconomy,andsecondly, protecting theabili ty of all peoplearoundtheworld to innovate.Hepointedout thatit translatedinto anecessityto avoid thecreationof an“innovativeglassceiling” throughbarriers onmarketentry, in theform of barriersto accessto standards,ICTs,andotherprerequisites for anopencompetitivemarket. He wenton to saythat Free Softwareoffereduniquebenefits bothinterms of ubiquity of technologies,aswell as in facilitating innovation throughextensiverightsfor all users,all of which weretherebyenabledaspotential innovatorsfor thetypeofleapfrogginginnovationdescribedby Prof. von HippelandtheUNCTAD InformationEconomyReport. Therefore,theFSFEurged harnessing thefull potential of ICTs andtheWIPO Technical Assistanceactivities,by ensuringexplicit provisionof FreeSoftwarecompetency,through theprojectin thespirit of theinclusive,balancedapproachmandatedbytheDevelopmentAgendaandthereferencedWorld Summit on theInformationSociety(WSIS). For that,FSFEofferedits support throughthenetworkfacilitated by its legaldepartment. With over190participantsacross27countries and four continentsspanningabroadspectrumof interestsengagingin FreeSoftware,thenetworkappearedto bethelargestlegalsupport structurefor FreeSoftwarein theworld. On thenetwork, theworld’s leadingexpertsfrom theacademicand privatesector workedonstateof theart issuesand developed


best practicesfor commercialdevelopmentanddeploymentof FreeSoftware. TheFSFEbelievedthataccessto thatinformationwould beusefulfor WIPOandits MemberStatesandsuggestedforeseeingthecreationof achannelfor thatkindof information aspart of theproject.

AgendaItem 6 (continued)

379. TheChair proposedthattheCommitteewentback to Item 6 to deal with documentCDIP 3/INF/2, whichwasa reportof progresson thealreadyadoptedrecommendationswhich werenowstructuredin aprojectformat,namely 2, 5, 8, 9 and10. TheChair hopedthattheycould deal with it quickly asit wasjust a report,a review. On Item8 therewouldbeadiscussion on thecoordinationandmechanism. TheCommitteewould thengobackto Item7, Annex II I of thatdocumentCDIP/3/4, thethree recommendationsdealing with ICT and thedigital divide, recommendations19,24,and27. TheChair stated thatunder thatitem thedelegationsof theRepublicof KoreaandJapanhadmadesomesuggestionsandhadsubmittedpapersin thepastandhewanted to give themeachan opportunity to introducethosepaperswhentheywentbackto AgendaItem 7. Then therewasItem 9, whichwasfuturework andfinally hehopedthathecouldsharewith everybodythefi rst draft of theChair’sSummary which shouldbediscussedandapproved beforethecloseof themeeting.TheChair thenproposedto start by asking theSecretariat to introduce thedocumentunderAgendaItem 6.

380. TheSecretariatexplainedthatthedocumentunderconsiderationwas documentCDIP/3/INF/2, andthattheCommitteewould recall that at its secondsessionheldthepreviousyear,it hadapprovedactivitiesfor theimplementation of recommendations2, 5, 8, 9and 10. Thedocumentunderconsiderationcontained9 projects,dueto thefact thatRecommendation10encompassedvariouselementswhichwerediversein natureandtocaptureall thoseideastheyhad to preparemultipleprojects onRecommendation 10. HecontinuedthattheCommitteewouldalsorecall thatfollowing its recommendationto theGeneralAssembly, anamountof 8 million Swissfrancs had beenapproved for theimplementation of those recommendations. This amountof 8 mill ion Swissfrancswassupposedto coveradditionalhumanandfinancial resourcesrequired. However asmentionedon page2 of thedocumentunderconsideration, followingconsultationsbetweentheChairoftheCommitteeandtheDirectorGeneral,theamount of 8 million Swissfrancs wouldnowbespent only with regardto thefinancialresourcesrequired,that is for theactivities. Thisproject hadbeenpreparedon thebasisof aproposalmadein theGeneralAssembly wherebytheOrganizationhadindicatedthatit would follow aproject-basedmethodologywhichwouldmakethework of theimplementationof theDevelopmentAgendamoremethodicalin nature.The implementation of theseprojectshadalready startedand thatis why thedocumentwasfor informationonly. RegardingRecommendation2, theSecretariat mentionedthatadraftconceptpaperpreparedfor this purposewasavailableoutsidethemeeting room,aswell asarevisedprogramfor theconference. TheSecretariat furtherinformedthat therewasaconsultationmeetingscheduledfor May 18andthedocuments wouldprovidethebasisforthoseconsultations.

381. TheChair suggestedthatthebestwayto deal with this subject matterwouldbeto lookat theprojectasthedetailedexaminationof therecommendationshadalreadybeendone,sohesuggestedto look at theprojectsoneby oneand referto therecommendationwhichwasalso includedat thetopof eachprojectdocumentand thenprovideanycomments and


questions.TheChairsuggestedstartingwith thefi rst projectin AnnexI which addressed, andwasdesignedto implement,theadoptedRecommendation2.

382. TheDelegationof Uruguaystartedby thanking theSecretariat for doingsomuchworkin orderto formulateapprovedRecommendation 2. TheDelegation hada questionconcerningpage3 of documentCDIP/3/INF/2and item 2.3“DeliveryStrategy” Inparagraph2 quoting “during theperiodfrom March 2009until theCDIP in April 2009theSecretariat will engagein aseriesof consultationsto obtain feedback on theconceptpaperand on therevisedconferenceagenda,aswell asto approachawide rangeof donorinstitutionsto seektheir support”. TheDelegation askedwhether theseconsultationshadbeenheldand if sowhatconclusions hadbeenreachedduringthecourseof them.

383. TheSecretariatansweredby sayingthattherehadbeenconsultation meetingsheldsincetheprevious October;therehadbeenaninformal consultation meeting on thesubjectinDecember.Sincethentherehadbeenanumber of regional briefingsof amoregeneral naturewhich had beenincludedon theagenda,andit hadalsomet with someof thedevelopmentagencyrepresentativesbasedin Geneva. Thedraft concept paperandthedraft revisedprogram hadonly just beenfinalizedandit wasa bit latein thatprocess.Both thesedocumentswerefor consultationpurposesandwereavailableoutsidethemeeting roomandinorder to allow everyonethetimeandopportunity to consider thedocumentsandto consultwith their capitals;anotherinformal consultation meeting would beconvenedonWednesday,May 18, to receivemorefeedbackon thedocuments. TheSecretariat addedthat thedocumentswerevery muchin draft form soit lookedforward to, andwelcomed, anycommentsor suggestions. Theintention wasthatwhenthedocumentswerein amorefinalform theywouldcontinueto usethemwith keyconstituentsandstakeholders,soreferring tothetimetableof MarchandApril, therehadbeenconsultationsbut therewould alsobemoreintensiveconsultationsheldin May, June,July, throughto theactual Conferencedatesitself.

384. TheDelegationof Indonesiareferred to thenumberof risksinvolvedin undertakingthisproject whichwereoutlinedon page3. Thefirst onewasa lackof participantsin theConference.Thesecondrisk wasthattherewouldbesufficientparticipation in theconferencebut nonewresourcesavailable. Thethird risk wasthatno financial support wasestablishedin WIPOof IT for LDCsetc. TheDelegationaskedwhat theSecretariatforesawhappenif thoseriskswereto materialize.

385. TheDelegationof India commentedon thebrief description of theprojectonpage1 ofAnnexI, in thethird sentencewhichstated thatit wasin orderto helpcountriesbenefit fromtheIP system. Thephraseusedwas“benefit from theIP system”. TheDelegation thoughtthatit did not faithfully reflecttheobjectiveof Recommendation 2 whichstated“to promote,inter alia, thelegal, commercial,culturalandeconomicexploitation of IP in thesecountries”.TheDelegationsawit asalsoincludingin thesenseof legalexploitation meaning helpingthecountriesmakefull useof theTRIPS flexibilit iessuch asthetransitional period for LDCs,and thereforeseemedinadequateto captureit assimply beingaboutthebenefit of theIPsystem. TheDelegationthoughtit maybeusefulto elaborateabit more. Similar concernsarrivedwith regardto objectiveonewhereagain the term“benefi t from theIP system”wasused. It alsothought it wouldbeuseful to add thatanyresourcesgeneratedfrom theDonorConferenceshouldnot leadto cherry-picking,whichwaspickingonly certainrecommendationsfor implementationandthatit would behelpful to state theprinciplesclearly because theyhadbeendiscussedbeforeandthereforewouldbea goodideato reflectthemin theprojectdocument.


386. TheChair respondedsayingthatthesecondpoint raised by theDelegation of Indiaandthepoint raisedby theDelegationof Indonesiawerecomplementarybecauseif therewererisksin not achievinganacceptableor reasonableor desirablelevel of fundingsupportthenthoserisks wouldbereflectedin howtheprojectswereimplemented andmay verywell benot cherry-pickingbut prioritizationandphasingof implementation sohewould wait to hearfrom theprojectmanagers, but thetwo interventionsseemedto connect.

387. TheDelegationof AngolathankedtheSecretariat for submitting thereporton theapprovalof theconferenceandreferredto page5 concerning the20per centincreaseinavailableresources.It wantedto asktheproject manager,wasthe20per centcomparedtowhatwasoverandabovethe8 million Swissfrancs becausewhenholding adonors’conferencetheyhadto settheobjectivesto saythey would beincreasing20 percent,but withrespectto what? With respectto overandabovethe8 mill ion Swissfrancsof theWIPObudgetbecause this 20percentfigurewas a li ttle bit vagueand theother aspectit wanted tolookat wasaboutthereferencebaseanddonorcountries,as for theconferenceto besuccessfulthereshouldbeat least20donorsif theywanted to haveanyrealhopein terms offunding, otherwisetheycouldbespendingmoney for nothing. It alsowished to knowto whatextentthecurrent financial crisis,which hadgreatly affectedanumber of countries,hadbeentakeninto accountasit might affectthedonors’conferencewhenit cameto raisingadditionalfunds.

388. TheSecretariatsaid it would bebrief in its responseandthatit couldgo intomoredetailon thesequestionsat theinformal consultationmeetingsonMay 18,2009. Concerning thequestionof risks,theSecretariatindicated thattherewereanumber of objectivesfor theproject andfor theconference.It wasclearthattheachievementsof thoseobjectiveswerenotentirely within thehandsof theProjectManager or theOrganization thattheyneededdonorsto attendandto contribute.Sothepurposeof identifying theriskswasjust to beawareofthemand to takeanypossible stepsto mitigate them,whichwastheintention of theconsultationprocess.By developingtheconcept paper andtheprogramin awaythatappealedto thebroadest rangeof donors andwhichwouldalsostill berelevantto theneedsofdevelopingcountrieswasintendedto mitigate that risk. TheSecretariatindicatedthatasubstantialamountof work hadalreadybeendonein talking to someof thedonors. It wasdifficult to assessparticipationat thatstage, but they wouldcontinueto work to makesurethattheyhadasmany representativesaspossible. On theissueof thewording in theobjective, theSecretariatfully took thepoint thatwasmade,andsaidthatwhathadbeendonetherewas to useshorthand insteadof thelongversionwhichappearedin therecommendationand perhapstheyneedto reflectuponthat andmodify it. TheSecretariat suggestedthatit bemodified in thecontextof theconceptpaper ratherthantheprojectdocument sotheywouldhaveanopportunity to reviseandreflect thatin thatdocument. Concerningthequestiononcherry-picking, thepurposeor themotiveof having aConferencewasto supportWIPO’sassistanceto developingcountries. In determininghow andwhatsupportthatit hadto belinkedto whattheneedsof thedevelopingcountrieswereandthatshoulddeterminewheretheysoughtto getdonorfundingbut again thatthis was an issuethatcould bedealtwith intheconceptpaperitself. Referringto thepoint madeby theDelegationof Angola,the20percentincreasewasbasedonhowmuchmoney WIPOcurrently received from its existingdonors. WIPOcurrently had9 funds-in-trustdonors,who thepreviousyear hadcontributed7.4 million Swissfrancsto WIPO’s work. By theendof 2009, it wouldknowwhatthetotalfigurewasin typeof voluntarycontributionfor theperiod2008-2009sotheintentionwasthatby theendof 2011therewouldbea20percentincreasecomparedwith thecurrentbiennium.


That waswhatWIPOwasaimingfor. It wasa targetthatWIPOshould pushitself towards.For theconferenceitself andfor thefutureWIPO neededto attracta greatdealmoredonorsnot just its currenttraditionaldonorswhich tended to beIP offices,but thedevelopmentagencies,themulti-lateralandbilateraldonorcommunity. Soa largepart of theconferencewasaboutmaking WIPO visible to theseorganizationsandgetting accessto thefundingthattheyhadavailable. TheSecretariataddedthat it would behappyto go intomoredetailon thatsubjectat theconsultationmeetingonMay 18. It pointedout thatonpage2, paragraph2under “introduction to theissueon theprojectdescription” thecurrentninedonors werelistedand the figureof 7.4million Swissfrancsalsoappearedthere.

389. TheDelegationof Argentinaasked,with reference to thebrief description of thepurposeof theprojectin thefirst paragraph,whetherthepurposeof theproject wastoconveneaConferencein Geneva?

390. TheChair confirmedthatasindicatedin the2 documentsavailableoutsidethemeetingroom, therevisedprogramandtheconceptpaper,thattheConferencewould takeplaceonNovember5 and6, 2009, in Geneva.

391. TheDelegationof Brazil requestedabrief clarification onwhetheror not theissueoftheconferencebeingopen-endedwasalreadyin thedocumentor in thedraft, ashehadnothad theopportunity to readthedraft paperandwantedto have this clarification.

392. TheChair confirmedthattheissuehadcomeup in previousdiscussionsduring informalconsultationson this projectthattheeventshould beopen-endedandthat it should beheldinGenevaandthat wascertainly theintention. He added thatif it did not comeacrossclearlyenoughin theprojectdocumentit wasprobablybecausethis wasanautomatic assumptiononhis partandtheymaybeneededto reflectthatmoreclearly in theconcept paper.

393. TheDelegationof Brazil saidit wouldappreciate if it couldbeclarifiedin thedocumentthattheconferencewouldbeheldin Geneva.

394. TheDelegationof Moroccomadea comment on thedocumentstating thatin theintroduction,thefi rst sentencewhichstartedwith “In Africa”, it wishedto add“asplannedpursuantto Recommendation2” , or asprovidedfor in Recommendation 2 becauseit seemedthatthehighpriority woulddependuponthefundsthatwerecollectedat theconferencewhereastherecommendationprovidedthatthehighpriority shouldbethanksto budgetaryand extra-budgetary resources. TheDelegation alsowantedto know if therewouldbeanagendafor this conferenceandwhentheywould receiveit.

395. TheDelegationof Egypt referredto page3 under “review andevaluation” thefirst itemof thereviewreferredto a reportto CDIP in April 2009on feedbackfrom consultations, andwantedto haveanideaonwhetherthis report hadbeen issued or if not whenwould it beissued.

396. TheSecretariatrespondedby sayingthat thereferenceto theRecommendation2 in theintroductoryparagraphof theconcept paperwassomething thatcouldbeamendedin theprocessof developing thatdocument.It indicatedthat theagendaof theconference,togetherwith theconceptpaperandthereviseddraft program for theconferencewereall availableoutsidethemeeting room. Referringto thequestion on thereportof theconsultationprocess,theSecretariat indicatedthattherewasnot currently a report,that whattheyhadbeendoing


wasconsulting andtakingcommentsto help develop theprogrambothin theregionalbriefingsandin otherconsultationmeetings.At thatmomentwhattheyhad wastheoralreport which theyweregiving on thestatusof theprojectbut indicatedthatthey couldalsogive moredetail onMay 18on thesamesubject.

397. TheDelegationof Guineaaskedaquestionconcerningpage3 of AnnexI ondeliverystrategy,referringto thepossibilityof a risk of not finding funding for theLDCs anditwishedto know if theSecretariathadalreadyembarkedonconsultationsto try to invite thecontributionsfrom thespecialfunding mechanismfor theLDCs.

398. TheSecretariatrepliedthatit wascurrently trying to identify which donorswouldberelevantto approachin termsof contributing to sucha fund to discusswith themhow it couldmakethis fundattractiveandwhatthework plan would be,sotheywerein theprocessofidentifying whereto try andmobilizeresourcesto put into a fund for LDCs.

399. TheChair askedthat attentionbegiven to thenext project whichwasassociatedwithRecommendation5.

400. TheDelegationof Senegalvoiced a concernit hadpertaining to page3 AnnexI, whichwasnot far from theitem thatwasraisedby theDelegation of Guinea,at theendof theparagraphit statedthat“financial supportof donorsis indispensible.” TheDelegationsoughtclarification as to whetherthis wouldmean thatwithout thesupportfrom thedonorsthatthefund wouldnot actually besetup.

401. TheSecretariatrespondedthatwhat it hadattemptedto dowasstick closelywith theDevelopmentAgendaRecommendation2 which requestedtheestablishmentof aFund-in-Trustfor LDCs,whetheror not thatFIT attractedfundsdependedon thedonorcommunity’sreadinessto doso,so theintentionwasto establisha fundandto consult widely andtomobilize resources to put moneyinto thatFund. However it was necessary to do thatconsultationprocess,theyneededto identify thedonorsand theyneededto besuccessful ingetting thefundsinto theFund.

402. TheChair invited theCommitteeto turn to AnnexII on IP Technical AssistanceDatabase.

403. TheDelegationof El SalvadorthankedtheSecretariat not only for all thedocumentsithad receivedwhich wereveryuseful but thedocumentthattheywerefocusingonat thattimewashighly informative,very comprehensiveandtheDelegation wished to thank theSecretariat for thedraft onAccessto Databases, whichwasvery importantto themin their IPoffice. TheDelegation consideredfurthermorethatthenew interfaceof theWIPOwebsitewouldbevery importantfor theirpatentoffice andthevariousprojects. TheDelegationwishedto raiseaquestion with regardto thedatabase.TheDelegation explainedthatin thewebsite,it understoodthatit wouldcontain all typesof information thatwouldbeimportantwhenit cameto examiningpatents.However, thanksto theefforts by WIPO in favorof theiroffice, theyalreadyhadinformationonacompilation of patentsthatcamein onaperiodicbasis, and thanksto theSpanishOffice theyhadreceiveda compendiumof informationofthis type. TheDelegation wishedto knowwhatsortof additional information, whatexactinformation, would this projectactuallycontain andwhatwasits currentstateofadvancement.


404. TheDelegationof theDominicanRepublic thankedtheSecretariat for thedrafting ofthecomprehensivedocumentwhichprovidedahostof details which enabled themtounderstandin whichway theseprojectswouldbeimplemented. TheDelegation hadaquestionregarding thecalendarfor theexecutionof project2, as indicatedonpage6 ofAnnexII theprojecthadalreadystartedandhewishedto knowwhether or not in thesecondquarterit would bepossibleto meettheexpecteddates,themilestonesof this projectandthevarioustimeframes.It informedthattheDominicanRepublic wouldbevery interestedandhonoredif oneof thepilot projectscould beimplementedin theDominicanRepublic,asstated by otherdelegations,theDelegationof theDominican Republicalsogavegreatimportanceto thesemattersandtheywereworkingveryhard. It addedthat this wouldmakeit possibleto strikea regionalbalanceso thatall thedelegationsandcountries couldbenefitfrom theseprojects.

405. TheDelegationof Indonesiareferred to thebudgetarymattersof WIPOandhowtheOrganizationwasconducted.It mentioned thatonpage1 of AnnexII, thestimuli wouldbebuilt usinginternet-basedtechnologiesandopensourcesoftware, that therewouldbenoadditional costin thatrespect,but it wasalsomentionedthattheproject budgetwill be300,000and490,000etc., soit understoodthatit was going to bethebudgetthatwouldbeoutof thesystem-development.TheDelegationthenreferredto page7 for thebudget“all of thebudgetcomponentswerefor theothercomponents” andaskedtheSecretariat to explainfurtherwhat it meantby “others”.

406. TheDelegationof Algeria referredto thedatabaseandstatedthat any databasewouldhave to beuseableandMemberStateshadto beable to takefull advantageof it. TheDelegationwishedto knowwhethertherewould beaccessto thedatabasein Englishonly orwould it alsobeavailablein otherworking languages. It wasawareof thelimited resourcesavailableto theSecretariatbut it wonderedwhether it couldbeginat leastwith EnglishandFrenchastheywerethetwo mainworking languagesof theOrganization subjectto theappropriatearticlesof theOrganization’sRulesof Procedure. In theAnnex it stipulatedthatthedatabasewouldbeupdatedona regularbasis.TheDelegation soughtclarification astowhatwasmeantby regularbasisandhowoftenit would be.

407. TheDelegationof Tunisia referredto a link betweenrecommendations5 and9.Recommendation5 spokeaboutthegeneralinformation onexisting technical assistanceactivities while theRecommendation9 spokeaboutfutureneedsin termsof technicalassistanceactivities,andit wishedto knowhowthis projectlinked bothaspects ofrecommendations,asthefirst onewasexistingactivitiesandthesecondonewasfutureactivities neededby developingcountries.

408. TheDelegationof India hadtwo specific queries. Onereferredto theinformationthatwouldbeavailableon thewebsite,whethertherewould beanycategorization betweeninformation availableandin thegeneraldomain, andthosethatrequired further authorization.Thesecondquestionwaswhethertraining programs,seminars,public meetings,forums, iftheywereheld in thecontextof trainingin developingcountriesor LDCs,would they belinkedto this website.

409. TheDelegationof Chinahopedthatthetechnical assistancedatabaseandfutureprojectdocumentswouldbeprovidedin Chinesesoasto help its Delegation to participatebetterintheactivities.


410. TheDelegationof Argentinareferred to AnnexII page4 in theEnglishversionwhereitsaid “Indicatorsof Success in achievingproject objectives”andwishedto makeapoint thatinthesecondparagraphwhereit said“a databaseis for WIPO internaluse”, that“WI POinternal” betakenout sothatit readas“databaseto beusedby users.” TheDelegationstatedthattheproject objectivesaidthatinstitutional knowledgefor all technical assistanceactivities would beavailablefor useby WIPOandother interestedparties. “WIPOandotherinterestedparties” indicatedthatit wasnot only going to beusedby WIPO staff members,and astheywerenot goingto betheonly usersof thedatabasetheDelegationsuggestedtochangeit to “databaseusedby users”.

411. TheRepresentativeof theCentrefor InternationalEnvironment Law (CIEL) thankedtheChairfor theopportunity to commentand lookedforwardto otherorganizationsbeinggiven theopportunity to commenton thefollowing section, IP and ICTs. It referredtoAnnexII of Recommendation5, in termsof thecontentonwhat wouldbeon thedatabasehesawno referenceto somethingthathadbeenrequested beforewhichwasthat thedatabaseshouldincludethesetof modeloptionsthat WIPOprovideaspartof its legislativeassistance.This wasthefull panoplyof optionsnothingspecific being generatedfor MemberStates,thiswassimply thesweetthatWIPOprovided underPatent Legislative Assistance,CopyrightLegislative Assistance,TK andIndigenousKnowledgeTechnicalAssistance. It alsohadaconcernabouttheimplementationelementunderdelivery strategyundertherisksandassumptions. Therewasanoptionproviderbetweenbulk updateandsystematic update.Itwishedto respectively suggestthataneffective, systematic updatewouldbethemostusefulto both internal andexternalusers,understandingof coursethat tookupmoremanhours,butfor transparencysakeandfor beingtimely thatwould bethemostuseful to MemberStatesand observers.Finally, moregenerallyon theapproachto therecommendations,it wishedtonotethatit wasimportantthatanystudiesconductedbeempirical andbased onstatisticalwork andespecially thattheybepeer-reviewed not only internally, but externally andthattheyall bepublished.

412. TheSecretariatrespondedto thequestionaboutparticipating in pilot projectsandcountrieswanting to participateandexplainedthat theprojectwasfor WIPOHeadquarterstobuild adatabaseto captureall its developmentactivitiesandthat it would besetting upaninternal team in theareaswhichdeliveredtheseactivit iesto startspecifying anddetailingthesystemdesign andrequirementsandexpectedthatat somepoint after thedevelopmentof theinitial phaseoneof theprojectthattheywould theninviteall MemberStates to give feedbackon theinformation in thedatabase.It hadalready beenmentionedduringthemeetingthatsomesourceof informationwould like to beseen so hewouldwelcomeverymuchfeedbackfrom theMemberStatesastheywentforwardwith theproject. Responding to thequestionfrom theDelegationof Indonesiaon thebudget, theanswerwasthatthe300,000Swissfrancswasto employ two IT consultantsto build thedatabase,and the490,000Swissfrancswasaninternal budgeting techniquewherestaff wereredeployed within theOrganization to share thecost of thatstaff membersothe300,000was to bepaidto theIT consultants andthe490,000Swissfrancs wasto covertheredeployment of theinternal professionalstaff member.Referringto thequestionfrom theDelegationof Algeria, theSecretariat statedthat thereweretwo issueswith languageit wasvery important to separate them. Thefirst wasthelook andfeelof whatyousawon thescreenor theinterfaceyousawwhenyou accessedthedatabase,and it washopedthatthatat leastcould bedeliveredin English,FrenchandSpanishwhich isoftenthepractice. Referringto thequestion from theDelegation of ChinaconcerningtheChineselanguage, theSecretariatconfirmedthatChinesewasan official languageof theUNand that it wasanimportantquestionfor theInternational Bureauto considerhow far it could


go with theinterface.Thesecondandmorediffi cult question, in terms of budgetarymattersand long termsustainabilitywasthecontentof thedatabase.Lookingat thereport forexamplewhichwasgivento this meetingin 2005, referenced in this document,it wasanactivities list from 2002-2005andwasonly available in English. To translatea560pagereport into six languageshadsubstantial implicationsfor WIPO. TheSecretariat took thepoint but thought it neededto separatethedifferencebetweenwhatwasinsidethedatabaseand whatlanguagesit wasin andtheactual interfaceandcertainly on theinterfacesideitthought it should try to getit into thesix languageseventually if possible, but againthis wasabudgetary consideration.Respondingto theDelegation of Tunisiaaboutthelinks betweenprojectsnumbers5 and9, theSecretariat thatthedatabases themselves had nothingto dowitheachotherandthattheonly link wasthatthetwo IT consultants andtheproject managerwouldbethesamefor bothprojects. TheDelegationof Indiahadaskedavery importantquestionondataaccess,confidentiality,etc. Thequestionof confidentiality alreadyexisted,therewere certain activitiestakenoverby theorganization which hadalreadybeenmentioned,legislativeadvice,TRIPSflexibilit ieswhichwasextremelyconfidential. TheInternationalBureauhadto makedecisionstogetherwith theMemberStatesinvolvedwhetherthatdatawasevenmentionedin thedatabasebecauseonceit is put intoanonlinedatabaseyou ran therisk of it beinghackedor beingaccessedwithoutauthorizationsothiswasdefinitely on theagendato work out whatcanandcannotgo into thedatabase.Allactivities whichwereof ageneralnature,seminars, training,etc. wouldbeenteredinto thedatabase. Duenotewastakenof thecommentsmadeby theDelegationof Chinaregardinglanguages.Argentinahadmentionedthatonpage4, theprojectindicators,dataaccessibleasspecifiedby both internalandexternalusers. Firstly for internalusers wastheinstitutionalknowledgewithin thehousesonot only theaccessby theoutsideworld to thedatabasewouldbemeasured but it wouldbenecessary to usethis databaseinternally whenplanningfutureactivities. If anyonewasusingit internallythenthemanagement would askquestionsas towhy onewasnot looking at whathadbeendoingin certain countrieswhen planningthenextprogramandbudgetso it wasimportantto look at bothtypes of accessbecausethereweredifferent customersandtheyhaddifferent reasonsfor lookingat thedata. Sothatparticularindicatorwaslinkedvery muchto theinstitutional knowledgeaspect of theprojectandtheresultingdatabase.Respondingto CIEL abouttheaccessto themodeloptionsthat it was notan activity persethatwasreferencedataor information thatwould beuseful, this couldbetakenonboard,it wasnot particularly difficul t to capturethatintoadatabaseandmakea linkbut it wasnot actuallyanactivity. Bulk updateversussystematic wasan internal questionbeing discussedbecauseit hadverydifferent implicationsfor thework processeswithin theOrganization.TheSecretariatagreedthatsystematic updatemadethedatamuchmorereadilyavailableand timely. Regardingthestudies,thefact that theywerebeingreviewedor not hadnothing to dowith this particularproject.

413. TheDelegationof Angolawantedto asktheSecretariatfor moreinformation. On page2 it said“ for thebuildingof thesystemwewill useInternet basedtechnologywhich isaccessibleor WIPOwill license thereforethere will benoadditional costs” thenin thebudgetimplicationtherewereothers,200and 100,theDelegation requested moredetails aboutthat.

414. TheDelegationof Nigeriastatedtherewasnoextraclarification in respect of theprojectobjective. In theprojectobjectiveit wassaid thatadatabasewouldbeusedby WIPO internalusersandthenin columnthreeit spokeaboutdata beingaccessibleto bothinternal andexternal users. So if projectobjectivitywasto bedonein termsof knowingwhetherthedatabaseswereusedby only WIPO internal usersit wouldbemissingthemarkbecausethenthatwouldnot bethetruereflection. TheDelegation felt thatit shouldbefor both internal


and external usersor just externalusersbecausetheyweretheonesthatweregoingto useitto seethatit wassuccessful.

415. TheDelegationof thePhilippinesfelt thatthedatabasewas very useful andwanted toknow if theSecretariatintendedto submitanannualreportin thedatabasethatanalysescomprehensively theinformationsuchasthetrendsof technical assistance,geographicalconcentrationandotherimportantinformation thattheCommitteecanuseto evaluate.

416. TheSecretariatsaidthatit would just reply to thegeneral questions. On thequestionofthedetailof thebudget, theSecretariatstatedthatthis wasapractice taken from theexistingprogramandbudget.Whenexternalconsultants wereusedtheyappearedunder“others”categoryandtheindicatedcostpertainedto their salaries. Thesoftwareand thedatabaseswouldeither useexisting licensedplatformor open sourcesotherewould benoadditionalcost for softwareor hardwareor databases. So it was only for thelabourcostsof theITconsultantsthatwasreflected. Regardingthequestionfrom Nigeria theSecretariatstated thatif onelooked at theobjectivesfor theproject, thevery lastsentenceor lineonpage5 wheretheobjective to solvetheissueof transparency was addressedthatwaswhere it expectedthedatabaseto beusedby externalusers. In otherwordsMemberStates had askedWIPOto bevery transparenton technicalassistanceactivitiesandit wasmaking adatabase, but if theydidnot use it thenit wouldbeanimportantmeasurementor if theyusedit a lot thatwouldbeanimportantmeasurement. Hence,a little split therefor theusers.TheSecretariat hadnoproblem with includingthewordexternalandinternaltogether at thesametimeasit justwantedeveryoneto useit. Thequestionraisedby thePhilippines wasoutsidethescopeof theproject andthuswasaquestionfor theInternational Bureau,if it would to doanysortofanalytical work. Thescopeof theprojectwasto build adatabaseto capturethedataandmakeit available.

417. TheDelegationof Bangladeshsawmerit in theprojectandindicated thattherewereafewareas wheretherehadto besomekind of clarity anddisplayof information, for example,on legal advicethathadbeenprovided. TheSecretariat furtherstated thatevenif thesubjectof thelegaladvicewasdisclosedthis could besensitive andhowwould theSecretariataddressthis concern. Talkingaboutexternalusers,theDelegation enquired if theseuserswereonly MemberStatesor did it gobeyond,would it beopen to everybody or would therebesomekind of codeaccessor somekind of monitoringto see whocouldseethis andwhocould not.

418. TheSecretariatstatedthatsensitivity waslinkedto thequestionof access. TheSecretariat’s understandinghadbeenthateveryonewouldhaveaccess,everyonewhohadInternetconnectivity would haveaccess. Basedon thatunderstandinganswerto thequestionof sensitivity wouldbethatinformationprobablywouldnot get into thedatabaseat all. TheSecretariat notedthatin theintroductory paragraph to this project whichhad beenmentionedby MemberStatesit wasstatedthatanythingwhichwasdeemedto besensitive wouldonlyget into thedatabasewith thepermissionof theMemberStatesinvolved. TheDelegationstated thatand legislativeadviceor othertypesof sensitiveTRIPS-relatedwork wouldbebestkept out of thedatabase.Thatwasthesafestway forward. WIPOwouldnot attemptto setupacodifiedaccess.

419. TheDirector Generaladdedthattheanswerwasprovidedin therecommendationitselfquoting “WIPO shalldisplaygeneralinformation onall technical assistanceactivities on itswebsiteand shallprovideon request for Member States,details of specific activities with the


consentof theMemberStatesandotherrecipients concerned for which theactivity isimplemented” sotherecommendationitself providedtheguidancethatit wouldbetheMemberState itself whichwoulddetermine.

420. TheDelegationof BangladeshthankedtheDirector Generalfor theclarificationandsaid thatreading therecommendationagain, at thetimeof adoption, it wasits understandingthatnothingwould go on thewebsite withouttheconsent of thebeneficiary state concerned.It could beinterpretedin differentways. It wastheDelegation’s understanding,andit wantedto have it on recordthatthegeneralinformation onall technical advicewouldgoon thewebsiteregardlessof adeterminationby thebeneficiarystate andthen only whenit cametodetails of specific activitiestheconsentof theMembersStatesconcernedwouldbesought.

421. TheDirector GeneralstatedthatWIPOcoulddoastheMemberStateswishedin thisregard. He readtherecommendationasmakinga distinctionbetweengeneralinformationwhich wasunspecified or aggregateinformationandspecific details,andspecific detailsitseemedto him, in thetermsof therecommendation, requiredtheconsent of theMemberStatesconcerned.

422. TheDelegationof Argentinawishedto commenton two things., Firstly thatit preferredthatthedatabasecouldbeusedby external andinternalusers,andsecondlyconcerning thefigurewhether it wasfor consultantswho werehired specially for this project, and if so, whywasit under“Others” andnot in theappropriatesection.

423. TheSecretariatwishedto supplement whathadjustbeensaid concerning theprojectsthat when it providedthedetailsof thebudget it hadfollowed thestructurein theProgramand Budgetof theOrganization.It referredto theProgram andBudgetdocument andthefield “others” therein andexplainedthatthecontentof whatcameunder“others”wasexactlythesameastheprojectdocument. So it had just followedthesamestructureas in theP&Bdocument. In theProgramandBudgetof theOrganization if aconsultantwashiredit wentunder “others”,sothesamepracticehadsimply beenrepeatedhere.

424. TheDirector Generalexplainedthattheoperativeheading to look at was “contractualservices”sothevisionof expenditurewastravel and fellowshipswhichwasnormalstandardWIPO budgetterminology; contractualservicesandequipmentandsupplies,and withincontractual servicesthereweresubdivisionsandcontractsfor services of consultantswhichwere reflectedin theotherline of contractual services.

425. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica hada coupleof questionsonAnnex3 andstartedwiththefirst point onpage3, 3(b)statingthatin termsof thediscussionsheldthepreviousdayandbasedon recommendations16and20 theparagraphwould haveto beamendedto reflectthedecisionor discussionsthatweremadethepreviousday whereit wouldbechangedto asurveyof existingdatabases.TheDelegation requestedclarification onwhathad beenmentionedin thatparagraphregarding the initial numberof databasesalreadybeenaddedandhow thatwouldcomplementthework doneon16 and20. TheDelegation then referredtopage5, risk no2, whereit said “lack of, or reduction, in political commitment”. It wishedtoseekclarification on theword “political” commitmentas it felt it should just be“commitment” anddid not knowhowpolitical commitmentwould relate to theproject. Onpage4 onpoint no6, whereoneof therisk factorswasthat theproject would dependonalocalIT infrastructureandat thebottomof thepagewhereit said thatif it wasnot included intheproposedbudget for theproject. TheDelegationwished to askaquestionasto whethera


country that did not havethelocal IT infrastructuresthatwould requiresuchand it wasnotappearingon thebudget,howwould this bemanagedor takeninto consideration by WIPO?Finally theDelegation alsowantedto askonpage7 in terms of projectobjective 4, to have aclarification on thepoint whereit said“asasuccessfulachievingobjective, increasein thenumberof fil edIPRs” wasthis patentsonly or all IPRsin generalandaskedif they couldfurtherelaboratetheachievingprojectobjective becausethemain recommendationwasfocusedon trying to assist countriesto haveaccessandsupportin specific databases,etc.

426. TheDelegationof El Salvadorreferredto Recommendation1 andpointed out theproject wasvery interestingfor its national office especially for patent examiners anditsuggestedthatit wouldbegoodthatthattypeof informationalsobemadeavailable to themeetingsof theheadsof industrial propertyoffices and thatcouldprovidebetter feedbackwhenit cameto someneedsthattheirexaminershad.

427. TheDelegationof Uruguayreferredto project delivery andhad threequestionsof aformalnatureoneof aconceptualnature. TheDelegation statedthatonpage1, annex3,whereit referredto personnelrelatedexpenditurein theprojectbudget, therewasa figureinSwissFrancsbut theDelegationdid not find anydetails or breakdownof thebudget.TheDelegationwishedto knowhowthefunding for personnel wouldbeactually spentandif theSecretariat couldgive informationon thebreakdownof thatamount. Additionally, in theproject calendarof 36monthsthereweresomedatesbut therewas not theactualexecutioncalendar. TheDelegationreferredto page3, 2.3delivery strategyno.2(b), “accessto begiven to eligiblecountriesto patentcooperation treaty,minimumnonpatentliterature,andtogradually add furtherjournalsin duecourse” and thoughtit wouldbegoodif therewasanexecutioncalendarfor thatactivity. Anotherquestionof a formal nature, theDelegationobserved,was that Recommendation8 read as “ in orderto facilitateaccessof nationalpatentoffices in developingcountries”. But onpage2, 2.2thestatedbeneficiaries wereindividualinventors,small andmediumsizedenterprises, industry, researchersandtechnologycenters,universities,academia, IP professionals,governmentpolicy makersetc., and therewasnotany mention of IP officeswhichwerementionedin therecommendation itself. On thematterof substance, theDelegationstatedthatthebeginningof Recommendation 8, “requestWIPOto developagreementswith research institutionsandwith privateenterprises with aview tofacilitatingthenationalofficesof developingcountries”was to requestthat agreementsbeconcludedwith research institutionsaswell asprivateenterprisesandthat this wasfoundonlyon page3, in 2.3delivery strategy, 3(a)whereit mentionedaboutnegotiationswithcommercial providersand modelcontracts. TheDelegation felt thattherewas abit ofdisconnectwith betweentherecommendation whichwasapprovedby theGeneralAssemblyand theactivi ty whichwasbeingproposedfor this project.

428. TheDelegationof ArgentinarequestedWIPOto developanagreementwith privateenterpriseswith aview to facilitatingnationalofficesof developingcountriesto accessthespecializeddatabasefor thepurposeof patentsearch. TheDelegationstatedthatin theindicatorswhere therewasamentionof thenumber of agreementsthathadbeen concluded,details abouttheinstitutionsandprivateenterpriseswith which theagreements wouldbeconcludedshouldalsobeprovided.

429. TheSecretariat respondedto thequestionsfirst askedby theDelegation of El Salvadorconcerningwhatadditionalinformationwould bemadeavailablethroughthat projectandwhatwasthe current stateof progress. TheSecretariat statedthattheadditional informationcamein severalareas.First, aWIPO programwhichwasgoingto becalled “accessto


researchfor developmentandinnovationtheID program” would makeavailablescientificand technicaljournals, whichwascopyrightmaterial, currently held by privateenterprises.This informationwas, of course, availableto IP offices, but oftenat aconsiderable costandthattheproject wouldmakethatinformation availableat muchmoreadvantageouscoststhanwascurrentlyavailable. TheSecretariat furtherinformedthatothernew informationwhichwouldbemadeavailablethroughthatprojectin thelater stageswould betheaccesstoprivatelyheld patentdatabaseswhichagainwereavailablecurrently at acostbut where it washoped to negotiatepreferentialaccessfor patent officesof developingcountries. Thecurrentprogresswasthattheywerein thefinal stagesof negotiation for theR&D project which theSecretariat hopedwould beformally announced soon. TheSecretariatreferred to thequestionsaskedby theDelegationof SouthAfrica, regarding thewordingof therisk onpolitical commitment, andstatedthatperhapspolitical wasastrongword but it referredto thecommitmentfrom thehighest level of theoffice concerned. It wasnot necessarilypolitical interms of thegovernmentbut political in termsof theseniormanagementof theofficeconcerned. Referring to aquestion aboutlocal information technology (IT) infrastructure, theSecretariat statedthatwhile this projectcould not addressall of theissuesof deliveringservicesto developing countries, it hadlinkageswith many otherprogramsalreadyrunninginWIPO, in particular, the IP Office AutomationProgram, andother projects undertheDevelopmentAgenda. If anoffice wheretherewas ademandfor aservice like this but hadno Internetconnectivity thentheprojectteamwould work with thoseotherWIPOprogramsto try to fil l thatgap. TheSecretariatreferredto objective number4 on increasingthenumberof filed IPRsandsaidthattheobjectiveprimarily meantthepatents andutil ity modelsbecause, in theend, thatprojectintendedto deliver via theIP offices,servicesto researchinstitutionsandincreasedaccess to that information should eventually leadto anincreaseinthenumberof IPRsfiled. That, of course, wasnot theonly objective,but it providedsomethingconcretewhichcouldbemeasuredover a longperiodof time. Referringto thepoint raisedby theDelegationof El Salvador,theSecretariat informed it would takeintoaccount theneedsof examinersandwouldbevery happyto presentfurther informationto thedelegates.Referring to questionsraisedby theDelegation of Uruguayregarding thebreakdownof thebudget,theSecretariatinformed thatasdiscussedunder thepreviousprojectit hadfollowed theWIPOprogramandbudgetformat, resulting in some largeaggregatenumbers.TheSecretariatfurtherinformedthat it was intended to hire two consultantstoundertakemissionsandtrainingactivitiesin MemberStatesaspartof thatproject. Anotherconsultantwould behiredto conductaneedsanalysisto databases andtherewouldalsobeaprovision for nationaland regionalworkshopsandtraining activitiesto promotethenewservicesin thecountries. As regardstheexecution calendar,theSecretariat explainedthattheschedulewasdependentonsomeexternal factorsandthat it hadnot been possibleto doadetailedplanning of exactlywhatwouldhappenandwhen. As regardswhich journalscouldbemadeavailableand when,andtheSecretariat statedthatit wasdependenton theprogressof negotiationswith thepublisherswhichwereprogressing reasonablywell. TheSecretariataddedthatit wouldaddmoreasthosenegotiationsprogressedandovertheentireperiodofthethreeyearsof theproject. For theotheractivitieswhenparticular thingswouldbedone,thatagainwouldbedependenton thereadinessof officesandcountriesto participatein theprogramandcurrently it did not havedetails onverymany offi cesin thatrespect. Referringto thequestionaboutbeneficiariesbeyondtheIP offices, theSecretariatstated thattheintention wasnot just to promotetheuseof IP information in IP offi ces,but to usetheIPofficesas avehicle to promotethatusefor researchanddevelopment. Therefore,in theproject documenttheSecretariathadincluded activitieswhich targetedthoseotherentities,but theintentionwasalwaysthatthis wouldbedonethroughtheIP officeandnot directly aspart of theproject. As regardsthesuggestion to refinetheindicatorsby adding thenumberof


agreementsandthenumberof commercial providers, theSecretariat mentioned thatthatsuggestion will betakeninto account.

430. TheDelegation of Guineamadetwo comments on CDIP/3/INF/2,page2. Thefirstcomment pertainedto 2.2objectives,paragraph1 under objectives,taking it thattheoverallobjectivesandproposedoutcomesaimedto contributeto thereduction of theknowledgegap,therewas an errorin theFrenchdocument,les avoirs which did not comeacrossclearly in theFrenchdocument. Thesecondcommentreferredto 2.3deliverystrategy, (a)aneedsanalysisfor eachdevelopingcountryMemberStatewhich focusedonnational patentingactivity aswell asIPOsanduserneeds.Underthatsubparagraph(a) theDelegation believedthatfor thesakeof coherence, afterdevelopingcountries, thereshouldbeamention of theLDCs,thereasonwasthatlooking at subparagraph(c), therewasanexplanation in thefootnotegivenpursuantto paragraph(c), this wasWIPO’s assistanceto developingcountriesandcountriesin transitionfor establishinganationalindustrial property information system. It wasfor thisreasonthattheDelegationconsideredtheneedto mentionundersubparagraph(a)on lookingat delivery strategy,to specify thattheyweretalking aboutdevelopingcountriesandespecially theLDCs.

431. TheRepresentativeof Third World Network (TWN) wantedto addresstwo annexesandthefirst point wasin relationto annex2 where they wantedto stresstheimportanceof makingsureasmuch materialaspossiblewith regard to technical assistancewas madeavailableforgeneralviewing. For example,in annex2 it wasnot clearthekind of general informationthatwouldbemadeavailablebut theythoughtit wouldbeuseful, theinformationabouttheprogram,nameof speakers, presentationsandmaterials distributedduringseminars,training,in any public meetingsbemadeavailableonWIPO’s website. Theyhadlookedat themeetingsthatwereheldoutsideGenevain 2008andout of theeight meetingstherewasonlyinformation aboutonemeetingandtheeightmeetingsdid seemto beof a generalnature.Theyhopedtheinformation aboutmeetingsof a general naturecouldbeuploadedassoonaspossible.Theyalsowishedto supportCL’s intervention thatit wouldbevery usefulto havesomeideaof thetypeof elementsthatwerebeing proposedduring technical assistanceprovided on legislativeassistanceasTWN hadcomeacrossseveraldraft laws that hadbeenproposed by WIPO andtheprovisions did not really vary from onelaw to another. It wouldbeusefulto haveanideaof thetypeof elementsthat werebeingproposed. Thesecondissuereferredto theprojectin Annex4, andits concernbecausetheproject suggestedoutsourcingof technicalassistanceto donorsandpartners. It believedthatany technical assistanceprovidedshouldbesubjectto theDevelopment Agendaprinciplesfor exampleRecommendation1 whichsaidthattechnical assistancemusttake into accounttheprioritiesand specialneedsof developingcountriesandit alsobelievedthatit was very importanttohavesafeguardsandmechanismsput in place to ensurenot only compliancewith theDevelopmentAgendaprinciplesbut to alsoensurethatthetechnical assistancewasneutral aswell asprovideda full understandingof thefull useof TRIPSflexibilit ies.

432. TheDelegationof Angolaaskedabout thesettingupof thecentresfor technologyinnovationsupportin AnnexIII, page4 andmentionedprojectrelatedrisksnotingthata lotof African LDC Stateshadproblemswhen it cameto accessibili ty to bandwidth andtheDelegationaskedif this problemcould besolvedthroughthesetting upof technologyinnovationsupportcentresbut thecostof implementation wasnot includedin thedocument.It alsoaskedhowtheSecretariatplannedto help suchanumber of countries thatdid not havesuchcentres assketchedout in thedocument to afford themaccessto thedatabase.


433. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica wantedto clarify thattheirquestiononpage3(b)on thedatabasehadnot beenanswered,andalsothepoint whichwasmentionedon thepoliticalcommitmentphraseonpage5, theDelegation preferredthat thewordpolitical bedeleted andrewrittenin thewaythattheSecretariathadexplained.

434. TheDelegationof Argentinarepeatedits earlier commentconcerning theprovisionofspecializeddatabasesandtheneedto havethepossiblecost,modelcontractandotherdetailsof theserviceproviders.

435. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americahada few specific commentson theproject which involvedspecializeddatabases accessandsupport.TheDelegation thankedtheSecretariat for theentiresuiteof projectsfor implementation of recommendations2, 5, 8, 9and 10, which it foundwell structured,highly informativeandvery usefulin advancingthework of theCommittee. TheUnitedStatesof AmericastronglysupportedthedevelopmentofaWIPOTK and geneticresourcesdatabase.TheUnitedStatesof America alsonotedwithapprovalthesurveyof existing TK databasesasanimportantfirst steptowardsthedevelopmentof aWIPO portalto otherTK databases. It wasanextremely usefulapproachfor its patent examiners. TheDelegationbelievedthat aTK portal that waswell documentedwith respectto datesandsources, easyto use, andthatwas managedby asingleoffice, wouldbeanefficient approachin respondingto thechallengespresentedby TK. Morespecificallyit suggestedthat thelist of targetbeneficiariesfoundin section 2.2objectives,Annex3 onpage2, should beexpandedto includemembersof thepublic andTK holders. With respectto providingaccessto copyrightednon-patentliteraturetheUnitedStatesof Americawouldseekfurtherclarificationon thecosts associatedwith providingsuchanaccess.

436. TheDelegationof Bangladeshexpressed its strongsupportfor thecommentsmadebythedelegationsof GuineaandAngola. TheseconcernedLDCs andin Recommendation8 thenational officesof developingcountriesespecially LDCs and in theprojectgenerally. In theproject therewaseligibility criteria,therewas an accesscriteria therewerealsocertain levelsof technicalrequirementon theground thatwouldpredeterminehowto implementthisproject. This wasall stackedagainsttheLDCs andsoit wishedto appealto theSecretariattoincorporatesomething thatwouldproactivelyaddressandsupporttheneedsof theLDCs intheprojectdocument.

437. TheSecretariatfirst addressedthematterof LDCs andthetechnical requirementsregarding thequestionsraisedby thedelegations of Guinea, AngolaandBangladesh.TheSecretariat apologizedfor theshorthandwhichhadbeenusedfrom time to time in thedocument. Theintentionwascertainly thedevelopingcountries,especially LDCs,andoneofthesignswasthat theywerehopingto negotiateprivilegedaccessfor LDCs to someof theseprograms,in particularaccess to scientific andtechnical journalswhichwouldbeonamoreprivilegedbasisfor LDCs thanfor otherdevelopingcountriesaccordingto thenegotiationsmadesofar with thecommercialproviders.TheSecretariat statedthatit would includethatmoreexplicitly in thedocumentto meettheir concerns. Regarding thequestionof thetechnicalrequirements andespeciallyaccessto bandwidthandthecostswhichwerenotincluded in this program,theSecretariatreiteratedthat it was indeedtrueandwishedto repeatthestatement madeearlier. It statedthatthis project couldnot solveall theissuesin oneprogram,thattherewerelanguagesandprovisionsandprojects in otherDevelopmentAgendarecommendations,andthatundertheumbrella of theWIPOprogramsto provideassistanceinthatregardtheywouldwork closelywith thoseprograms.TheDelegation of SouthAfricahad raisedaquestion onTK databasesand theSecretariat wasof theopinion thatthewording


of this couldbereconsideredin light of theotherdiscussionsthat hadbeen heldoverthepreviousdays. Therewerealso a coupleof othercomments onaddingsomemorewordingfrom theDelegationof Argentinato addmoredetail to themodelcontracts andthenumberofcontracts concluded,aswell asthequestion from theDelegation of theUnitedStatesofAmericaon thecostof providingaccessto copyrightedmaterials. Undertheprogramswhichwere runby theotherUN organizationssuchastheWorld Health Organization(WHO), Foodand AgricultureOrganization(FAO) andUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgram(UNEP),publishers agreedto provideaccessessentially for freeto LDCs or to whattheycalled‘band 1’, which broadlycorrespondedto LDCs,and for averysmall feeof aroundUS$1,000per institution peryearfor whattheycalled“band2” whichwas thelower middle incomecountriesaccording to theWorld Bankcriteria. Thatcostwaspaid by theinstitutionsthemselves,not by theorganizations,sothecostto theinstitutionsandto theorganizationsinvolved in theprogramwasvery low andtheSecretariat hopedit would haveasimilarprogramat WIPO.

438. With regard to thequestionraisedby theDelegation of SouthAfrica onsub-paragraph3b,Annex I, documentCDIP/3/4,addressingtheissueof public domain,theSecretariat confirmedthatfollowing thepreviousday’sdiscussion,it would no longerundertakeapilot exerciseasdescribedunder number4 onpage5, AnnexI (CDIP/3/4). Thispilot exercisewasto bereplaced, asclarified by theDelegationof South Africa, by astudyand surveyon theexisting TK databases.RegardingAnnex3 of documentCDIP/3INF/2,theproject for specializeddatabasesaccess andsupport, under3(b), theSecretariat stressedthatthis wasadifferentprojectwhichprovidedfor aportal of WIPOwhichwouldestablishahyperlink to thetraditionaldatabaseswhichhadalreadybeenestablishedby certainstakeholdersandgroupsof TK. According to their request, WIPOhadbeenaskedto establishaportalwhichwould link to thosedatabases,andthis portalwas suggestedandproposedhere. TheSecretariat concludedby saying thatif concernswereraisedthesaid portal wouldof coursebereviewed.

439. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica statedthatits only concern wasthat therewouldnowbeasurveyonexistingdatabasesand,if theDelegation had understoodclearly, this wasaproject onexisting databasesso it wishedto seeif therewas awayto complementthetwoactivities. It believedthatthesurveywouldbelookingat theseandotherinterestingdatabaseson this and,therefore,beableto provideclarity on theissuesof thepublicdomainso it wonderedif this wastheright time to dosuchaportal.

440. TheDelegationof Brazil supportedthecommentsmadeby theDelegation ofSouth Africanon theissueandstatedthatregarding this issueadjustmentsshouldbemadeinconjunction with thediscussionsheldthepreviousday. Particular attentionshouldbepaidtothecoordinationmechanismsbetweentheactivity under this project andtheprojectsunderrecommendations16and20, it added.

441. TheSecretariatstatedthatsincetherewere two voicesexpressingconcern on thepossibleimplicationwhichmight prejudicefuturediscussions,it wouldprobably reschedulethelaunch of theportal. Thesurveyon theexisting TK databaseswould beshortlypreparedand, in conjunctionwith thatsurvey, it would alsopresentthedemonstration pageof theportal sothat MemberStateswould give thegreenlight to launchsuchaportal togetherwiththeconsideration of thesurveyonexistingTK databases.


442. TheDelegationof Guineawishedto revertto thefi rst questionit hadraised, in relationto page2 of Annex3, objectives, andenquiredwhether or not thequestion hadindeedbeenanswered. In thefirst paragraph,theFrench versionwas slightly differentfrom thesameparagraphin theEnglishversion,it added,statingthatthetranslationof “ theoverallobjectivesandproposedoutcomesin to contributeto thereductionof theknowledgegap” inEnglishstated“avoirs’ in Frenchinsteadof “savoir” since “avoirs” meant assets.

443. TheDelegationof Uruguaystatedthatit hadsomedoubtsregarding theSecretariat’scomments. As far astheconceptsand negotiationswere concerned,Recommendation8“requests WIPO together with enterprises and research institutes to work in order to facilitateaccess for national offices in developing countries especially LDCs and regional andsub-regional organizations”. FromwhattheSecretariat haddeclared, andif theDelegationhad understoodcorrectly,thenegotiationsthat tookplacewerefor LDCs,whichsuggestedthatofficesin developingcountrieslinked throughWIPOfor thecontractingof commercialuseswith respectto thedatabaseshadbeenleft out. TheDelegationalsostressedthatwithregard to thesecontractswith commercialproviders,which would bear thecosts,some340,000Swissfrancs, it wonderedwhatroleWIPOwouldplay in respectto thenegotiationswith commercialproviders.

444. TheDelegationof Sri Lankaagreedwith thepoint madeby theDelegation ofSouth Afr ica,andsuggestedthattheCommitteeshouldlookat thesurveyandtheresults,after which it could go into thedatabaseandwork towardsimplementation, in orderfor thecountriesto knowexactlywhattheycould dowith regardto developmentandTK.

445. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica thankedtheSecretariat for its newproposalwhichmetits concerns.It hopedthattherelevantwordingwith regardto theissuewould beamendedthroughoutthedocumentandin Annex 3, andstated, thatit wastheidealway to proceed.

446. TheDelegationof Bangladeshreferredto its previouscomment onAnnex 2, andacknowledged its appreciationfor theexplanationprovidedby theSecretariat, whichstatedthatlegal advicecontainedcertainsensitivit ies. Therefore, theDelegation proposedsomethingspecificin thebrief description of theproject,after thesecondsentencein thefif thlineof Annex2, page1, andproposedaddingasmall sentencestating that“ informationonlegaladviceprovided,wouldbeincludedwith theconsentof therecipients”.

447. TheSecretariatreferredto thequestion raisedby theDelegationof Uruguayonwhethertheprogramswould beavailableto developingcountries as well asto LDCs. TheSecretariatinformed that theprogramsthatwerebeingnegotiatedwith thedatabaseproviders wouldbefor LDCs andfor developingcountries.With regardto thesecondpartof thequestionrelatedto thecost of accessto thedatabases,it did not havedetails onhowmuchit would costtoaccessthedatabases,however,it would negotiate costs which couldbeborneby theofficesthemselves.Furtherinformationwouldbegiven on this astheprojectprogressed.

AgendaItem 8: Discussion oncoordinationmechanisms andmonitoring, assessing andreporting modalities

448. TheChair proposedthatdiscussion behaltedonCDIP/3/INF/2 and thatit beswitchedtoAgendaItem 8. HeremindedtheCommitteeof therelevant partof theGeneral Assembly’sdecisionon themandate. Hestatedthatoneof thethingstheCommitteewasmeantto dowas“monitor,assess,discussandreporton theimplementation of all recommendationsadopted,


and for thatpurposeit shouldcoordinatewith relevantWIPObodies”. TheChairsuggestedthattheyhadbeforethemthelanguageof themandate,andtheywereawareof certainconstraintsandchallenges,in particulartheinabili ty to interfere,or theneedto becarefulwiththeir relationswith otherbodies,aswell astheneed for theCommitteeto understandthat itcould not mandateanothercommitteeto doanything. Hesaw this asa challengewhichshouldbediscussedandremindedtheCommitteeto focuson theobjectives.

449. TheDelegationof Egypt wantedto inform theCommitteethattheAfrican Grouphadastatementto presenton theissueof coordinationand, thatapresentation would bemadeuponthereturnof thedelegateof Senegal.

450. TheDelegationof Pakistanstatedthatits proposalwith regard to coordination,follow-up andevaluationmechanismsshouldbeincluded in theChair’sSummaryasrecommendationsfor considerationby theGeneralAssembly. Morespecifically, theDelegationelaboratedon therecommendationsandsuggestedthattheGeneralAssemblyproceededasfollows: (a) instruct all WIPOcommitteesto mainstreamall DevelopmentAgendarecommendationsin theirwork; (b) requesttheDirector General to makeopeningremarksat thestartof theStandingCommitteeonPatents(SCP),StandingCommitteeonCopyright andRelatedRights(SCCR),WIPO Intergovernmental Committeeon IntellectualPropertyandGeneticResources,Traditional KnowledgeandFolklore(IGC), ProgramandBudgetCommittee(PBC),StandingCommitteeon theLaw of Trademarks,IndustrialDesignsandGeographicalIndications(SCT), AdvisoryCommitteeonEnforcement(ACE)and theAssemblies of MemberStatesof WIPOmeetings– addingthat in his remark, theDirectorGeneralmight emphasizeadherenceto andimplementation of theDevelopmentAgendarecommendationsby therespectivebodies; (c) all reports,studies,documents,negotiating textspreparedby theSecretariat, andtheconsultantsshould bein accordancewithClusterB, Recommendation22of theDevelopmentAgenda; (d) theChairs,PresidentsofSCP,SCCR,IGC onGRTKF, PBC,SCT andotherassemblieswould reportto theGeneralAssemblieswith theassistanceof theSecretariat on theimplementation aspectsof theDevelopmentAgendarecommendations;(e) MemberStates and theGeneral Assemblymaygive guidanceto theChairsandPresidents of thedifferent bodies,for theeffectiveimplementation of theDevelopmentAgendarecommendations,if any; and(f) implementation of DevelopmentAgendarecommendationsmaybeincludedasanagendaitemof theGeneralAssemblies.

451. TheDelegationof Germanyprovidedapreliminaryview of howGroupB consideredthatAgendaItemandhow it shouldbetackled. In thatcontext, theDelegation believedthatthestartingpoints werethemandateof theGeneralAssembly, whathadbeenincorporatedinto theSummaryof thelast CDIP session, aswell aswhathad beenreiteratedthedaybefore.Morespecifically, theDelegationstatedthatduringthecurrentsessiontherewouldbeinitialdiscussions onhowto coordinatetheDevelopment Agenda,in termsof reporting,monitoringand assessing. TheDelegationaddedthat for the Committee,therewasabottom line orgeneralprinciple thattheundergoingcoordination processwould respectexistingorganizational structuresandWIPO rulesandprocedures,andthatall thecommitteesinvolved would act onanequalfooting, thatis to say, therewouldbenohierarchy orsupremacyinvolved,andthatcoordinationwasmeantto promotethecollegial relationshipbetweentherespectivecommittees. TheDelegation did not wishto see theintroductionofnew bureaucratic redtapestructuresor functionali ties,norduplicate reporting lines. It furtherunderscoredthatcoordination,asoutlined,shouldbeof a flexibleandpragmatic nature.TheDelegationfurtherstressedthatit wasvery importantfor GroupB that suchcoordinationbe


carriedout in a resourceneutralway, taking intoconsideration thefinancial implications,theissueof accountability andtheprudentuseof financial resources,especially in timesof scarcefinancialresources. TheDelegationdeemedit useful if theSecretariat could reportto theCommitteeon thealready existingcoordination proceduresin that regard.

452. TheDelegationof theCzechRepublic, speakingonbehalf of theEU, wishedto expressits view regarding therelationshipof theCDIP with otherWIPOcommittees, anissuewhichhad beenraisedby theotherdelegations.As mentioned previously,it reiteratedthattheCDIPshouldfulfil l its rolewithin its mandateas a forum in whichMemberStates coulddiscussanddebatedevelopmentissues. TheGeneralAssemblies shouldremain thefinal decision-makingbodyfor implementation,takinginto accounttheresourceimplication, advicecomingfromthePBC with regardto thenorm-settingactivi ty. Al l membersof theCommitteeagreedthatother committeesshouldreportto theGeneralAssembliesratherthanto theCDIP,yet thattheCDIP should remainawareof thework of theothercommittees. In this respect, open-endedconsultations,suchasthoseheldby theCDIP Chairprior to theCDIP meeting, were just ashelpful with this matter.

453. TheDelegationof Nigeriabelievedthat themeeting wasdiscussingamonitoringmechanism,somethingthatwouldhelpto knowtheextentof implementation,however,itstated it wasbeingmadeto understand thatthepurposeof amonitoringmechanismwastohavea relationship with otherbodiesof WIPO. If thatwas thecase,it wasnot a monitoringmechanism.TheDelegationof Nigeriabelievedthatthebest optionfor theCommitteewasnot to imposeanewsystemon theSecretariat,but to presentproposalsto theSecretariat uponwhich to elaborate, knowing whatwasfeasibleon theground. It, therefore,encouragedfirstmakingadecisionregardinga recommendationwhich hadalreadybeen adopted by amonitoring mechanism,anduponthat,calling on Member States to makeproposalswith adeadlinefor theSecretariatto elaborateamonitoringmechanismtakinginto considerationwhatalreadyexisted,followedby amodality for a follow-upmechanism.Al l thesewereproposals put beforetheSecretariat,uponwhich theywouldconsultandwhich theCommitteewouldconsiderat its nextmeeting. It did not wish to elaborateon anymechanismsinceitwouldbethetaskof theSecretariat.TheDelegationunderscoredthat theCommitteeneededto beawareof whathadbeendoneandwhathadyet to bedone,andhowto follow-up thosethingsthathadnot been done.

454. TheDelegationof CostaRica,spokeonbehalf of GRULAC, andwishedto reiterateitsopeningstatementwhich statedthattheDirector Generalshould preparean annualreport totheCDIP on theimplementationof therecommendations,which requiredcoordinationbetweenthevariousWIPOcommittees.

455. TheDelegationof Pakistanstatedthatdespite thefact thattheSecretariat hadalreadyelaboratedtheexisting monitoringandreporting mechanisms,andalthoughacoupleofbriefingshadbeenheldprior to theCDIP meeting, therewerestil l someMemberStateswhich calledfor furtherclarificationonhowtheexistingmonitoringandreportingsystemwasdone. In responseto theissueraisedby theDelegationof Germanyon financial resources,theDelegationof Pakistanwasnot of theopinion thattherewasaneed for additionalfinancialresources for establishingsaidmonitoringmechanism. Similarly, anotherpoint hadbeenmaderegarding thehierarchyamongcommitteesanddoingeverythingaccordingto therulesof procedure.TheDelegationbelieved thatthis proposal addressedthis concern, thattheCDIP wasnot askingothercommitteesto report to it, rather it wasrequestinganextracondition to theGeneralAssemblyto request theothercommitteesto reportto theGeneral


AssembliessotheheadbodyremainedtheGeneral Assembliesandnot theCDIP. CDIP hadall theprerogativesandrightsto makerecommendationsonwhatit felt wasimportantto theGeneralAssembliesfor its consideration, it added,yet it wasup to theGeneralAssemblytostructurethecommitteesor otherwise.It stressedthattheroleof theCDIP shouldbeinaccordancewith its mandate.

456. TheDelegationof Senegalstatedthat theAfricanGrouphadlookedat theissueunderconsideration,andtheGrouphadgivensomethoughtto theproposalfor a possiblemechanismfor coordinating,monitoring andevaluation of projectsimplementationof theDevelopmentAgenda.TheGroupfelt thatthis might take theform of aworkinggroupwhosemembership would includeofficersfrom variousWIPOcommittees. Giventhetechnicalcomplexity of suchamechanismandalso,given its importance, theGroupinformally got in touchwith anumberof otherdelegationsto seekto broadenthethinkingonthatquestion, andto garnercommentsandsuggestionsfrom other groupsanddelegations.TheGroupwouldnowhopethatothergroupsanddelegations,wouldsubmit assoonaspossible,their proposalson theestablishmentof suchamechanism, to handlecoordination,monitoring andevaluationof theDevelopment Agenda.TheAfri canGroupalsobelievedthatall relevantstakeholdersshouldbeinvited, to submitaspromptly as possible,any proposalsthattheymayhave,to this mechanism.Oncethathadbeendone, theSecretariat would thencompileall theproposalssubmitted,andmakethecompilation available in goodtime, toallow delegationsto considerall theproposals. TheSecretariat should thenundertakeinformal consultationson thevariousproposals,preferably beforethenextsession of theCDIP. TheSecretariatwould thensummarize theoutcomeof its consultations,andthatsummarywould becontainedin adocument to besubmittedduringtheNovember2009session.

457. TheChair underscoredtheneedto gettheseproposals compiledasquickly aspossibleso thattheycould beconsideredwithin theframeworkof informalconsultations.

458. TheDelegationof Pakistansought clarificationregardingtheproposal madeonbehalfof theAfri canGroup, by theDelegationof Senegal,according to whichMember Stateswouldbe invited to submit theircommentsfor discussionduringthenextsessionof theCDIP inNovember. This would meanthatif adecisionwasmadeby theGeneralAssembly,it wouldbemadein 2010,andnot in 2009,becausetheCDIP would conveneafterthatperiod. TheDelegationstatedthatthework of all thecommitteesthat implemented therecommendationsof theDevelopment Agenda,shouldtakeinto consideration theinstructionsof theGeneralAssembly of 2009. The Delegationstatedthataprocessshould beestablishedfor proposalsalreadysubmitted,in orderto avoidbeingdelayedby anotheryear.

459. TheDelegationof Thailandechoed similar concernsto thatof theDelegationofPakistan,andmadereferenceto themandatethatestablished theCDIP, thatfrom theverybeginning,theCDIP wasestablishedto monitor andimplement theDevelopmentAgendarecommendations. It statedthatestablishinganotherworkinggroupcouldmakematters morecumbersomeandagreedwith Pakistan,that it saw no reasonto delay theimplementationoftheactivities thusfar agreed,by anotheryear.

460. TheChair observedthattherehadbeenanumberof goodcontributionsall of which hadmerit, andnotedthatthefastestwayto get a consensuson theapproachwasto focuson thePakistanproposal,which reflectedsomeelementsof theAfrican proposal, noting thattheideaswerethesame,althoughin differentlanguages.TheChairalsonotedthat GroupB had


remindedthemeeting of theconstraintsandboundaries,which shouldberemembered.TheChair concludedthatbearingin mind theconstraintsthatGroupB mentioned,themeetingshouldfocusits attentionon thePakistanproposalandwhetherthe6 pointsif appropriatelymodified, couldbeusedasabasis for discussion andtheway forward.

461. TheDelegationof Egyptstressedthatfrom theoutset, while it appreciatedall theproposals thathadbeenpresented,it would neverthelesslike to presentsome initial pointsthatit deemednecessaryon thatissueof theAgendaItem 8. TheDelegationbelievedthattherewereprinciplesthat it thoughttheCommitteeshouldtakenoteof, andcould find meritin. TheDelegationbelievedthereweresix points that wouldguidetheCommitteeinundertakingconsiderationof thatAgendaitem. Thefi rst point wasregarding themandate.TheDelegationspecificallynotedtheGeneral Assemblies decisionto establishCDIP, andreferredto threespecificitemsfor that Committeeto undertake. It notedthattheseconditem,paragraph(b), specifically gavetheCommitteethetaskof monitoring,assessing,discussingand reporting,on theimplementationof all recommendations,andthatfor thatpurpose,itwouldcoordinatewith the relevantWIPObodies. As such, it statedthattheCommitteehadamandateto coordinatewith all bodies, andthat in orderfor theGeneralAssembly’s decisionto be implemented,mechanismshadto beput in placeto implementthatmandate.Secondly,theAgendaitemunderconsiderationwasof adual natureandconcernedtwo issues,namely,thecoordination issue,andthemonitoring,assessing,discussionand reportingaspects.TheDelegationtooknotethat in its initial work, thesessionhadagreed to changetheAgendaItem8 to reflectthat, ratherthanjust haveanagendaitemoncoordinationandreporting, but thatitwould includemonitoringandassessing. Thirdly, theDelegation notedthatit wasaMember-drivenexercise,asrightly pointedout by theChair,but remarked thatthemeetinghad not receivedthedocumentationfrom theSecretariat, becauseit believed thatit wasbeyondtheroleof theSecretariatto provideinformationor proposals ona Member-drivenprocessgoverning relationsbetweenMemberStatebodies.Thefourth point madeby theDelegationwasto supportthestatementpresentedby theDelegation of Senegal,onbehalfoftheAfrican Group,whereit emphasizedon theproposalto establishadeadlineby whichproposals on thosetwo aspectsof coordination andmonitoring,assessing,reportinganddiscussing, werepresentedwith regardto theissueof coordination. TheDelegationbelievedthatproposals shouldbemadeavailableby MemberStatesonly. With regard to monitoringand assessing, it believedthatproposalsshould bereceivednot only from MemberStates,butfrom interestedstakeholdersaswell. Following that deadline, theSecretariat wouldberequestedto preparea compilation,afterwhich informaldiscussionswouldbeengagedonthatproposal. TheDelegation’sfifth point, specifi cally with regardto monitoring, assessingand reporting,wasthat theexerciseshouldbeconducted undertheprinciplesofindependence.It believedthatthereshouldbeexpertsin IP developmentthatwouldbeableto appraise, assessandmonitorthework of theOrganization,andin theimplementationof theDevelopmentAgenda.Finally, theDelegationstatedthatit believed thataccording to theinterpretationof thedecisionof theGeneralAssembly, that implementing thatparticularmandateof coordinationincludedthepossibilit y of institutionalandprocedural modifications.TheDelegationsaid thatit believedthatin furtherestablishingandcompleting thatmandate,furtherinstitutional andproceduralarrangements might benecessary.

462. TheDelegationof Nigeriaexpressedits appreciation for theefforts of theChairtocomplete thedeliberationson time. TheDelegation believedthattheinterpretation of theDelegationof Egypt with regardto themandateof theCommitteewasvery valid, but notedthatanymechanismput in placein respectof follow-upandassessing theimplementationwould require inputsfrom theSecretariat.In otherwords,asmentionedearlier, Member


Statesshould becalleduponto providetheir proposalson this issue.Regardlessof theexcellent proposalprovidedby theDelegation of Pakistan,sometimesevenexcellentproposals maynot necessarilybecompleteproposals. Theremaybeonething to addhereand there,andeverygroupor MemberStatehadtheright to make furthersuggestions.Basedon this, theSecretariat,knowing whatwasavailable,would thencomeout with somethingthatwouldenabletheCDIP asa governmentalgroupto makeadecision. TheDelegationacknowledged thattherewasurgencyin theCommittee’swork, asfar as monitoring,coordinationandimplementationwereconcerned,but thatnevertheless,it shouldnot maketheCommitteesimply go in onedirectionwithoutmakingsurethatit wasof oneaccord. Itmaybe importantto startright away, but it wasequally importantto also recognizethatthemandatesgivento theCommitteedid not in anywayexplicitly state that anymethoditadopted,mustgobackto theGeneralAssembly, becausethemandatehadalready beengiven.Assuming that thematterhadto go to theGeneralAssembly, theDelegationunderstoodthatadecisioncould betakenin theCommitteeonanissue,whichcould beimplemented,untilformaldecisionsweretaken.Whatwasimportantwasthat theCommitteeagreedon amethodto go forward. Oncethatagreementwasreached, it couldmandatetheSecretariatto goaheadwith implementing it. TheDelegationstatedthatin trying to makehaste, theCommitteecould not afford to ignoretheverysimplest of solutionsbeforeit.

463. TheChair referring to thepoint madeby theDelegationof Nigeriaassuredthatit wasnot aquestionof haste,but amatterof starting thediscussion.Sincehewas not surewhentheCommitteewould finish thediscussiononce thediscussionstarted,MemberStateswouldneedto becomeawareof theboundariesandtheissuesinvolved. If adecisionor agreementcould bereached,themeetingwouldmoveforward on thatbasis,but if it did not, thediscussion would betakenforwardinto thenextsessionof theCDIP. TheChairobservedthattherewereanumberof issuesthathad beenheard, andhehopedthatthetimewouldcomewhenall thepointscouldbenarrowed down,andadecision reached.

464. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica notedthatit would not wantto repeatwhathadbeensaid already, but agreedwith theChairthat thedecision reached in thelastsession,wastostart discussionsasit seemedto beemphasizedby thedelegationsof Nigeria, Egypt andSenegal. TheDelegationstatedthatit wouldprobably beeasier if adocumentcouldbeproduced,whichwouldpresentsomeelaborationsof what theDelegation of Senegalhadhighlightedonbehalfof theAfricanGroup,followedby Egypt andNigeria, in termsofrequestingMemberStatesto providetheir submissionsin writing, andthen allowing theSecretariat to compileadocumentfor furtherdiscussions. Similarly, in accordancewith theChair’s suggestedstepsin lookingat theproposalfrom theDelegation of Pakistan,it couldbetakeninto account, althoughit seemedto focussolely on thecoordinationaspect,while therewouldbeaneedto dosomestrengtheningin terms of monitoringandassessing. TheDelegationof South Africa statedthatproceeding in this mannerwouldbehelpful.

465. TheDelegationof Algeriaassociateditself with thestatementmadeby Senegalonbehalf of theAfrican Groupandstatedthattheestablishment of thesaid mechanismwassetout to satisfy thefi rst point of theCDIP mandate. It was thereforeanimportantpoint thatneededto betakenintoaccount.A numberof delegationshadspokenon thequestionoffeasibility of themechanism, giventhecurrentinternationaleconomicsituation, andthefinancialresources available.TheDelegation wasof theopinion thatwithin theAfricanGroup, thediscussion hadreflectedthefact thatthis mechanismdid not really haveanyfinancialimpact,andit wasimportantnot to allow thefinancial crisis to block theimplementation of theDevelopmentAgendaandthecoordinationof its implementation.


Following theSecretariat’sconsultationswith membersof theAfrican Group, theSecretariathad reassuredtheGroupthatthefinancialcrisis hadnot yet had anyrepercussionson theorganization’s revenues. If suchwerenot thecase,thentheMemberStateswould surely beinformed accordingly, andotherpossibilities for findingsuitable remedieswouldbelookedat. TheDelegation saidit wasawarethatWIPO wasoneof thewealthiestUN agencies,soitsrole in theareaof developmentshould in nowaybereduced.TheDelegation alsosaiditwould like to respond to anumberof concernswhichhadbeen expressed by somedelegations,which relatedto theirunderstandingthat therewasahierarchy introducedto theCommitteeasa resultof this proposal.TheDelegationsawthingsdifferently, andit believedthatthecommitteeswere organizedhorizontally, asunderlinedmany times during its timeasCoordinator of theAf ricanGroupwhentherewereattemptsto put theCDIP in aninferiorpositionwithin thehierarchy. Thatmovewasrejected andthereforeany measurestowardsestablishingsuchhierarchieswithin theCommitteestructurewould alsoberejected. TheCDIP reportsdirectly to theGeneralAssemblyandthis proceduremustremainsoandberespected.TheDelegationnotedtheconcernsabouttheduplication of work alreadyunderway in othercommittees, andstatedthatrequests for theDirector Generalto submitreports to theCDIP madeby somemembers,shouldbeseen aspart of theinternal work of theSecretariat, andthemechanismto whichsomemembersweresuggesting wasanexternal one.It should berecognizedthatanexternalor outsideviewwasimportant,giventhattheprocesshad to beguidedby theMemberStates.Anotherissuewason thequestionof feasibility. TheDelegationsaidit wasawarethatit wasunlikely thatthemeeting would reach a final decisionin this session,thereforeinitiating aconstructive conversation shouldbeemphasized. Itthereforeagreedwith whattheCoordinatorof theAfricanGroupstatedregarding theholdingof informalconsultationswith MemberStates,and to invite themto submit proposalsbeforetheFourthSession,sothatthemechanismcouldbeput into place.

466. TheDelegationof MoroccothankedtheChairand notedthattheCDIP alreadyhadavery clear andprecisemandate. Theproblemwashowthemandateshould beimplemented.It supportedtheotherdelegationswho requestedproposals to besubmittedto thenextsessionof theCDIP reflectingwhathadbeensaidto date andwhatwould besaidsubsequently. TheDelegation wasof theview thatit wasimportantto focuson thefollowing four points; firstly,theform of thebodythatwouldbegiventhis mandate, secondly,its membership, thirdly, itsattributions,and fourthly, theworkingaspectof thebody. TheDelegation saidit hadanideawith regardto eachoneof thesepoints. With regard to theform, it suggestedthatit shouldbeaworkinggroup.As for its membership,it suggested thatall relevant WIPO bodiesandstakeholdersshouldberepresented.With regard to financing andtheothercharacteristicsofthegroup,theDelegationsuggestedthatthefirst thing to dowasto follow-upandensurethattheworkinggroupwasableto access all sources of information, whichwouldenableit tofulfill its mandate. In regardto its objectives,onevery importantpoint to considerwouldbecoordination. If it wasto beeffectivelycoordinated, thenit hadto beaworkinggroupforproposals andcollaboration. It wasnot something that fit tedat anypoint into thehierarchy.It needed to consult right acrosstheboard,andbe likeanurseryfor consensusbuilding, rightacrosstheOrganization. With regardto its functioning,theDelegation called for theadoptionof a transparentand anopenworkingmethodfor this group.

467. TheDelegationof Tunisia thankedtheChair andsaid it would like to beginwheretheChair left off in his statement,by notingthat in theCDIP session,awindowof opportunityhad beenopened to gathertheopinionsof groupsandindividual delegationson thecoordinationmechanism. TheDelegationfurthernotedthat theChairhadalready heard anumberof opinions,andgiventhetime constraints, it would bepractically impossibleto


reachanagreementat thattime. Therefore theDelegation drewattention to documentWO/GA/36/4REV.,whichwasthereport of thetwo sessionsof theCDIP to theGeneralAssembly. In paragraph8, it statedthatdiscussionswouldbeundertakenon thattopicat theThird Session. TheDelegationbelievedthatit wasnot really reasonableto believethatthemeetingcould reacha conclusionto thesediscussionsat thecurrentsession,but it believedthatdelegatesshouldusetheremainingtime to initiate thediscussionsbearing in mind theproposal from theAfrican Group. TheDelegation noted thatit wouldbegoodfor eachregionalgroupto work on apaperafterthesessionandpresentit to thefourthsession,whileacceptingthedocumentCDIP/3/INF/2to serveasacontinuingbasisfor discussion.

468. TheDelegationof theCzechRepublic stated thatin its view, it wasleft to theCDIP, inlinewith its mandate,to follow-upandassesstheimplementationof theDevelopmentAgenda.TheDelegationthankedPakistan andtheAfricanGroupfor their proposalsandstated thattheywill bestudiedin moredepthalthoughit foundit difficult to support thecreationof anynewentity for thepurposeof monitoring theimplementation of theDevelopmentAgendaor any approachthatwould betoocumbersomeor prescriptive.TheDelegationsaid it wouldcounton theproposal madeby theDirector General to reportannually to theCDIP on theimplementation of theDevelopmentAgendaprinciples. TheDelegationalsofoundtheproposalby GRULAC, to extendtheannual report, interestingandwouldexploreif further.

469. TheDelegationof Yemensupportedtheproposalmadeby Pakistanandbelievedthatthemeeting shouldcontinuealongthepathof implementation of therecommendationsof theDevelopmentAgenda.

470. TheDelegationof Bangladesh saidthat it hadtakennoteof thevariousproposalsthathad beenmade,especiallythoseby Senegalonbehalf of theAfrican Group,by Pakistanandby CostaRicaonbehalfof GRULAC. It wasobviousfrom theseproposals and from others,thatall delegationswantedbettercoordinationandeffective monitoring,evaluationandreporting on implementation.Referringfi rst to theAfri canGroupsproposal, if it involvedatimelinefor presentationof otherproposals,andtheir examination, theDelegation saiditwouldgoalongwith it, solongastheLDCs GroupCoordinator was representedon theproposed standingmechanisms, aworking groupor somethingsimilar. It pointedout thattheLDCs hadsuchabig stakein theDevelopmentAgenda.On theproposalby theDelegationofPakistan,theDelegationof Bangladesh notedthat it would lookat it, andremainopenwithout prejudiceto otherproposals. TheDelegation stated thattherewererecommendationsthatcouldbe implementedregardless of whichway theCommitteemadeits decision,withregardsto coordination andeffectivemonitoringevaluation reporting. TheDelegationalsonoted in agreementwith theDelegationof SouthAfri ca,thatthereweresomepracticalpointsthatcouldbeaddedto strengthenthemonitoringandevaluation aspect, andsomecommentsand footnotesthatcouldform abasisfor decisionsthat could bepresented to theGeneralAssembly for consideration. TheDelegationnoted thatit wasentirely within theGeneralAssembly’s mandate to instructcommittees to takeintoaccounttheAssembly’s provisionsand recommendationsandhadthemenactedinto thedecisions. It wasthereforeentirelylogical to askfor awritten report,asGRULAC haddone,or presentationsfrom theDirectorGeneralor theSecretariat,to theGeneralAssembly or to individualcommittees. This couldevenform part of thereportsthatweremadeto theGeneral Assemblyandcould containasectionon theDevelopmentAgenda.TheDelegation suggestedthatsomebody couldtaketheinitiativeand start consultationsamongtheChairs andVice-Chairsof thecommittees, andnoted asmentionedby theDelegationof Algeria, thattheprocesswasnot a very resource


intensiveapproach.Therefore,someimmediateaction or decisionsneededto betakentoobtaining a coordinationandevaluationmechanismthatcouldbebuilt onsubsequently.

471. TheDelegationof Brazil welcomedthediscussionandthevariousproposalstabledunder Agenda Item8, notablyby CostaRicaonbehalf of GRULAC, by Pakistan andbySenegal onbehalf of theAfrican Group.TheDelegation alsocommendedtheDirectorGeneral’soffer to reportannuallyon theimplementation of theDevelopmentAgendaprinciples. TheDelegationbelievedthatthediscussionsundertheAgendaItem hadconfirmedwhatdevelopingcountrieshadbeensaying in theCDIP,with respectto theparticularcross-cutting natureof theDevelopmentAgenda. In orderto addressthatspecificity of thedevelopmentdimension, thespecificity of theDevelopmentAgenda,theCDIP neededto findout themodalitiesfor monitoring,assessing,discussingandreportingontheimplementationof the45agreedRecommendations. TheDevelopment Agendawasbroadand the implementationof its 45Recommendationscould not beconfinedto thelimits of theCDIP. Thedynamic andpositiveinter-relationsbetweentheCDIP andother WIPObodieswasessentialfor ensuring aneffectiveimplementation of theWIPODevelopmentAgenda.Thepreliminaryreactionof theDelegationto theproposals tabled,particularly to theAfr icanGroupproposal,wasthattherewasindeedvalue in lookingat thepossibility of setting-up aworkinggroupby theChair,integrating all WIPO committees and representativesof regionalgroups, andassigning to thatworkinggroup,thetaskof implementing theGeneralAssemblydecisions. Oneimportantaspectthatcouldnot beoverlooked was theneedto reachout tocivil societies.Takinginto accounttherelevanceand indispensablecontributionof civilsocietiesthroughouttheDevelopmentAgendanegotiations,andduring its implementation,theDelegationbelievedthatoutreachmodalitiesshouldalsobediscussed. TheDelegationalsosuggestedthatif the discussionsunderthecurrentAgendaItem couldnot befinished atpresent,themeeting shouldnot set asideanyproposal,but moveforward with its work underthecurrentAgendaItem,andlook into how it could conductfurtherwork before theNovemberSession.

472. TheDelegationof Serbiaspokeonbehalfof theCentral EuropeanandBaltic StatesGroupandaligneditself with otherdelegationsthat suggestedthatall theproposalsoncoordinationmechanismsshouldbesubmittedto theSecretariat in writing, for compilationand consideration at thefourthsession of theCDIP.

473. TheDelegationof Sri Lankafully agreedtheAfrican Groupwhenit voicedits concernabout how thecoordinationfollow-up and evaluationmechanismshouldbeimplemented.TheDelegationfurthernotedthattherewasanaffinity betweentheAfri cangroupproposalandthatmadeby GRULAC, while theproposalby Delegationof Pakistanwouldcomeinbetweenthetwo. It wasin betweentheother two proposals becauseit suggestedtheestablishmentof a reportingmechanism.Therefore,as a fi rst step,theDelegation statedthattheproposalby Pakistanshouldbeincorporated asthecoordination andfollow-up andevaluationmechanism,wheretheDirectorGeneralwas held responsible,wheretheChairs ofeachCommitteewereheldresponsible,to look into theDevelopmentAgendaaspectin theirrespectivecommittees. TheDelegationcalledfor looking into asimplemechanismto beputin place rather thanhavingnothingat all . It would besomethingwhich wasgoodenough toensure thatthedevelopmentaspectswereimplementedin eachof thecommitteesin WIPO.TheDelegation therefore,urgedtheCommitteeto look into theproposalsmadeby Pakistan,not becausePakistanwasfrom theAsianGroup,nor becauseits proposalwas supportedbytheChair,but becauseit wassimple,anddid not requireanyallocations,andwasa goodmechanismthattheMemberStatescouldlive with.


474. TheChair notedthatwhereastheDelegation of Sri Lankawas not wrongaboutthesupporthegaveto theproposalmadeby Pakistan,hepointedout thathealsosupportedotherproposals as well. Howeverat thattime,heclarifiedthat hewasfocusingon thecoordinationaspect,becausehecould not seethattherewasaproblemwith monitoringandevaluation.TheChair said hesawthechallengein arrivingat acoordination mechanismandstatedthatthatwaswhat hewasfocusingon.

475. TheDelegationof PakistanthankedtheChair for his clarification andbriefly referredtotheintervention thatwasmadeby thedistinguishedDelegationof theCzechRepublicandexplained thattheproposalmadeby theDelegation of Pakistan did not request thecreationofany newstructure. TheDelegationaskedwhether anyMemberof theCommitteecouldclarify if theissueunder considerationwasbeingkeptuntil thefourthsessionof theCDIP haddiscussedit, andsubsequentlysubmittedit to theGeneralAssemblyin 2010for considerationand decision. TheDelegationstatedthatit understoodthatall thecommittees were goingtomeetat leasttwicebeforethe2009GeneralAssembly, and thereafterat the2010GeneralAssembly, soindirectly,discussionscouldtakeplacein 2009,whileby 2010thereshouldbean adherenceto theprinciplesof theDevelopmentAgenda. If so,theDelegationwasof theopinion thattheCommitteewasnot fulfilli ngwhattheDevelopmentAgendawasinitiall ymeantfor. It felt therewasnoneedto delaytheprocessuntil 2010,instead of accomplishingwhatcouldbedoneat the2009GeneralAssembly.

476. TheDelegationof Australiasaidit would like to first of all, takenoteof theThematicProjectapproachtakenby theSecretariatfor theimplementation of activit ies. It believedthattheapproachwould greatlyenhancethecapacity to monitor,assess,discussandreporton theimplementation of therecommendations.In consideringcoordination mechanismswithinrelevantWIPObodies,theDelegation felt thatin theinterestof streamliningactivities of theOrganization,CDIP shouldin thefirst instance,rely onManagerswithin WIPO,to takeresponsibility for informingtheDirectorGeneral onhowtheir programsandactivitiesincorporated elementsof theDevelopmentAgenda,sothattheDirector General couldaccuratelyreflectprogressbackto CDIP. TheDelegation alsostatedthatit sawvalueinfurtherdiscussionsat thenextsessionof theCDIP onother coordination mechanisms.

477. TheChair said therewasgreatrespectfor bothideas.

478. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americasaidit wanted to stronglyaff irm thestatementof GroupB, whichsetforth importantlong-standingprinciples thathadgovernedand shouldcontinueto governtheprogramsandactivit iesof all WIPOcommittees. Withinthis overall framework, theDelegationfull y agreed with theChair’s wisedecision, thatdiscussion of theimportantissueonhowCDIP would coordinate its work with othercommitteesof WIPO, and monitorandassesstheimplementation of theagreed45 Recommendations, shouldbeginat thecurrentSessionandcontinueat thenextSession.TheDelegationnotedthatit wasin theprocessof reviewingthevariousideasandproposalsto implementthataspectof theCommittee’smandate,andthata review wouldcontinuewhenit returned to capital. However,theDelegationbelievedthat it was prematureto reachanydecisiononany particularideaor proposal at thecurrent Sessionof theCDIP,andstatedthatit did not supportinter-sessionalwork on thatparticulartopic,wherethevoicesof allMemberStatescould not necessarilybeheardwith clarity.


479. TheDelegationof Nigeriasaidit hadvery goodclarity on anumber of themesdiscussed,but whatit did not hearat that momentwasthecomplete ramificationsof theproposals on thetable. TheDelegationaddedthat hadthemembersgoneaheadwith anyproposal, thatmight havebecomeaproblem, asthey wouldhavebegunto haveotherideas.TheDelegationexpressedthateventheAfricanGrouphad not even agreedthatit wasanAfrican Groupproposal, but theysupportedentirely what hadbeen said by Senegalbecauseitwasveryclear. Thereforeit wasdifficult to acceptwhat had been proposed on thetable. TheDelegationfinally expressedits intentionto join theefforts of any personwhocouldgo aheadwith theproject. On following therulesandthemechanismsthat werein place, theDelegationassured thatits membershadto follow themechanisms, andclarifiedthattheSecretariat andtheDirectorGeneralhad madeaproposalonhowto proceedin termsofreporting, andremindedthattherewouldbeother proposals thatwouldcomefrom theMember StatesthattheSecretariatwould look into beforebringing themback to everyone.TheDelegationhopedto getthat adopteddocument in September whentheGeneralAssembly wouldmeet. In its opinion,thebest optionwouldbeto havesomethingelaboratedto look into in thenextCDIP meeting.

480. TheDelegationof theRussianFederationsaid that in its opiniontheissuesdealtat thattimewereextremely important. Thequestionof coordination andaccountability were indeedan integral partof themandateof thatCommittee,and for thatreasonthosequestionswerediscussedat thatmeeting. However,theDelegationstated thatfurtherwork should bedonewithin a framework andin accordancewith themandate that hadbeengivento theCommittee. It wasfor thatreason thatthework wouldbeconductedalso in accordancewiththeestablishedrulesandregulationsandthemechanisms theyhadin place, includingtheprogramsfor theirbudgetmechanismsthatexistedunder theofficesof WIPO. TheDelegationsaidtherewerealreadyanumber of proposals put forward andit might bepossiblethatat a futuresession of theCommittee,therewould bemoreproposalsandadditionalideasaccording to howtheDelegationcould organize its work aseffectively aspossible.TheDelegationsaidit undoubtedlyneededto focusparticularly oncertain elements thatmightpertain to effective monitoring. Towards thatend,anumberof thedocumentswerepreparedby theSecretariatfor that session,and within theframeworkof theThematic approach. TheDelegationbelievedthatin thecourseof thenext sessionof theCommittee,it wouldhaveanopportunity to look at all of thoseissuesin greater detail andwouldcomeupwith a fullerassessmentof whereit stood.

481. TheDelegationof Egyptsaid it believedthat proposalswereon theground,but it wouldbeapity if thethird sessionof theCDIP wasconcludedwith noconcretediscussionor finalresult. As suchtheDelegationbelievedit wouldbegoodto haveadepository elementwheretheproposalsthatweregivenby MemberStatesandby stakeholders could bereceived.TheDelegationsaidit hadnotedthataparticulardeadlinecouldalsobeintroducedsothattheycould begin to constructivelymoveforward in dealing with thatAgendaItem. TheDelegationwelcomedtheproposalmadeby theDirector Generalin theopeningof thatsession,aboutreportingonanannualbasis,but felt thattheproposal did not pertain to thesecondaspectof themandatebecauseit pertainedto monitoringandassessments. TheDelegationbelievedthatmonitoringandassessmentneededto beanindependentfunction. Itwelcomedreporting andbelievedit did not needto give theDirector Generalinstructionsonhow hewishedhis variousdepartments or divisionsto reportto him, for him to presenthisfinal annual reportto MemberStates.


482. TheDelegationof Canadaexpressedits supportfor thestatementmadeby Germanyand Australia, andstressedtheneedto focuson thecoordinationaspect. TheDelegationalsosupportedtheviewexpressedby theUnitedStatesof America,andencouragedfurtherdiscussions at thenextsession of theCDIP in November.

483. TheDelegationof Indiasaidthatit was not prematureto begin aseriousdiscussionontheissueof monitoring,assessment,coordination andreporting of theDevelopmentAgendabecause the implementationof theDevelopmentAgendahadalreadystarted. TheDelegationbelievedthatoncesomethingwasin theimplementation phase, thenreporting, monitoring,assessing andevaluatingwouldbevery logical follow-upsteps. TheDelegation thought itwouldbeaconstructiveandproductivetool to help all theMemberStates understandanideaof how far thingshadprogressedandwhatremainedto bedone.TheDelegation felt thatithad to bean approachto theideaof evaluation,monitoring,coordination, sothateverybodywouldbelookingat thesamething. In that spirit, theDelegationbelievedit was time toconsidertheproposalswhichhadbeentabled,andconsiderfutureproposals thatmight bereceivedby MemberStates. In thatregard,theDelegation agreedwith theDelegationofEgypt whichsaid thatit wastime to give adeadline,inviteconcretesuggestionsandproposalsfrom all MemberStatesandhaveaseriousdiscussionon that AgendaItem at thenextCDIPand arriveat anagreementonwhatform of mechanismwas needed. TheDelegationproposed separatediscussionson thecoordinationandassessmentaspects,as therewasanintrinsicinter-linkagebetweenthetwo. TheDelegationbelievedit was not possible toevaluatewithout implementingor reportingwithoutcoordinating,andconsideredthattheCommitteeclearlylinkedall theaspects.As to theDevelopmentAgendaItem33, theDelegationbelievedthattherecommendation, whichhad beenapprovedby theGeneralAssembly, calleduponWIPOto developaneffective yearly review andevaluationmechanismfor theassessmentof all its development-orientedactivities,including thoserelatedto technicalassistanceestablishedfor thatpurpose, andprovidespecific indicatorsandbench-marks whereappropriate.TheDelegationrecalled whatWIPO evaluation policy,which was,again,adoptedby theGeneralAssembly in 2007,whichwould bean integral partof WIPO’s organizationalculture. Therewasto bea firm commitment at all levelsof theOrganizationto ensurethatevaluationswereeffectively planned, conducted andused.TheDelegationalsoaddedthattheevaluation policy very clearly saidthatthereshall bedifferentlevelsof evaluation thatwerenot mutually inclusive. By lookingat theevaluation policy onecould seethat it alsotalkedaboutsystemic evaluation being theevaluation “which examineissueswhich haveorganization-wide implication andaddresscross-cutting themes”.TheDelegationconsideredtheDevelopment Agendaacross-cutting themethatrequiredasystemicevaluation, andurgedthatCommitteeto considertheproposalconstructivelyandmove forwardquickly.

484. A representativeof CIEL saidthatwhile theSecretariat hadbeentaskedby theDevelopmentAgendato docertainthings,recommendationsalsospokedirectly of othercommittees, andurgedMemberStatesto carry out certain tasks.That Committeewastoundertakeactivitiesseparatelyfrom thoseundertakenby theSecretariat. CIEL consideredthatany delayin establishingamechanismthat would enableastrongfollow-upcoordinationwouldcrippletheability of thatCommitteeto achieve its mandate. CIEL suggestedtheimplementation of aninformal mechanismbetween them andtheGeneral Assembly in whichall Chairswould participatein anticipationof any formal mechanismat thelater stage.CIELcommentedthatthereportby theDirectorGeneral wasinteresting, andreiteratedthatit wastheresponsibility of MemberStatesandnot thatof theSecretariat. CIEL also reiteratedtheimportanceof civil societyin thedevelopmentand implementation of theDevelopment


Agendaandenquiredif anymonitoring,evaluation,assessment andreporting processwouldensure thattherewasachannelfor input andanappropriateparticipation of civil society.

485. A representativeof theThird World Network (TWN) reiterated theclear mandatefromtheGeneral Assembly thatcalledfor CDIP to coordinatewith other WIPO bodies. In ordertoimplementtheissuesof monitoring,assessing,discussingandreporting, therelevantWIPOcommitteesneededto beinformed,andtheWIPO MemberStatesof thosebodiesneeded toreport on theimplementationof therecommendationsof theDevelopmentAgenda. For thatpurpose, thecoordinationmechanism that wasextremely important asit would not only applyto all therecommendations. TWN believed thatany coordination mechanismthatwasset-upshouldalsoinvolvecivil societyin orderto check if theotherWIPO committeeshadcompliedwith therecommendationsof theDevelopmentAgenda. It believedthatwhatwasimportantwasfollowing upwith thereportsfrom theWIPOSecretariat and theCommittee,and CDIP could discuss otherinitiativesthatneededto betaken to realize therecommendations. In thatregardTWN believedthat havinga follow-upmechanismto eachof therecommendationswasequallyasimportant. As to monitoringandevaluation,TWNreiteratedthattherewasaneedto set-up amechanism,whichshouldhavetwo elements. Thefirst wasto invite inputsfrom avarietyof stakeholderswith regardto theextentto which theobjectivesof therecommendationshadbeenachieved. Therewasa need to providerecommendationson thefollow-up. Thosemissionscouldthenbethesubjectof discussion inCDIP, to befed into thefollow-upmechanismof therecommendations. Thesecondimportantelementwasthesetting-upof somekind of anindependentexternal expert group,which couldactually evaluateandaccesstheimplementation of theDevelopment Agenda,and makerecommendationsto ensurethesuccessfulimplementationof theDevelopmentAgenda.Thoseexpertsshouldhaveexpertisein developmentissues,andnot beonly expertsin the field of IP.

486. TheDelegationof theUnitedKingdomexpressed its supportfor thestatementsmadebytheCzechRepublic onbehalfof theEU, GroupB, Australia, CanadaandtheUnitedStatesofAmerica. TheDelegationsharedtheview thatevaluation andmonitoringof WIPOfundswasalsoakeyroleof thebudgetstructuresin WIPO andof theProgram andBudgetCommittee(PBC). TheDelegationfurtherstatedthatthattrustbeplaced in theSecretariat, thoseworkingon theCDIP and theProjectManagers,sincethosewerethepeoplewhowouldcommunicate to othercommitteesvia theDirectorGeneral. TheDelegation addedthatthemechanismfor coordinationwastheCDIP itself. It statedthatit wastheresponsibilityofeveryMember State to ensurethattheDevelopmentAgendawashighlighted in othercommittees, andhencetherewasnoneedfor further costlycoordinationbodies.As MemberStates,it pointedout theneedfor eachoneto do their job, andas a representativeof theUnitedKingdom,theDelegationdid not justrepresentits government, but thegovernmentand all thestakeholdersin theUnitedKingdom. Therefore,it stated it wouldconsultwithNGOsfrom theUnitedKingdom.

487. TheDelegationof theRepublicof Koreastatedthat WIPOhadavery goodcoordinationsystem,aninternalcoordination within theSecretariat,anda coordinationdivision,andall theProjectManagerscooperatedwith eachother in reviewingandavoidingduplication, in orderto acceleratetheimplementation of theDevelopment Agenda.TheDelegationconsideredthattheCDIP hadaveryclearandstrongmandatefor reviewingallthosematters.TheDelegationraisedthequestion as to why it was important to discussanyadditional mechanism whichdid not needto exist.


488. TheDelegationof India pointedout that whatwasfirst proposedwas somethingthathad beenmandatedby theGeneralAssemblyto theCommittee, enshrinedin oneof theDevelopmentAgendarecommendationsitself, andhadbeen adoptedformally by thatOrganizationaspartof its evaluationpolicy. Accordingly,theDelegation felt thatwhenevertherewas aquestionasto why it wasrequired,it triedto think of anorganization or anyentitythatundertookprojectsandthatimplementedthemin across-cutting manner,andhadfailedto coordinate,monitor and assess howwell it hadbeen done. As to thescarce resourcesthatwerebeingfrequently mentioned,theDelegationwonderedif theproposals on thetablewereresourceneutral, andaskedif it wasnot worth it to spendsomeresourcesto accomplishwhathad beenmandatedor to accomplish theimplementation of theprojects?

489. TheDelegationof Pakistandrewtheattention of theMemberStatesto documentWO/GA/36/4Rev.,relatingto thereporton thesessionsof theCommittee. In thatdocument,it referredto themandateof theCommittee, andof theCDIP. TheDelegation readout theparagraphpertaining to thatmatterwhichstated: 1.“The General Assembly also decided toestablish a Committee on the Development of Intellectual Property, 2. Develop a workplan,a) develop a work plan for the implementation of the adopted recommendations, b) monitor,assess, discuss and report, on the implementation of all the recommendations adopted, andfor that purpose, it shall coordinate with the relevant WIPO bodies, c) discuss intellectualproperty and development related issues as agreed by the Committee, as well as thosedecided by the General Assembly”. TheDelegation considered thatmonitoring,assessing,discussing andreportingwereall in themandateof theCDIP. Whatwasmissing wasthecoordinationwith otherbodies. Theendof thedocument in paragraph10(c),statedthattheCDIP also decidedto urgetheGeneralAssembly to encourageall MemberStates,theSecretariat andotherrelevantWIPObodiesto effectively implementandadoptrecommendations. Thatwasa referenceto thecoordination,whichwas basically addressingthatsameissue. It believedthatotherthanthecoordination betweenthedifferent WIPOcommittees, theCDIP hadthemandateto carryout all thedutiestasked.

490. TheChair statedthatall theinterventionshadbeenextremely interestingasexpected,and theonly summaryhecouldprovide from thediscussion,was thattherehadbeenenoughMemberStatesthathadsuggestedthattheSecretariat coordinated adocument basedon thediscussions, thewritten inputsreceivedandanyfurther written inputsthatwould bereceivedfrom MemberStates,andsincethatdocumentwouldbepreparedfor discussionat thefollowing sessionof theCDIP, in November, theChair enquired as to thedateby which theSecretariat shouldask for inputs,asthedocument would haveto beproducedsometimeahead of theactual dateof themeeting.TheChair added thatfor his part, threesubjects,asarticulatedby Egypt, andacoupleof other delegationswerein theforefront, reporting,andtherewas achallengetherebecause,Pakistanhadpointedout thatthemandatestated“toestablishaCommittee,CDIP, to monitor, assess,discussand report”. TheChair statedhedidnot knowto whom, but quotedthat“the Committeeshallcoordinate with therelevantWIPObodies.” TheChair addedthattheDirector General had stated thathewas preparedto providesomereportsto theMemberStates,or reportsonsome implementation of someof theadoptedrecommendations, andthatpartof theProject Managers rolewould beto report ontheimplementationof theprojectsundertheir responsibilit y. Therefore,therewouldbetwosourcesof reporting to theCommittee,sotheChair did not consider thattherewasaproblemwith reporting,but thatwasanobservation,not adecision,part of thatdiscussionwouldbecarriedinto thefollowing meeting.TheChair statedthatheexpectedthat themonitoring andassessing would bebasedon thereportsthattheDirector GeneralandProject Managers,hadset on to provideto theMembersStates,andon anyother observationsthey hadmade


throughtheirparticipationwith othercommittees. TheChair reiterated what CIEL hadindicated aboutnot beingleft out, thattheyneeded to play akeyrole in that process.

491. TheChair said thatcoordinationwith therelevantWIPObodieswasthemainchallenge,and relatedhis ownexperiencewhen coordinating a work groupwithin theWorldTradeOrganization (WTO) calledthe“Small Economies”. TheChairexpressed howthemandatethathadto beimplementedwasfrequently neglected. It wastheCommittee’sresponsibility to decideto whomthemandate to coordinatewasgiven. It wasfor themtodiscussamongthemselvesor comeupwith amechanismto dealwith thatcoordination.TheChairbelievedthat all MembersStateshadto respect theboundariesthey hadidentified.Theyneededto respecttheboundariesthatexistedbetweenthedifferent committees, andneededto rely on themandateof theGeneral Assembly. TheChairneededto know whatwasdiscussedand thekind of coordination theyhadagreedon. They wouldput their viewsto theGeneralAssembly, andtheGeneralAssemblywouldmandateothercommittees to coordinatein whatever waytheGeneralAssemblythoughtwasappropriate. TheChair alsoannouncedthatSeptember30would bethedateby whichanyfurther submissionsshouldbe received.

AgendaItem 7 (continued)

492. TheDelegationof JapanstatedthatdocumentCDIP/3/8relatedto their suggestiontoWIPO to provideaone-stopservice,on its website, onsharingexperiencesandinformationon thebestpracticesof linking IP with business.In thatregard,theDelegation underscoredthatit hadalreadypresentedthesuggestionat the36thSessionof theGeneral Assembly,which tookplacethepreviousSeptember,by providing its thoughtsduringa generalstatementand throughthedistributionof anexplanatory document. TheDelegation’ssuggestion aimedin particular,at thepromotionof theintellectual creation cycle,consistingof thecreation,protectionandexploitationof IP, particularly in developingcountries. It alsotouchedon thefacilitationof partnerships,technology transfer,anddirectinvestmentofbusinessentities,bothin developinganddevelopedcountries,andtheprogressive increaseofIP ownership among developingcountries,for their economic advancement. TheDelegationsuggestedthatWIPO launchedaone-stopservice on its website, to enableusersto accesscasestudies successfully linking IP andbusiness. An importancewasattachedto themulti-facetedclassification system,accordingto which thecase-studiesshould bearranged,soastoensureaneasyuseraccessandtheexpeditiousretrieval of themostrelevantinformation.

493. TheDelegationdrewattentionto thefigure,onpage5 of Annex2, of thedocument,wherethepossible embodimentof thosefeatureswas illustrated. As it wasalsomentionedintheaforementionedexplanatorypaper,thesuggestionwasrelatedbut not necessarilylimitedto recommendations 4, 9 and11,of theWIPO Development Agenda.Concerning thefeasibilityof thesuggestion,it wasconsideredthatthedatabaseprototypecould beexpeditiouslyestablished,utilizing existing assetswithout additional resources. WIPOhadundertakenefforts relevantto thesubjectof theinitiative, includingtheposting on its websiteof casestudieson theuseof theIP systemby SMEs,aswell as theactivi ties of WIPO in thecontextof technicalassistanceandcapacitybuilding,public outreachandtheWWA. Indeed,theprototypecouldbeimplementedthrough: (1) thecreation of theportal website;(2) theclassification of existingcasestudies;and(3) theintegrationof thosecasestudiesin anexistingdatastoragesystem. Af ter theestablishmentof that prototypedatabase,MemberStateswouldbeinvitedto submit newsetsof casesonavoluntarybasis,in orderto enrichthecontents.VarioussuccessfulcasescouldalsobecollectedthroughWIPOorganizedmeetings, seminars,workshopsandsymposia. Thesuggested one-stopdatabasewould


functionasa reservoirof knowledgeandwisdom,contributing to thepromotionof theintellectual creation cycle,thefacilitationof businessalliance andpartnerships,andtheprogressive increasein IP ownershipin developingcountries,andultimately wouldprovideaboostto theeconomicadvancementof MemberStates,especially amongdevelopingmembers. TheDelegation hopedthatits proposal’ would betaken noteof, andstepswouldbe takenby theSecretariat,asearlyasit waspractical, to implementtheideafor thebenefit ofMemberStates.

494. TheDelegationof theRepublicof KoreathankedtheChairandproposedtwoimplementation projects, basedon its ownexperience, containedin documentCDIP/3/7. Thefirst proposalrelatedto fair tradeactivities,andto thesupportof farmersandproducers indevelopingandleastdevelopedcountries,andacquiring trademarkson their fair tradeproducts. In its opinion,it wasquiteusual for goodquality products from developingandleastdevelopedcountries,not to receivea fair price in developedcountriesbecauseof theirlackof brand power. Moreover,fair tradewasanNGOactivity whichhelpedthemarketingof thoseproducts andpromotedfair prices. However,to seek their interestin thelong term,producersneededto utilize IP in termsof establishingeffective brandstrategiesandacquiringtrademarkrights. TheDelegationexplainedthattheRepublic of KoreahadalreadylaunchedtheKoreaFunds-in-Trustproject,mainly targetingAsia-Pacific countries,which consistedintargetingthebest wayto promotethoseproducts throughthestrategic useof IP. However,inorder to expand theprojectto countriesin otherregions, theDelegation thoughtit wasnecessaryto includeit in theimplementationplanof theDevelopment Agenda.However,theDelegationhadsome administrativeconcerns.Originally, theprojectwas proposedasanimplementation planof Recommendation4. However, after aclosereview of theCDIPdocument andconsultationswith theWIPOSecretariat, theDelegation proposedchanging itintoanimplementationprojectunderrecommendation 10. TheDelegation knewthattheimplementation of Recommendation10wasalreadypartially discussed, andthat theSecretariat hadpreparedadetailedimplementation projectwith theallocationof budgetresourcesfor CDIP/3/INF/2. TheDelegationaddedthat asits proposalwasnot contradictoryto theagreeddirection for theimplementation of Recommendation 10,anddid not requireasubstantialamountof thebudget,it thoughtthattheSecretariatcouldincludetheirproposalintheimplementationplanof Recommendation10,by slightly readjusting theallocationof thebudget, within thelimits of thealreadyallocated8 milli onSwissFrancs.As for thesecondproposal, theDelegationexplainedthatit wasrelatedto thedissemination of appropriatetechnologyinformation,in responseto thespecial needsof developingandleastdevelopedcountries. Appropriatetechnologywasnot thehigh-end technologybut rathera freeor easilyapplicablesimpletechnologysuitableto thedaily needsof people in developingandleastdevelopedcountries. TheDelegationexplained thatthatform of appropriate technologyusually preferredlabor intensive or labor savingsolutions,overacapital intensiveone. It alsostated thatby exploringpatentinformationon theinternet,manyhigh-endtechnologiescouldbe found. Howeverit did not meanthatonecould freelyandeasily usethetechnology.Sometimesit couldbe toosophisticatedand requiredtoomuchinvestmentfor peoplein thedevelopingor leastdevelopedcountries.Therefore,theDelegation proposedadisseminationof appropriatetechnologyinformation,whichwouldbefreely, easily andimmediatelyapplicable. It proposedasasecondstageof that project, theformation of a technologyimplementation consultancygroup,whichwould assistin thedelivery andimplementationoftechnologyin response to theurgentneedof localcommunities duringpovertyandcrisis.TheDelegation’sproposalwasverycloselyrelatedto theThematic implementation projectindocument CDIP/3/4, Annex4, in theparagraphon: “DevelopingToolsfor Access to PatentInformation”. ThatThematicProjecthadalready includedtheproduction anddissemination


of patentlandscapingpoints,ona listedareaof technologysuchashealth, environment,foodand disability. However,theDelegationwondered howthesimplepublicationof thatsophisticatedtechnologyinformationon thewebsitecould assist peoplein crisisindevelopingandleastdevelopedcountries.It stated thatit believed thatthepatentlandscapingproject should beamendedby addingavailableappropriatetechnology information for eachlistedareaof technology. In addition,at least for theurgentneedof people in crisis,awaytosupportthedirectdeliveryof thattechnology shouldbeconsidered,in cooperationwith otherinternational organizations.

495. Referring to Recommendation10, theChair said that hewould request theSecretariat tolook into whetherit wassomethingthatfi tted properlyinto what theCDIP hadalreadyagreedto do. With respectto Recommendation31, theChair stated thatdiscussionon thatsubjectshouldbedeferreduntil anappropriatetime. As for theproposal from Japan,theChairsaidhehadnot beenableto find which recommendationbest connectedwith theDelegation’sproposal, andaskedfor clarification.

496. TheDelegationof JapanthankedtheChairandsaid that its proposalrelatedtorecommendations4, 9 and11.

497. TheDelegationof Canadathankedthedelegationsof theRepublic of KoreaandJapanfor submittingtheirproposalsin advanceof themeeting. As for theproposalby theRepublicof Korea,theDelegationstatedthatit supportedtheinitiative to makeinformationmorepublicly availableandtechnologiesmoreeasily accessible to developingcountriesandLDCs.TheDelegationbelievedthatsuchaninitiative could significantlycontribute to thesustainableeconomicdevelopmentof developingnationsamongWIPOMemberseconomies,and suggestedthatit couldbebeneficial to circumscribetheconceptof appropriatetechnology,in order to betterdefinetheprojectproposal. With regardsto theJapaneseproposal, theDelegationsaidit wouldappreciate if theycould elaborateon whowouldberesponsiblefor populatingthedatabase,andenquiredif it wouldbetherespective IP Officefrom eachcountry. In AnnexII, onpage4, theDelegation suggestedincludingculturalindustriesalso in thebusiness categories. It felt it would behelpful if AnnexesII I, IV andV,which presentedasynopsisof each,could highlight lessonslearnt at theend of eachcasestudy.

498. TheDelegationof Myanmarthanked theChair andexpressedits appreciationto theDelegationof theRepublicof Koreafor comingupwith two valuableproject proposals.Forthefirst project,theDelegationsawthehighpotential in theprojectfor enhancing thecapacity of LDCs’ produceby makinggooduseof IP, by advancingits economicvalue,which in theendwouldenhancethecultureof innovation in general. Thesecondprojectcould also facili tate technologytransferin amostpractical way in small steps. Accordingly,theDelegationsuggestedthattheCDIP considered incorporating thosetwo proposalsinfutureprograms.

499. TheDelegationof SingaporethankedtheChair andtheDelegation of theRepublicofKoreafor drafting two proposalsfor consideration. TheDelegation welcomedtheproposalon theuseof patentinformationin the transfer of appropriate technology,andbelievedthatthedissemination of patentinformationandappropriatetechnological information wasacritical link in thetechnologicaltransferto developingcountries.


500. TheDelegationof Uruguaythankedthedelegationsof theRepublic of KoreaandJapanfor theirefforts to includesomeof thedevelopmentissuesin theproposals which theyhadpresented.With regardto theproposalpresentedby theDelegation, in light of whathadgonebefore, theDelegationaskedfor clarification from theDelegation , knowing thataspreamble,trademarkswouldaddvalueto goodsandfacili tate therecognition of value. TheDelegationnoticedthatthesecondparagraphnotedtheissueof importing coffeeto supportequitableuse,and at theendof thatparagraph,it statedthattheassociationwantedto registera trademarkfor fair trade. TheDelegationsaidit understoodfrom that, thattheownersof thetrademark,which addedvalueto theproduct,wastheYoungMen’s ChristianAssociation (YMCA) fromtheRepublicof Korea,andnot theproducersof theleast developed countries. Accordingly,theDelegationwonderedwhetherthatwas thecorrect understanding,whetherit wastheobjectiveof theprojectitself, whetherit wastheowners of thetrademarkwhoaddedvalue totheproduct,or whethertheownersof thetrademark would betheactual farmersthemselves,or rathertheAssociation,in theRepublicof Korea.

501. TheDelegationof theRepublicof KoreathankedtheChairandsaid it wouldprovidetheanswerto thequestionfrom theDelegation of Uruguay. TheDelegation’s intentionwasto assist farmersandproducersto getthetrademarkby themselves andnot through their tradeorganizations. As theYMCA casewasapilot project, andwith somany difficulties indirectly contacting andhelpingthepublic in theEastTimor region, theYMCA acquiredthetrademarkon their behalf,andassistedthemin marketing andpromoting theirproducts.TheDelegationaddedthatits project’sobjective was to assist thosepeople to gettheir trademarkdirectly.

502. TheDelegationof EgyptthankedtheChair andexpressedits appreciation to thedelegationsof theRepublicof KoreaandJapan,for makingaconcrete contributionto theadvancementof theDevelopmentAgenda.TheDelegation particularly appreciatedthattheyhad presentedthosedocumentsin aneffort to advancethework, andhadalready relayedthatto their colleaguesfrom theRepublicof Korea, andfrom theDelegation of Japan, andhadtakennoteof thedocuments. Theyhadalsorelayedthem to capital in order for theprojectstobeproperlyassessedsothattheycouldcommentpositively andconstructively on theprojects.However,theDelegationwouldnot beableto do soduringthesessiongiventhefactthattheyweresubmittedrelatively late,comparedto thesessionschedule. However, it did not detractfrom their appreciation for thesincereeffortsthatbothdelegationshaddemonstratedwithregard to their commitmentto theDevelopmentAgenda.

503. TheDelegationof Brazil thankedtheDelegation of Japan andtheDelegation of theRepublicof Korea, for tablingtheproposals. TheDelegation statedthattheyhadnot had thetime to go through theprojects,but thatas apreliminary reaction, theyseemedquitepositive.TheDelegationof Brazil askedtheDelegationof Japan onhowto, afterthedatabasewasbuilt andpopulatedwith successfulbusinesscases,ensurethatbusinessesin developingcountries,aswell asbig companiesin developingcountries,madeuseof thatcontent,andwhatwasenvisagedbeyondthebuildingof thedatabase.Theotherquestionwasrelatedtopage3, at thelastparagraph,with bullet pointsstating; “Particular emphasis would be givento collecting cases helpful for invigorating of regional activities in developing countriesincluding least developed countries”. “Such cases would include not only those concernedwith the utilization of IPRs by rights holders in developing countries, but also thoseconcerning successful efforts taken against infringers”. TheDelegation of Brazil believedthatthis wasmovinginto anotherarea,whichwas theareaof enforcementanddid not thinkthatit should bedoing thatwithin theframework of theDevelopmentAgenda. The


DelegationrequestedthattheDelegationof Japantook thatinto account. However,apartfrom that, theDelegationof Brazil thought thatit wasaworthwhileproject. For theprojectpresentedby theRepublic of Korea,theDelegationalsoexpressedits appreciation for thatproject,but hadtwo questions. Thefirst onewas relatedto theunderstandingof fair trade,and thesecondonewasrelatedto AppropriateTechnologies(AT). TheAT acronym wasusedthroughoutthesecondproposal.TheDelegationof Brazil wishedto havetime topresentthepapersto capital,andto returnfor thefollowingsessionin November, certainlywith positivereactions.

504. TheDelegationof Bangladesh thanked thedelegationsof JapanandtheRepublicofKoreafor tabling theproposals. TheDelegation added thatit generally consideredthemaspositiveprojects,especially,thetwo projectsfrom theRepublic of Korea, thatwerefocusedon addressingtheneedsof theleast developed countries in thefieldof IP. TheDelegationbelievedtherecouldbea potential benefitfor theleastdevelopedcountriesandtheywereparticularlyhappyto seetheprojects.TheDelegation statedthatit would look at themmorecloselyandcomebackto themin November. On theproposals madeby Japan, theDelegationsaidit wouldalso comebackin November, andif therewasananswerto thequestionthathadbeenraisedby Brazil, theDelegation wouldbeinterested in hearing thatalso.

505. TheDelegationof Ecuadorsaidit endorsedcomments aboutthefollowing meetingandthankedJapanandKoreafor theirproposals.

506. TheChair statedthattherewaswideappreciation for thesuggestionsfrom JapanandKorea,andhopedthattheDelegationof Ecuador would join them in Novemberfor furtherdiscussion.

507. TheDelegationof Japan,responding to thecommentsmadeby Brazil, said thatfirstly,theDelegation’sthoughtswereinspiredby theongoing efforts by WIPO as shownin theWIPO website in theSMEs Section. SincebeforeAugust2008,therehad beensome35casesmadeavailableon theWIPO websitevia theSMEs Section, whichutili zedIP for theirbusiness. TheDelegationwishedto increasethenumberof cases andenhancetheusability ofthedatabase,by emphasizingoncollectingdataandalsoapplying multi-facetedclassificationto that data. On thesecondpoint, raisedby theDelegationof Brazil, accordingto which therecould besomecaseswherethepatent ownermight sufferfrom infringement, theDelegationstated thatthatpoint wasdefinitely not its focus,andwasit not adatabasethatwasgearedtowardsenforcementissues.

508. TheDelegationof theRepublicof Koreapointedout thatin their introductorystatement,it hadalready explainedthedefinitionof fair tradeandappropriatetechnology,andto savetime, it wouldexplainthosedefinitionsandthebackgroundto theDelegationsofBrazil andBangladeshrespectively.

509. TheChair statedthathewasstill interestedin doingsomework on theICT anddigitaldivideprojects,andexplainedthattheSecretariat wastrying to completea secondor thirddraft of theChair’s Statement,thatwasnot yet available. TheChair proposedthat thetimebeused, until it becameavailable,to work onAnnex III of CDIP/3/4. TheChair remindedthedelegationsthatthethreerecommendationshadnot yet been discussed,and thereforetheycould befoundin documentCDIP/1/3,theoriginal proposal for activi ties draftedby theSecretariat. TheChairthenshowedtheCommitteetheinformation on theactivities thathad


beenproposedin Februaryof thepreviousyear,andinvited themto look at therecommendationsandactivities, andwhat hadbeen proposed in theprojectdocument.Hestated thatall theirquestionswouldbetaken into consideration,andthat theProjectManagerwhowaspresent,would clarify or respond to anyspecific questions.

510. TheDelegationof Sri Lanka,speakingonbehalf of theAsianGroup,said its statementwasnot specifically on theprojectproposals thatwerecurrently underdiscussion,but wasabout theprojectsthathadalready beendiscussed in thedocument, CDIP/3/4. With regardtotheThematicProject,theAsianGroupsoughtclarification on thefollowing: SincetheCDIPstarteddiscussingAnnexI andII of documentCDIP/3/4, therewereseveralactivitiesproposed by MemberStates.TheAsianGroupsuggestedthat theSecretariat compiled aseparatedocumentthatwould includetheproposals madeby theMember States for furtherconsideration. Thatreportcouldbeconsideredat thenextCDIP. With regardto documentCDIP/3/4,AnnexI, page3, in thecomponentof TK, theAsian GrouprequestedtheSecretariat to includethefollowing: “Traditional knowledge included in the public domainmaintaining some degree of proprietary rights.” TheDelegation clarified thattheAsianGroupsuggestedindicatingthatTK, which wasalready digitalized,thateach MemberStateshouldhave theproprietyright for thatparticular knowledge. TheDelegation did not believethatTK should bein thepublicdomain,when thepublic domain wasnot yet definedby anydocument in that projectproposal.So,withoutaconceptual analysis of thedefinition of thepublic domain, theAsianGroupstatedthatit wasnot comfortablewith thefirst threesentencesin theTK component,whichwaswhy theDelegation wantedto saysomething totheeffectthat TK includedin thepublicdomain maintainingsomesortof degreeof proprietyrights.

511. TheChair thankedtheDelegationsof Sri LankaandtheAsian Group,andtook theopportunity to confirm thatMemberStateswould always havetheopportunity to reviewprojectsandto makesuggestions. However,headded thatif it did not stopat somepoint, theprojectswouldnot beconcluded.Theywould bestartedof course, but thatwoulddependonthenatureof therequestandthephasetheproject had reached. TheChair invitedeveryonetobear in mind thatthefollowing two thingswereopposing: thefreedomto review, andthefreedomto makeamendments. As for additional work, or making changes, thatwas,andwouldalwaysbewith MemberStates.TheChair considered thatthemoretheydid that,themoreit would frustratethework of theSecretariat in implementing theproject. Therefore, theChairencouragedtheCommitteeto managethebalance.

512. TheDelegationof Sri Lankastatedthat it might bea goodidea to haveadeadlineforMemberStatesto submit proposalsandalternationsto theproject proposals. In thespirit ofmoving forward,theDelegationrequestedtheChairto set adeadlinefor theMemberStatestosubmit theirproposalsandviewsfor thoseprojectproposals.

513. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica askedtheChair for clarificationon theremainingrecommendationsof documentCDIP/3/INF/2, regardingtheagreedactivit iesthathadnot yetbeendiscussed.TheDelegationstatedit shouldbediscussedandfinalizedbeforetheendofthesession,giventhatsomesubstantivechangesweremadeon theotherissues.TheDelegationrequestedclarificationasto whenit would bediscussed,beforegetting into theICT in AnnexIII.

514. TheDelegationof SenegalcongratulatedtheChairfor his referenceto theDigitalSolidarity Fund (DSF)in Recommendation24,and statedthatwhentheDSFwasintroduced,


Senegal playedapioneeringrole. TheDelegation soughtclarification with regard to howWIPO couldmanageto concretizetheconsiderationof theimportanceof that Fund,asemphasizedin thelastpartof Recommendation24. TheDelegation alsoproposedthatwith aview to bridging thedigital divide, it couldhavesomeactivi ties in connection with theDSF.TheDelegationsaid thatit did not seemto bethecasewith regardto theprojectdescription.

515. TheChair statedthathewishedSenegal hadtakenhis advice,andhadbegunfocusingon theproject thatdealtwith recommendations19,24and27. Hestatedthat afterdiscussionon AgendaItem8, hewantedto gobackto AgendaItem 7, andto try to progressto at leastonemoreproject,which wouldbetheICT andDigital Divide. Headded thatif Membershadthepreferenceto leavethat newprojectaside,hewouldgoback to reviewingwhatwasessentially thereportin documentCDIP/3/INF/2. Theonly challengewasthattheexpertswhodealtwith thosesubjectswerenot present. TheChair indicated howhewould like tomove it forwardafter Item 8, andhehadcommunicatedthis to theSecretariat whohadmadetheappropriateexpertsavailableto dealwith ICT andtheDigital Divide. TheChairaddedthatif theCommitteereallywantedto goback to CDIP/3/INF/2, theywould seewhethertheappropriateSecretariatstaffwerestill presentandavailable.

516. TheDelegationof Thailandtold theChair thatunfortunately dueto thefact thatthemeetingwasfrom Mondayto Friday,andsomeof themwouldbedeparting, andaccordingtotheirperformancein AgendaItem 8, theywouldeventually enduphaving to starteverythingin January2010.

517. TheDelegationof Nigeriastatedthat thedocumentwas not readyandas thatseemedtobe thecase, it meantthattheywouldbewaiting for some time.

518. TheChair statedthattheprojectsthatwerebroadly agreeduponin thatSession,couldbedealtwith by theSecretariat,andtakenthroughtheProgramandBudgetCommittee(PBC)and on to theGeneralAssemblyfor approvalandimplementation. TheChairaddedthattheprojectsin thedocumentCDIP/3/INF/2 thataddressedrecommendations2, 5, 8, 9 and10,andthereportsdiscussed2, 5 and8, but not 9 and10. All of theserecommendationsfitted intothenineprojects,andhadalready begun.Therefore,by reviewinganddiscussing it, andmakingadjustmentsin February or May, it would not affect theimplementation of thoseprojects, but, not pursuingadiscussion on ICT andthedigital divide,would meanthatthesameprojectscouldnot beimplementeduntil early 2011. TheChair suggestedthattheylookedat ICT andthedigital divide.

519. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica saidit would goalongwith theChaironhow heruledand gavehis commentsandremarks,andwould behappy to goaheadwith ICT, in view ofthefact thattherewasanotherdocument in termsof theChair’s Summary.

520. TheDelegationof Bangladesh saidit would abideby theChair’s ruling andsuggestion.TheDelegationstatedthatwhentheCommitteewenton to futurework, it would requesttheChair to give it anindicationof whatwouldhappen to theremainingprojectsof CDIP/INF/2,and the two remaining projectsof CDIP/3/4. On AnnexIII, theCommitteewasonly focusingits comments oncomponenttwo, “TheDigitizationof Industrial PropertyData”. While takingthesteps, it wasmostimportantto ensure thesustainability of thedigitization. Timeandagain, theCommitteehadseenWIPO projects thatdonatedcomputers,softwarethattwo,threeor five yearsdowntheline, werenot sustainable. TheDelegation consideredthatthesystemhadbecomeout of date,andthosewhohadbeen trainedwereoften transferred,and


sustainability waslost. TheDelegationadmitted thatit wasalsopartly theresponsibility ofthenationalgovernmentsto keepthataspectin mind in designing theproject. Whenit lookedat projectself-evaluation,whichwasonpage6, AnnexIII, andwentback to 2.4, it sawthattherewas anattemptto capturethat,by referring to sustainabili ty for at leastthenextfiveyears,but theysawtheproblemasfollows: theproject duration was24months,but after24monthstheprojectwascompleted.TheDelegation questionedhowthemonitoringorevaluationexercisewouldbeconductedto ensurethatfor at leastthefollowing five years,theproject wasup andrunning. TheDelegationconsideredthat therehadto be, in thelanguageitself,under componenttwo, thenotionof thesustainabilit y of digitization needsto bereflected,andthat betterindicatorsneededto befoundin orderto ensurethatthesustainability factor hadbeenaddressed.TheDelegationalsonoted thatunder componenttwoon thestepsto betaken,therewasnospecific reference to whatstepswould actuallyhelpinthesustainability of digitization. TheDelegationstated thatbetter indicatorsneededto befound in orderto ensurethatthesustainability factorhadbeenaddressed.TheDelegationalsonotedthatunderComponenttwo, “steps”,therewasnospecifi c referenceto whatstepswouldactually help sustainabilityof digitization.

521. TheDelegationof theRepublicof Koreastatedthat apart from theconcernsrevealedbytheDelegationof Bangladesh,it supported Componenttwo of theprojectsin AnnexIII.Digitizationof IP datawasessentialto facilitatetheutili zation of IP information. Therefore,theDelegationsupportedComponenttwo of theprojectwhichwasaproject of digitization ofIP data,andaddedthatKIPO wasoneof thoseIPOsthat hadexpertisein thedigitizationof IPdata. At thattimeKoreawasin theprocessof developingadigitizationmodule. TheDelegationshowedits willingnessto participateactively in thatprojectof digitizationandinsharing its experiencein orderto ensurethesuccessof theproject.

522. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica pointedout thatin termsof Recommendation19whichread: “To initiatediscussionsonhow,within WIPO’s mandate, to furtherfacilitateaccesstoknowledgeandtechnology for developingcountriesandLDCs to fostercreativity andinnovationandto strengthensuchexistingactivitieswithin WIPO”, it lookedat thecommentsor proposalsregarding thecopyrightcontentof theproposed projects andconsideredthattherewas acertainpartof Recommendation 19whichwaslacking. TheDelegationconsideredthattheproposal providedaccessto information andcreative contentin terms ofthestudythatwasproposedby theSecretariat, but wantedto see thefollow upprocessinview of fosteringcreativityandinnovationwhich couldbeincludedin the Study to ensurethattherewasa follow up process allowing for accessthereafter.

523. TheChair askedtheDelegationof SouthAfrica if theproject hadbeenwell preparedand if therewereanycommentsor questions.

524. TheDelegationof Chile reiteratedthestatementof theDelegationof South Africa andcompletely endorsedit. TheDelegationwantedto knowwhetherin respect of theWorkshopdescribedin thedocumenttherewould be fundingof thedevelopingcountriessothatit couldattendthatworkshop.TheDelegationraisedapoint underComponent two, whereit hadsomespecific doubts asto howto definethecountriesthatwere referred to. TheDelegationquestionedthecriteriafor theselection of thosecountries. It said that thosecountrieswhichwerepromoting thateffort shouldbeadded.TheDelegation wishedto bepart of thosecountries.


525. TheDelegationof ArgentinacommentedthatRecommendation 19,ClusterB, hadonlybeenimplementedin apartialway, becauseClusterB recommendationshad to beimplementedby therelevantWIPOCommittee.

526. TheSecretariatmentionedthatduringaslidepresentation that it hadmadeearlier,Recommendation19wasapartof thatproject, andit would alsobeapart of futureprojects.TheSecretariatsaid thatRecommendation19wassplit betweentwo projects,and therewereno otherremaining activitiesthatwouldbeundertaken.

527. TheChair statedthatotheraspectsof Recommendation19should beaddressedelsewherein thatproject,andin everycase. Also,in anyproject wherea recommendationwaspartially implemented,it shouldbenotedthatsomethingshouldbedoneelsewhere.

528. TheDelegationof Argentinastatedthatwheneverrecommendationsof ClusterB weredealt with, whichwerenorm-settingprojects,it hadto benotedthatit had only beenappliedpartially, becauseapartfrom theprojects,theremight alsobeactivitiesin respectofnorm-settingthatmaycomplimenttheimplementation. It was proposedto addanoteto allrecommendationsunderClusterB.

529. TheDelegationof Chinafully supportedtheefforts of WIPOto providethesoftwareand hardwaresupportto somecountriesto digitalize thedata in orderto narrowthedigitaldivide. TheDelegationhopedthatin thefuturetherewouldbemoredevelopingcountriesthatwouldbenefit from thatproject.

530. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica notedthatthediscussiononRecommendation27focusedon theimportanceof IP-relatedaspectsof theICT, andits role in economicandcultural development,with specificattention focused onassisting MemberStatesto identifypractical IP-relatedstrategies,in orderto useICT for economic, social andculturaldevelopment” . TheDelegationstatedthattherecommendation was also lacking in termsoftheprojectproposalandsoughtclarification from theSecretariat.

531. TheSecretariatexplainedthequestionof sustainability raisedby Bangladesh,statingthatsustainability of aprojectwassomethingwhichpreoccupiedtheSecretariat. It statedthattherewas no singlesolutionasto howaproject could bemadesustainable, andnot enoughtimeduringthesessionto go into all of thedifferentstrategies. However,someof theimportantelements were relatedto theownership of theproject and thecommitmentby thecountry itself. In somecases,sustainabilit y might requirean ongoingcommitmentfromWIPO in termsof maintenanceandsupport. Thereweremany possiblestrategiesthatcoulddiffer dependingon thehostcountry. WhatMemberStates wouldactually gain woulddependon thehostcountryitself andthenatureof thespecific project in thecountry. TheSecretariat mentionedthatthemeasureof sustainabili ty stated in aproject documentwasfiveyears,but appreciatedthatit wentbeyond theduration of theproject. However, it statedthatfive yearswasamoremeaningfulindicatorof sustainabili ty, andnoted thecommentsfromtheRepublicof Koreaand theirwillingnessto participate in theproject. As to thequestion byChile onhow countrieswouldbeselected,theSecretariat stated it wouldbedonethrough aconsultativeprocess,andexplainedthattherewouldbefurtherconsultationson thatwith thecountriesthemselvesthroughtheregionalbureausat WIPOand in otherconsultativemeetings. Thecountriesthatwishedto be includedwouldbewelcometo makeproposalsandthenaselectionwouldbedonebasedon thereadinessof thecountryto participatein theproject.


532. TheSecretariatpointedout thatwith respect to thecopyright component of theproject,and to thefirst commentmadeby theDelegation of SouthAfri ca,it shouldbeabsolutelymadeclearthattheprojectwasintended to dealwith theissueof promoting furthercreativityand innovation. Moreover,with respectto thecommentfrom theDelegationof Chile,concerningtheproposedworkshop,theSecretariat explainedthat theworkshopwasintendedas ameansof evaluating thefirst draft of thestudy,but was subject to a review from theProgramandBudget Committee(PBC)on theproposedbudgetfor theproject,whichcouldincludesponsoringrepresentativesfrom MemberStates. Concerning thelastcommentfromtheDelegation of SouthAfrica onRecommendation27, thelanguage“assisting MemberStates to identify practical intellectual property-related strategies to use ICT for economic,social and cultural development”, theSecretariat foundthat to beaninterestingpoint. Bylooking at page4 of AnnexIII, at theend,whereit said delivery strategy,Component1, andwhereit wasmentionedthatit intendedto surveypublic policies,governmentactions,legislation,public policy andstrategiesof governmentslinked to theuseof thecopyrightsystem,to enhance accessto informationin key areas,suchas,education, research,softwareand e-informationservices, theSecretariat mentionedthelastsentence in thatparagraph“thestudy will also provide some analysis on which of the public policies and practices surveyedcould deliver results if implemented by other governments, notably in developing countriesand LDCs”. TheSecretariatexplainedthatit wasintendedto capturewhathadbeenreferenced, andwouldmakeit moreclearthatit waslooking for ahorizontal approachthatdid not only considerIP policy, but also procurementpoliciesin thefield of software,possibletax incentives,informationtechnologyprograms,for example, in theprovisionofpublic sector information. However,it addedthat it wasall exactly focused on theuseofinformation, communicationandtechnologiesin evolving IP strategies for developmentin thewaythathadbeenmentioned,specificallyin Recommendation 27,andthatit wouldbemadeclearer in the revision of thatdocument.

533. TheDelegationof Egyptexpressedits appreciation thattheSecretariat hadengaged inan exercisewhereby it assuredthecontinuing implementation of therecommendations.However,theDelegationconsideredthatit neededto ensurethattherecommendationsandtherequestfor activities within thoserecommendationswereproperly reflected in theprojects. As suchtheDelegationbelievedthatit wouldbeunfair to wrapupdiscussionsonthatproject, at least until it wassurethatall concernsweretakenonboard. In adesire to beconstructive,theDelegationhadtwo commentsto make,oneof a generalnatureandoneof amorespecific nature. On thegeneral nature,theDelegation agreedwith theDelegationofArgentina,in thesense,thatit believedthatRecommendation 19wasstill at easewith boththeotherrecommendationswithin thetitleanddescriptionof theproject. TheDelegationbelievedthatit shouldbeproperly dealtwith, within thecontextof aproject on IP andaccessto knowledge,andthatit wouldbefairer to theRecommendation andwhatit entailedandalsowould liberatethemto engagein theICT andthedigital dividecomponentsof thatproposedproject. As such theDelegation proposedto removeRecommendation19 from thatThematicProjectandestablishaprojecton IP andaccessto knowledge. Onamorespecific note,onpage4 of Annex III onComponent1, theexactsamesentencethatwasjust quotedat theendof thefirst paragraphunderComponent1: “the Study will also provide some analysis onwhich of the public policies and practices surveyed could deliver results if implemented byother governments, notably in LDCs and Developing Countries”. Pertaining to thatComponent, theDelegationbelievedthatan importantelement to includewouldbeconsiderationof exceptionsandlimitationsandexcludedsubject matter. TheDelegationsaid


thatin orderto befair to thatproject,it neededmoretimeto considerit rather thanjust goingthroughit at thevery last hourof themeeting.

534. TheChair statedthathewouldcertainly need someadvicein thefutureasto whatshouldbedoneat thelasthour. Hepointedout thatit was closeto theendof thatdiscussionand it did not precludeMemberStatesfrom makingadjustmentsor proposingadjustmentsinNovember, but at least wouldhavebroadlyagreedthattheSecretariat couldfinalizeor makeadjustmentsbasedon thediscussionsandhaveaprojectthatCDIP it could put before thePBC. TheChairrepeatedthattherewould always beopportunitiesfor adjustmentsandonlycautionedthatCDIP shouldnot seekto adjustin every meeting, but theopportunitieswouldbe there. If it wasbroadlyagreedwith whatwason thetableregardingtheprojectandtookintoconsideration thecommentsmadeandtheresponsesthat came from theSecretariat, itcould proceedto thenextstage,whichwas theProgramandBudget Committee(PBC)andtheGeneral Assembly.

535. TheDelegationof India viewedRecommendation19asakeyrecommendationthatfocusedon two issuesthatwereimportantto developingcountries andLDCs namely, accessto knowledgeandtechnology. Recommendation19wasintendedto open thedoor todiscussions on issuesthathadnot beentraditionally addressed or if addressed,not adequatelywithin WIPO,thatincludeddiscussionson issues of limitationsandexceptionsandmodelsofinnovationthat werefriendlier to accesssuch as openaccessjournals, creative commons,opensource, thesuccessof collaborativetoolssuch asWikipedia,etc. Therefore,theDelegationviewedit asanopportunityto reorientthetraditional approach of focusingon IPprotection. With thatin mind, theDelegation expressedthatviewing thatrecommendationonly throughtheprismof ICT or accessto patentinformation, which in any casewasalreadybeing workedupon,wasperhapsnot adequate in bringingout theobjective ofRecommendation19. TheDelegationstatedthat,given theimportantissues and thebroadfocus of that Recommendation,thereshould bea standaloneThematic Projectentitled“IPand access to knowledgeandtechnology”asproposedby theDelegation of Egypt. Thatwould includetheproposedICT andpatentinformationaccessaspect, but wouldalsoaddresstheissuefrom theperspectiveof copyright, trademarksandTK, by dealing with issueslikeopenaccess,creative commons,opensource, etc. TheDelegation furtherstatedthatit wouldlike to seeconcreteactivitiescraftedfor implementation of thatRecommendation, followedthroughcarefully beforedesigningactivitiesin therelatively newarea. However,it suggestedtheprocessbeinitiatedthroughanopeninvitation for submissionsfrom academics,experts,industry, NGOs,MemberStates,andother stakeholders onwhatmeasuresneededto betakento further facili tateaccessto knowledgeandtechnology.TheDelegation pointedout that theabove-mentionedapproachhadbeenusedby theWorld Health Organization (WHO) in thecontextof discussionsonglobalstrategyandplanof action onpublic health, innovationandIP. TheDelegation addedthatin orderto make it moreproductive, an open-forum couldalsobeexploredwhereon thebasisof thesubmissionsreceived,aselection of speakers couldbemadeandtheproceedingsof theopen-forum recorded,to serve asabasisfor designingconcreteactivit iesto implementtheRecommendation.

536. TheDelegationof Bangladesh statedthatit did not seethatthetwo componentsin therecommendationsincludingin particularRecommendation19,couldbeimplementedfully.TheDelegationsaid it wouldwelcomeanother project on IP andaccessto knowledgeandtechnology,whichwould behelpful to theLDCs. TheDelegation wouldsupportsuchaproposal. TheDelegationthankedtheSecretariatfor theanswerto thequestion it raisedabout sustainability of digitization. TheDelegationexplainedthatdoubtcameout of thefact


thattheproject would finish in 24months,and it could not foreseeamechanismthatwouldtakestockof whetheradigitizationproject, doneunderthat project within a timelimit, wouldcontinuefor five years.TheDelegationwonderedwhowould checkto find out if it wasrunning at 100percent,75 percentor zero percent. Theotherproblemwas relatedto thestepsthathad beenelaboratedandtheDelegationtalkedof national responsibili ty. TheDelegationremindedthatit mentionedin its intervention thatthebeneficiaryMemberStateshadaspecific responsibility. If peopleweretrained and thenrotated out of theoffice,theworkwouldmakenosense.Thatwaswhy therewasa national responsibility andnationalownership. TheDelegationexplainedthatwhatit lackedunder thatcomponentwas thattheChairhad elaboratedthepoint saying“how personalcomputers (PCs)wouldbeacquiredlocallyandhowdigital scannerswouldbeacquiredandotherequipment, what kind ofsoftwarewould beused”, but therewasno indication, for example,of an assessmentof theexpectedworkloadovertheexpectedfive yearsunderthat project. There wasno indicationthattherewouldbeaprojectionof permanentstaff thatwouldberequiredto run it effectively.Therewasno reflectionof whatexpertisewouldbeneeded at thenationallevelovertheyears. TheDelegationnotedthatit believedtherewas scopeto includethestepsthatcouldbemadeat thenational level thatwouldassist, but not ensuresustainability. TheDelegationagreedthatensuring sustainabilitywoulddependonnational ownershipand theresponsibilityof theeachgovernment. Therefore,it agreedwith theSecretariat’s reply,but still believedtherewere gapsthatcouldbefilled by incorporatingspecific stepsinto theprojectonhow itwouldbeimplementedwhichwould in turnhelp sustainabilit y.

537. TheSecretariatrespondedto theDelegation of Bangladeshwhichhad raised somequestionsonsustainability. It statedthatit couldat thattimeaddsomelanguageonsustainability andmoredetailson theinitiationphases of theproject, in which assessmentoftheworkloadandstaffingcouldbeincluded. TheSecretariat statedthat it hadaquickreactionto thecommentsfrom India,and thosefrom Bangladeshsupporting Indiaon theinclusionof creativecommons,licenses,opensource,andopenaccesslicenses.Theissueswerenot mentionedspecifically in thecopyright component of theproject, but theywereverymuch part of theintendedinquiry, particularlyin educational researchwheretherewasa greatdeal of theuseof openaccess licensing aswell ascreative commonslicenses,andsoftwaredevelopmentpractices,obviouslyin preandopensourcesoftware,wereanintegralpart ofthatinquiry. WhatevertheMemberStatesmight decideaboutthefutureof aseparateprojecton IP andaccessto knowledgeandtechnology, thespecific examplesmentionedwouldatleastbeincluded to somedegreein whatit wasproposing,in thecopyright partof thatproject.

538. TheDelegationof Brazil referringto theintervention madeby theDelegationofSenegal regardingtheDSF, remarkedthat it was indeedgoodto recall that thesignificanceoftheDSFwas integratedinto theDevelopmentAgenda. TheDelegationaddedthatit wasindeedavery importantinitiative thatwaslaunchedby thePresidentof Senegal, andit hadtheopportunity hearthePresidentexplaining theDSFConcept. TheDelegation assuredthattheinitial proposalpresentedby thePresidentof Senegalwastheseedfor what wasat thattime theDSF. TheDelegationsuggestedthat theSecretariat haveameeting with therepresentativesof theDSFwhichwerebasedin Geneva. On thecopyrightcomponentof theproject, theDelegationfully agreedwith thesuggestion by India that it should try to addto itsomelanguage relatedto alternativelicenseandmodels, andbelievedthata referenceto thedifferent softwaremodelswasrelevantandparticularly a referenceto thefreesoftware. TheDelegationalsoexpressed its satisfactionto hearthatas explainedby theSecretariat,thespiritof thatprojectwasindeedto takeinto accountall thedifferentalternatives thathadbeen


promotedto increaseaccessto knowledge. TheDelegationhadsomesuggestions regardinglanguageto beincludedonpage4 underComponent1, Copyright. TheDelegationmentionedthelicenseealternativesandalsotheimportanceof enhancingandpromotingtheawarenessof limitationsandexceptions.TheDelegation remindedthatthatelementwasalsomentionedin theinterventionby Egypt.

539. TheDelegationof India commentedonRecommendation 24whichhadbeenincludedin thesameCluster. In its view, theaim of thatrecommendation shouldbeto identify whatroleWIPOcould playwith regardto theimplementation of theoutcomes of theWorldSummit on theInformationSociety(WSIS)andtheDSFwith theaim of bridging thedigitaldivide. TheDelegationstatedthatin theprojectdocument therewasnospecific referenceofthespecific outcomesof WSISthatthatproject could contributeto, andthenatureof thatcontribution. Therewasageneralcomment thatwouldbeinvolvedin theWSISfollow-upprocess.Moreover,theinterpretationof Recommendation 24,asread by theDelegation,noted thatthatproposal wasto modernizeIP offices andenableaccessto IP coursematerialthattheSecretariathadprepared. TheDelegation consideredthatthatdid not capturetheintent of thatRecommendationfully. In its view, astartingpoint wouldbeto elaborateon theWSIS processandtheoutcomesandtheDSSandidentify howWIPOcouldcontributetoimplementing specific outcomeswith aview to bridgingthedigital divide.

540. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americastated that it cameto thethird sessionof theCDIP with aview towardsbroadlyendorsingthat particularThematic Projecton IP,ICTs andthedigital divide. TheDelegationfoundit verypromisingandmeritorioustoadvancethework of theCommittee.However, in thelight of theextensiveamendmentsandmodificationsto thatproposal,theDelegation requesteda revisionof thosevariouselementsand amoreprecisescopingpaperon theamendments. TheDelegation took that positionwithreluctance,as theamendmentswouldcertainlydelay theimplementation of thatveryimportantproposal.

541. TheChair statedthatthediscussionsthattheCommitteehadhadwouldnot belost,butwasdisappointedthatit couldnot moveforward. Hesaid it had to parkthat discussionasideuntil November.If thatwasthewill of theCommittee thenhewouldhave to acceptthat.

542. TheDelegationof Nigeriacommentedthatit did not seeany majorproblemwith theissuesthat hadbeenraised. It statedthatBangladeshreferred to having24 monthsastheduration. If it wasto be24months,whataboutthefollow up, if themonitoringmechanismwouldcomealmostoneyearlater. TheDelegationbelievedit wassomething thatthemeetinghadto findawayof addressing. TheDelegation reminded thatIndiaspokeaboutanissueof reflecting alternativelicensingmodelsandalsotalked abouttheissueof limitations,and statedthoseissuesby themselvesdid not constituteastumbling block. Thoseissuesraisedhadbeento makethecontentof that recommendationmorepractical. TheDelegationdid not seeamajorproblemin whathadbeenraised,stating thateachDelegation coulddecideto supportor not to support.However, theDelegationbelievedthatwhatit haddealtwith wasquite relevantandquitepositiveandmight not evenadd to thecost. WhattheCommitteewastrying to dowasto bring forth issuesthatcouldbelinkedsubstantially,without even touching on thestructureof thedocument. That washowtheDelegationviewedit, and it believed thatit wouldhavedonefairly well, but that it couldtakea longtime forsomethingthathadbeencompleted.TheDelegation told theChairthatin thatcase,it hopedthathewould findout from themhowmany,if any, but stated thatmostof themweregoing


alongwith it. Thenif thereweremoredelegations,theChair couldconcentrateonwhatcouldbedoneto bring themon board.

543. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americasaidthatit would like to seea revisedproposal with all thedetails-- adetailedscoping document– specifying howthoseamendmentswould takeplace. TheDelegationsaid it wassimply not in a position to absorball thechangeswithout furtherreflection.

544. TheDelegationof Chilebelievedthattherewerevariousconcernsthatweremoreimportantespecially with regardto Recommendation19, thataccessto knowledgehadnotbeensufficientlycovered. However,onpage11,on thesupplementaryinformationforThematicProjects,theDelegationconsideredthaton thatpage,thepart that referredto thedocument from thepreviousmeeting,it took into considerationwhatwas really thespirit ofaccessto knowledgeat least in part,andreferred to studies thattook into considerationthedigital divide,openaccess,opensourceandotheremergingcopyrightlicensingschemes. TheDelegationbelievedthatit wasmainly related to thetermof accessto knowledgeandaccessto TK. TheDelegationaddedthatperhapsif all agreedon thestudiesthattheSecretariatwouldpresentandall theelementsthathadbeenpresented,it couldreassurethedelegationswith regardto thatproject,whichwasoneof the mostimportantprojects,particularlyRecommendation19.

545. TheDelegationof Brazil askedif theSecretariat couldexplain briefly how it intendedtoreflect thesuggestionsmadeby MemberStatesin theproject in away thatwouldaddress theconcernsexpressedby otherdelegations.In its opinion, themany interventionsmadereflectedmoreof a generalconcernregarding how to bring thelanguagemorein line with theDevelopmentAgendarecommendations.EventhoughtheSecretariat hadgivenitsassurancesthatthatwasthespirit of theproject,theDelegationwantedthat languagereflected. Therefore,theDelegationwanted theSecretariat to briefly explain how it wouldreflect thesuggestionsmadefrom thefloor, to allow themto moveforward on thatproject.

546. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americanoted thatduring thatafternoonit hadreceivedthedetailedproposalssubmittedby thedistinguisheddelegationsof JapanandtheRepublicof Koreain advanceof themeeting, in writing, with timefor reflection andyet itnoted thatthoseproposalsdid not getabright greenlight. Now, it wasconfrontedwith arather cryptic referenceto abroadareaof inquiry thatincludedundefined terms withimportantimplications, andtheonly thing theDelegation of theUnitedStatesof Americawasrequestingwassimilar treatment.TheDelegation stated thatit had detailed scopingdocuments preparedat theexpress requestof certain MemberStates.TheDelegationdid notthink it wasunreasonablefor aDelegation which camepreparedto green light this thematicproject to requestascopingdocument onasignificantamendmentto theproject, sothatcommitteememberscouldhavethekind of deliberation thatwasanecessary partof thecommittee’swork. TheDelegationsaidit wasonly fi tting thatit hadtheappropriatedocumentationandscopingdocuments to understandin which waytheProject wasmoving.

547. TheChair remindedtheCommitteethat whatit haddoneborelittle differencewith whathad beendonethepreviousyear. It wasrecognitionandacceptanceof thatpoint thathad ledtheCommitteeout of difficulty before. TheCDIP hadalways benefittedfrom theSecretariat’s ideas which werediscussedin theCommitteeandbroadlyagreedupon. If therewasanyelementor activity not acceptedby anyMember,thentheSecretariat couldnot takethatforward. Only theunanimousagreementof all ideasput forwardwereacceptable,andon


thatbasistheCommitteebroadlyagreedon thedocument, thentheSecretariat madetheappropriateamendments,addedthefinancial information and thedocumentcamebackto theCommittee.All thatwasbeingsoughtat that meetingwasfor broadagreementor, if broadagreementwasnot possible,lifting thoseobjectionablepartsout andbroadly agreeon therestand moveforward. That wastheway theCommitteehad workedall of thepreviousyear andthatwaswhat wasproposed. TheChairasked theDelegationof theUnited Statesof Americato reconsider thepositionit hadtaken.

548. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America, in thespirit of dialogueandcooperation, wasvery interestedin hearingtheobservationsof theSecretariat onhowthesuggestionsmight beimplemented,stimulating thekind of discussionthatcouldmoveforwardthework of theCommittee.

549. TheSecretariatstatedthatin respectof componentone,thecopyrightpart of thatproposal, it couldbemadevery clearthatalternative licensingschemesandmodelswereincluded in thetermsof referencefor theproject. A reference to differentsoftwaremodels,freeandopensource,aswell asproprietarysoftware,could beincluded. A referencetoaccessof contentundersubstantiveexamination in other bodiessuchastheStandingCommittee,for example,andlimitationsandexceptionscouldbereferenced appropriately.Referenceto theobjectivesanddeclarationof principles could alsobemadeclearer. On thedigitizationcomponent,theSecretariatwouldaddlanguageon thesustainabili ty of theprojectsto clarify thosemattersandwould includeanassessmentof theexpected workloadand staffingaspartof theinitiation phasesof theproject.

550. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americawas satisfiedwith thecommentsfromtheSecretariat,but remainedconcernedabouttheneedto haveaseparateproject. TheDelegationfelt comfortablewith thesuiteof projects onaccessto knowledge, sosomefurtherdiscussion couldbeheldonwhy therewouldbea need to break awaythatelement.

551. TheDirector Generalof WIPO suggested thatperhapsthetitle of theprojectcouldbemodified sothatit read: “IP, information communication technologies, thedigital divideandaccessto knowledge”. It wasjust asuggestionasto how it might bedealt with.

552. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americafoundthecomments from theDirectorGeneralvery useful. It notedthattheconcept of accessto knowledgewasincorporatedintooneof theelementsandinvitedotherdelegationsto giveduereflection to whether thenewtitleaddressedtheir concerns.

553. TheChair indicatedthathewould take their silenceasconsentin terms of theDirectorGeneral’s suggestion,asawayforward.

554. TheDelegationof Nigerianotedthat in everydiffi cult situation theremustbeawayout.Thesuggestionby theDirectorGeneral maynot havebeencompletely comprehensivebut itdid solvetheproblemof incorporating accessto knowledge, andbelievedthatit wasthebestoption.

555. TheDelegationof Egypt thankedtheDirector Generalfor his suggestion. Anotherpossibilityof moving forwardwasappreciating thatin view of thetimeconstraints andof thelegitimateconcernsexpressedby morethanonedelegationwith regard to thespecific natureof Recommendation19, thattheCommitteesetasidethatproject with theintentionof


providing moreelaborationson it at thefourth sessionof theCDIP. TheDelegationdid notthink thatgatheringwhatcouldbest bedescribedas a pot-pourri of differentrecommendationsin orderto developaparticular project, was doing justice to theimplementation of a recommendation.

556. TheChair statedthatif theDirectorGeneral’ssuggestioncould not beaccepted,theonly alternative wasto forgetthatprojectand raiseit for discussion in November2009.Delegationshadheardtheobjectionfrom theDelegation of theUnitedStatesof America.Theyhadheardasuggestionfrom theDirectorGeneral andheardtheSecretariat’s commentsaimed at allaying theconcernsof theDelegationof theUnited Statesof America. TheChairstated thathedid not wantanyoneto think thathewasthere to allay thefears of theonedelegationandignorethe fearsof others.Hespokein theinterest of movingtheprocessforwardandhewasawarethattherewould alwaysbeopportunitiesto addressthe issuesastheCommitteemovedon. Theaim wasto gettheprojects started. If theproject couldachieve75,80or 90percentof whatdelegationswanted out of therecommendations,thentheCommitteeshouldtakethatandmove forwardbasedon thefact thattheremaining 20or 50percentcouldbepickedup in otherprojects as otheractivi ties werediscussed.TheRecommendation19also appearedin anotherThematic Project. It wasjust aspecificprojectthattheChair assumedall delegationswantedto getstartedon. Delegations hadheard whatcould solvetheproblemwith maybe85percentsatisfaction, but if theywantedto go for100per cent,thenit wouldbeat theendof theday.

557. TheDelegationof India thankedtheChair,theDirector General andtheSecretariatfortrying to find awayforward. It greatlyappreciated their efforts. While in principletheDelegationconcurredwith theDelegationof Egypt, that thereshould bea separateThematicProject,chiefly because it sawthattherecould beotherrecommendationswhich would thenfall into that category. However,it deferredto thewisdomof theChair on thatissueandagreed with theChairentirelythat,in theinterestof movingforward,onehadto sometimesaccepta lessthanoptimalsituation. TheDelegation alsoagreedthatthetitle couldbechangedassuggestedby theDirectorGeneral in order to goaheadwith theproject with theintention of perhapsrevisitingit laterto achievegreater unanimity at thatpoint in time.

558. TheDelegationof ChilesupportedIndiaandbelievedthatby changingthetitle, thestrong wordingon access to knowledgewasmaintained. Theconcept,whichwasdiscussedatgreat lengthoverthreeyears,wasmaintained,eventhoughtheinitial objectivewasmuchgreaterandreferredto anaccessof knowledgetreaty. Nonetheless,thatwaswhathadbeenagreedon,andit wasimportantto keepthatwording in. As hadbeenperfectly put by India, itwasanincremental process, thereforedelegationswould beable to makemorerecommendationsin thefuture,so theDelegation wassatisfied with it as it was.

559. TheDelegationof Bangladeshsawthedevelopments in apositive light. If delegationswerenot getting everythingdone,theunderstandingwasthat theprojectcould goaheadasitwason thebasis of thethreeprinciplesoutlinedby theChair. All recommendationswouldbediscussed,and if Recommendation19hadnot beendiscussed fully in thecurrent sessionoftheCDIP, it would bediscussedin futuresessions. Therewasanotherproject alsocoveringthatrecommendation. Whenit wasdiscussedtherecouldbesuggestionson manyactivities,and delegationswouldseehowtheremainingpartsthathadnot beenimplemented,could becarriedforward.


560. TheDelegationof Egypt statedthattheCommitteehadengagedonavery constructiveapproachsofar, despitetimeconstraintsandlatesubmissionof documentsthathadputpressureon capitals to providecommentsto delegations. TheDelegation believedthatas hadbeenindicatedin theChair’sthree-point Summary onAgendaItem7, at theverybeginning,thattheCommitteewoulddiscuss recommendationsper se, andproposeactivities,andwhensuchrecommendationsfitted togetherto form awholeor similar subject matter, theywouldbeconsideredas projects.Theoutlineof theSummary was agreeable to theDelegationandsupportedby all because it addresseda fear, aconcern thatdelegationshad. Theconcernwasthattherewasa risk thattheprojectsbeingproposedwouldbetheessenceof theactionto betaken,andthattherecommendationswould bebroughtin to fit under thoseprojects.TheDelegationbelievedin fact thatonerecommendation thataddressedtheissueof IP andaccessto knowledgewasnot compatiblewith other recommendationsthataddressed issuespertainingto ICT andthedigital divide. TheDelegation, in aspirit of constructiveengagement, proposedthat Recommendation 19besimply taken out,andlooked at later. Itwasnot subjectto theapprovalof theproject, with theelaborationof aproject straightawayon Recommendation19,but it wishedto emphasizethattheCommitteecouldnot bring in arecommendationandjust changethetitle simply becausetheCommitteewanted to makesurethatthatrecommendationwasincluded. Theflexibili ty of theDelegationwas in thatit agreedwith thepodium,providedthatRecommendation 19betakenout and that, in future, inCDIP/4, theCommitteewasableto look at aproject thathad in its essencetherecommendation ratherthantheotherwayaround,andthentriedto bring in therecommendations.

561. TheDelegationof TunisiastatedthattheDirector General’s proposalwas wiseandthattheprojectbeforetheCommitteewas, but a first step in theimplementationof theDevelopmentAgenda. It hadto besomewhereandif a teamhadto scoretwo goalstoqualify, it hadto startwith obtainingthefirst goal. Whether theDelegation includedorexcludedRecommendation19did not matter. Theproject still existedandtheCommitteecould adoptit andlookat Annex4. Recommendation 19wouldstill bein forceandtheCommitteecould go backto it. It hadbeenstressedright from thestart of thesession,thattheCommitteecould always find otherprojects to apply thatrecommendation to, and it seemedauseless debateto discusswhetherRecommendation19 should bekeptor not. TheDelegationthought that theCommitteeshouldtakeadvantageof whathadbeenachievedandat leasthavesomeprojectsto allow colleaguesfrom thecapital to gohomewith somethingconcretethatcouldbeadoptedat thefollowing General Assembly.

562. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica supportedthestatement madeby theDelegationofEgypt andbelievedthatwhenentering into discussionon thoseprojects,theunderstandingwasthattheCommitteewould look into therecommendationsfirst. In termsof finding acompromise,therequestby Egyptto removeRecommendation 19,wasa reasonableonetoallow theprojectto go further. TheDelegation did not wishto taketheissueany furtherbutbelievedthatthatwasoneof theinitial concernsthat many delegationshadraisedwhendiscussing theThematicProjectsandwishedfor it to benotedin therecords.

563. TheChair statedthatfollowing thediscussion,oneof thestatementhemadewerethattheprojectswould beexaminedin thesameway thattheexamination wasdonethepreviousyear. TheCommitteewoulddiscusstherecommendationsfi rst, ashehadsaidwhenlookingat thefirst two projects. Hedid not think it wasnecessaryto repeatit again on thethirdproject becausehethoughtthatdelegationswereinto therhythm andmembers hadstartedcommenting onRecommendations 19,24 or 27. Somehadcommented alsoonotherbroader


aspectsof theproject. Theopportunitywas always therefor Members to addresstherecommendations. Somemembershaveseensomedeficiencies in languageandmadeproposals. TheChairdid not acceptthattheCommitteewas intoacart beforethehorsesituationin thatproject. If thatwasthecase,thenit wasthefault of thedelegationsandnottheChair. Hehadoutlinedaprocess,by whichdelegationslookedat therecommendations,satisfied themselvesthattheactivitieswere reasonably reflected in theprojectdocument,thattherewas a reasonableoverlap,andtheprojectwas endorsedon thatbasis with additionsandadjustments.Hecouldnot acceptthatat thateleventh hourtheCommitteebetold thatit wasin acartbeforethehorsesituation. Theprocesshadbeenoutlinedclearly. Thefirst andsecondprojects had beenaddressedthatwayandheassumedthattheCommitteewasaddressingthethird projectthatwaytoo.

564. TheDelegationof Guineanotedthat it wasadynamic andchangingprocess,onethatevolved,andwherenewproposalscould bemadeastimewenton. Therefore,it would takeintoaccounttheproposalmadeby theDirector Generalandstartworking on thatbasis.Everythinghadto startsomewheresoit thoughttheCommitteeshouldadopttheDirectorGeneral’s proposalandmoveforward.

565. TheDelegationof Argentinasuggested thattheproblemwouldbesolved by addingtoRecommendation19, thatit wasonly partially implementedby that project. Thatwouldmeanthatotheractivit ies,otherprojectsappropriatewouldbedevelopedto implement thatRecommendationcompletely.TheDelegationalsoconsidered thatanotecouldbeadded toall theprojectswhichhada recommendation thatbelongedto ClusterB or norm-setting.

566. TheDelegationof Egypt saidthattheCommitteewasengaged in aconstructiveexerciseand believedthatit neededto takeinto consideration thefact that thenatureof therecommendation,wasdifferentfrom whatwas beingproposed, not only in thetitle but in thedescriptionandtheobjectives,andperhapsin thedeliverystrategy. While changingthetitlegaveanorientation, it wasimportantto look at thestructureof theprojectitself. Thesuggestion presentedby theDelegationof Argentinaperhapsopenedaway forward thatanotecouldbeincluded,sothatthespirit of Recommendation19wasnot confusedwith theobjectivesof theproject. In thatsense,if delegationswerenot wil ling to removeRecommendation19, thenthatalternativepresentedaway forward. TheDelegationsuggestedabreakto consult with otherdelegationsandclarify thelanguage,and review theSummaryof theChair.

567. TheChair indicatedthatthenotecould beaddednot only in thatproject but in everyproject wheresuchdeficiencieshadbeenidentified. A statementwouldbeincludedthattheparticularRecommendationhadonly beenpartially implemented, andwherepossiblethenotecould point to otherprojectswherethat particular Recommendation wasbeingaddressed.Ifthetext could not point to anotherproject,it would just leavethestatementopen,thattherecommendationhadonly beenpartiallyaddressedin theproject. Thosewere theonly wordsthatin earlierdiscussionwerethoughtappropriate, andDelegationof Argentina raiseditagain,sotheredid not seemto beaneedfor abreak.

568. TheDelegationof India foundthattheDelegation of Egypt hadavery legitimatepoint,thepoint being thatRecommendation19,may not belongto thatprojectin termsof its focus,spirit andobjective. In theinterest of movingforward,it agreedto mentioningthattherecommendationwasonly partiallyaddressedin thatproject, andkeptin mind thepoint madeby theSecretariatearlierthattherecommendation alsofell underanotherThematicProject.


Also, if so warranted,at a futuretime,aseparateThematic Projectcouldbepreparedunderthe“accessto knowledge” Cluster. Thatwouldperhapssatisfy theDelegationof Egyptandthatof theUnitedStatesof America.

569. TheDelegationof Egypt believedthatthatcouldopen away forward providingthatthetitlewasmaintainedbecauseby introducingtheelements in thetitleof “accessto knowledge”as hadbeensuggestedby theDirector General, becausetheprojectdid not includesufficientlanguageor activitiespertainingto accessto knowledge,it believedthattheCommitteecouldtakeonboardthat suggestion providedthatthetitle remainedthesame,thattheprojectdidnot fully addresstheissueof access to knowledgeandthatwhile Recommendation 19wasaddressed,theissueof access to knowledgewasnot being fully encompassedin thatprojectimplying thatit wouldbelookedat, in anotherprojectin thefuture.

570. TheChair remindedMembersthatdelegationswereable to reachagreementon45 Recommendationsbecauseof Rule.1. Therehadbeenconsiderablecompromise,averycooperativespirit and adetermination to getthejob done. Thekeywordwas compromise.During thenegotiationsat thePCDA, theChairhad applauded Brazil andArgentinaon theoneside,andtheUnitedStatesof AmericaandItaly on theother, for their willi ngnessto dropdemandsandmakecompromises. Hence,theCommitteeendedupwith recommendationsthathad someambiguity. If delegationslookedat theproject, it referred to facilitating accessto knowledgeandtechnology. TheChairagreedthattherecould beaseparateprojectthatdealt with accessto knowledge,aseparateproject thatdealt with accessto technology,andaproject thatdealtwith access to knowledgeandtechnology. Therehad beenareasin whichaccessto knowledgehadbeenseento bedeficient in theproject. Thosecomments weremadeby delegationsandtheSecretariathadtakenthemonboard. Theproject did includeelementsof accessto knowledge.

571. TheDelegationof TunisiastatedthatRecommendation 19waspartially implemented.However,it remindedtheCommitteethatall recommendationswerepartiall y implemented,because theDevelopmentAgendawasanongoingprocess. It wasa longprocessandtheCommitteewasstill at thebeginningof thatprocess,soall recommendationsshouldstatethattheyhavebeenpartially implemented,not only Recommendation 19.

572. TheDelegationof Brazil statedthatit did not haveanyproblemwith theproposalbyArgentinain repeating that Recommendation 19 wasonly partially implemented, but itwishedto reminddelegationsthatby repeating that idea, theconceptshouldnot beundermined, becauseit wasapartof the three goldenrules, thattheCommitteewasallowedto gobackto projectsandrecommendations,andthatno recommendation couldbeexhaustedby anyproject. TheDelegationbelievedthatMemberStatesandtheSecretariat wereawareof that. Whenit saw thattheSecretariathadpresentedfiveprojectsfor Recommendation10,theDelegationnotedthat it wasin thespirit of thework methodsof theSecretariat, because ithad only five projectsfor Recommendation10. It alsowished to remind delegationsthat itunderstoodthatno recommendationcould beexhaustedby any project. Whenit lookedatRecommendation24,which dealtwith thedigital divide in accordancewith theoutcomeoftheWorld Summit on theInformationSociety, andalsothesignificanceof theDSF, it alsofelt thattheelementof thedigital dividecould havebeenfurtherelaboratedon in theproject.TheDelegationdid not believethatRecommendation24shouldbepartof futureprojects.For instance,with respectto takinginto accountthesignificanceof theDSF, theDelegationwishedto reiterateits suggestion thattheSecretariat of WIPOshould meet theSecretariat oftheDSF, whichwasbasedin Geneva,becauseit was anxiouswith thewordingin the


recommendationandthosewordsnot havinganypractical implementation. An informalmeetingbetweenthetwo Secretariatscouldbearrangedto discusshowto cooperatein futureactivities.

573. TheDelegationof Bangladeshreferredto oneof thefirst interventionswhereit hadsupportedthenotion thathadbeenproposedby theDelegation of India to havea futureproject basedsolely on accessto knowledge. TheDelegation alsoagreedwith thedelegationsof Tunisia andBrazil, thatall recommendationswerebeing partially addressed.Oneprojectwouldnot closeanyrecommendation.Thatwasclearandwastheshared understandingwithin theSecretariatandMemberStates.TheDelegationexpressedits concernthat,if theproject statedthatRecommendation19,wasonly partially implementedby that project,itcould meanthatrecommendations24and 27werebeingfully implemented.

574. TheChair notedthatit agreedwith theDelegation of Brazil thatno recommendationcould beexhaustedby any oneproject. Theprojectshadtimelines. Thathadbeenthefirstissue thattheCommitteehadstruggledwith andit hadbeenacceptedthat thefact thataproject hada24monthstimelinedid not mean thattherecommendationwascompletedin 24months.

575. TheDelegationof Egypt statedthatit wasengagedin aconstructive exerciseandwouldnot holddiscussionson thatissueanylonger. It believedthattheDelegationof Argentinahadperhapsprovidedawayforward, but it emphasizedtheneedto reiteratethattheessentialelementsthat theCommitteewasworking onwere therecommendations,not theprojects.Therefore,in thespirit of compromise,theDelegation would bewill ing to accept theproposalas modifiedby Argentinaandemphasizedthattheposition it had maintained,asincluded inthethreepoint rulesof theChair,formedthebasis of theactivi ties ratherthan theotherwayround.

576. TheDelegationof Burundinotedthatin thediscussionsheld sincethebeginningof themeeting,it hadbeenvery clearthatall the recommendationswerenot entirely exhaustedattheendof theprojects,andif thatwasthecase,delegationscould perhapsproposeadditionalprojectsfor an additional time framesoasto achievethegoals setout. It impliedcomplicityin thecasewheretherecommendationsthatwereenumeratedwereonly partly or perhapsmorethanpartly implemented.Therefore,theDelegation fully endorsedtheproposalputforwardby theDelegationof Argentina,whichclearly gave asolution to theissueunderdiscussion.

577. TheDelegationof NigeriastatedthatEgypthadshownflexibili ty. TheDelegationremindedtheCommitteethatduringthemonitoring,evaluationandassessment of all theprojects, anypartsof therecommendationswhich hadnot beenaddressedwouldbeidentified,and delegationswouldcomebackandrequest thattheshortcomingbeaddressed.

578. TheChair statedthatheenjoyedcrisis andconflict whentheproblemwassolvedandreferredto threecrisesthathadoccurredthatweekthathad beensolved. Hesuggestedmoving to theamendmentsuggestedby Argentinaandtheacceptanceby Egypt, with regardsto theearlier concernof theUnitedStatesof America,andindicatedthat that wasanagreementon theproject.


AgendaItem 10: Summary by theChair

579. TheDelegationof Bangladeshstatedthatit hadgonethroughtheChair’s Summary,which wasfine, andaskedtheChairhowheintendedto addressAgendaItemon “FutureWork” andwhethertherewouldbesomereflection of it in theSummary.

580. TheDelegationof Nigeriaexpressedits appreciation for theSummary. Concerningparagraph9, it wonderedwhy it should wait until September30,why not makeit June15. Iftherewas anyproblem,theMemberswould alert theChair, but statedthatmorethanthreemonthswastoo long. Concerningthesecondto last paragraph,where it statedthatit wouldbecompiledandpresentedto thefourthsessionof CDIP, theDelegationbelievedthatitwouldbegoodif theSecretariatelaboratedon thecontentreceived, insteadof simplypreparingacompilation.

581. TheChair recalledthata coupleof delegationshad complimentedtheSecretariat for notinterferingwith thatprocess andthoughtthatit should continue. Hedid not considerthattheSecretariat shoulddomorethancompile. It would bepossible thattheChairdoesa littl emorethancompile. He would look at wherethereweresimilaritiesandmakesurethatall thesuggestionswerein thedocument,it would not bea raw compilation,but would attempttoput somescopearoundit.

582. TheDelegationof Argentinastatedthatalthoughit wasnot in theSummaryby theChair, it was its understanding,astherewas a lit tle bit missing regardingRecommendation14, and thattheSecretariatwouldprepareadocumentwhichwould includetheanalysisof theTRIPSflexibili ties. TheDelegationwasnot askingfor inclusionof thatin theSummarybytheChair. It wasjust statingthatit wasits understandingthattheSecretariat woulddraft thedocument ashad beenagreedin themeeting.

583. TheDelegationof theRepublicof Koreasought clarificationonparagraph7, wherethetext referredto documentCDIP/3/INF/2. Theprojectshadalready beendiscussedin thepreviousmeetings,but in theSummaryit statedthatonly threeprojects had beendiscussedbut thosewereprojectsthatalreadyhadabudget. TheDelegation thereforeaskedwhetherthoseprojects thathadnot beendiscussed,which weresupposedto beimplementedfrom thatyear, would bedelayeduntil thefollowing yearor whetherthey wouldbeconsideredat thenext CDIP in November2009.

584. TheChair acknowledgedthestatement by theDelegation of theRepublicof Koreaandaskedif it wasreferringto theparagraphs at thetopof pages 2, 5, and8, andagreedthattheywere theonesdiscussedthatday,but thatrecommendations2, 5, 8, 9 and10,werediscussedand agreeduponin thelastsession.Therefore,recommendations9 and10werenot discussedin theprojectformat,but hestatedit should not stoptheCommittee from proceedingorcontinuingwith theimplementationof thoseprojects. TheChairaskedtheCommitteeto bearin mind thelengthy discussion andconclusionthatwasreached,andthat implementationofrecommendations9 and10,wouldhavebegunby Novemberlast year. Theprojectwouldstill beopenfor futureexamination.

585. TheDelegationof theRepublicof Koreasoughtfurther clarification, stating thatwhenit madeaproposalfor theimplementation of Recommendation 10, theChair statedthatprobably these2 recommendationswouldbediscussedin thenextmeeting, but asforproposal 1, regardingfair trade,maybetheSecretariat would look at thepossibilityof


incorporatingtheprojectinto this bienniumalso,andrequested theSecretariat whetheritwouldbepossible,andif so,wantedit clarified in thedocument.

586. TheChair statedthathethoughttherewas oneof theproposalsthat theDelegationoftheRepublicof Koreastatedwasconnectedto Recommendation10 thathad alreadybeendiscussedandagreeduponlastyear. TheChair statedthat theSecretariat was requestedtolookat theproposals,seehowtheycouldbeincorporatedandthat theotherpart thatwasrelatedto Recommendation31wouldbediscussedwhentheCommitteehadreachedRecommendation31.

587. TheDelegationof theRepublicof KoreathankedtheChairandstatedthatif thatwasthefact, thentheDelegationwantedit to bereflected in thedocument.

588. TheChair statedthathedid not know if hehadto remind theDelegationof theRepublicof Koreathatit wastheChair’s Summary,andhedid not want every Memberto askhim to reflect his position in theChair’sSummary. TheChair stated thatthedelegations’positionwould bereflectedin thereport,verbatim, but stated thathedid not wantto bepressedoneverypoint,andthattheChair’sSummary wassupposedto beshort.

589. TheDelegationof GermanythankedtheChair andstatedthat it hadthreeobservationsto make. Thefirst wasa factualpoint regardingparagraph4, thelastsentence,whereit wasindicated thattheDG expressedhis commitmentto personally report to theCDIP annually,on theimplementation of recommendationswhich required coordination with othercommittees. TheDelegationstatedtheydid not remember this latter part, stating“recommendationswhich requirecoordination with othercommittees” nor did they rememberthattheDirector Generalexpressly saidso,but it hadbeenunderstoodthat hestatedthathewould report annuallyon theimplementation of the“DevelopmentAgendaPrincipals”,however,theDelegationstoodto becorrected. That wasthe factualobservation. TheDelegationof Germany thenreferredto paragraph9, to thesecondand thethird sentences.Inthesecondsentence,it wasindicatedthattheCommitteehaddecidedthat interestedMemberStatesmaysubmittheirproposalsto theSecretariat, however,in thefollowingsentence,it wasstatedthatthesesubmissions,thatweretheproposals,in addition to theideasofferedin thediscussions,wouldbecompiled. TheDelegationstated thatfor those2sentencesto beof aconcretemanner,theyshouldbeaddedto thesecondsentence,after thewords“their proposals”,thewords“and ideas”, soit would read “proposals andideas”. TheDelegationwantedthementionof “ideas” in thesubsequent paragraph,becausethesecondsentenceof paragraph9 shouldread,“the Committeedecided thatinterestedMemberStatesmaysubmittheir proposalsandideas”,andthewords“and ideas” shouldbeincluded,to theSecretariat by September30,2009. TheDelegation alsomentionedthattherewasthequestionof thedeadline,andwantedto seekclarifi cationasto whatdeadlinewasbeingreferredto. TheDelegationof Germanystatedthatit wouldbeinterested in theexactformulation of sentence3, of paragraph9, following theinterventionof theDelegationofNigeria,becauseit wasunderstoodin theearlier conclusionthattherewouldbeacompilationfor furtherdiscussionon thesubjectin thefourth sessionof theCDIP.

590. TheChair statedthattheSecretariatproposed September30,andNigeriaproposedJune. TheChair statedthathewashappyto leaveSeptember, andwould recommendthatasthediscussionwasfreshin themindsof theCommittee, thatit wasdonesoonerratherthanlater,but that thedateof September30,was thelast date, only becausethatallowedtheSecretariat thetimeto preparethedocuments,and to getthemout, well before themeeting


date. TheChairaskedif September30wasa good datefor theCommittee,becausetheCDIPwasscheduledfor November16,2009,andsofor thatreason,hebelievedthatthedateshouldbemoved to September30or earlier. TheChair askedif theCommitteewanted to moveit toJuneor August30. TheChairstatedthattwo mainpoint thatwas raised in Paragraph9, the2sentencesaddressed, thatthereweretwo things;thesentencein themiddlethatstated“maysubmit theirproposals”,thesewereproposals thathadnot yet beensubmitted,alsothefollowing sentence thatreferredto ideasthat stated“i deasoffered in thediscussionduring thissession”. TheChairstatedthattheideasdiscussed were alreadycapturedin thesession,proposals weresuggested,andthatsomeMemberswould makeproposals in thefuture,andthatwaswhy theyhadbeenseparated.As to theotherquery at thebottom of paragraph4, hesuggestedgoingbackto thetapeto put thereexactly what theDG hadstated.

591. TheDelegationof Algeria thankedtheChair andstatedthattheywould like to secondthepositionof Nigeria,to movethedateup to Juneor July, sothat theSecretariat wouldhavetime to prepare thedocuments,so thattheSessionwould not only betheEnglishlanguageversion,so thatall theconditionswerepresent andthework couldbedonemoreeffectively.

592. TheChair statedthatJune30,would bethedate.

593. TheDelegationof Bolivia thankedtheChair,and madeasuggestion that a fewdaysprior, theChair seemedfamiliar with theconcernsof Bolivia with regardto TK andthepublicdomain. Therefore,with regardto theSummary,theDelegation suggestedthattherecouldbeasentenceincludedthatwould reflectthoseconcerns,andreferred to point 8, thatstartedwith, in English, “ implementationof theseprojectswould beginin January2010”. TheDelegationstatedthatat theendof thatsentence, they would like to addthefollowing, “alsotheimplementationof theseprojectswill takeinto accounttheremarksmadeby Members inthecurrentsessionof CDIP”. TheDelegationstatedthatthis would reflect thedebatesalreadyheld,andcouldbea goodguidelinefor thoseimplementing theprojects,without anyprejudiceto whathadbeenagreed.

594. TheChair statedthatsamesentencewent on to say“with theunderstandingthatagreedmodificationswouldbeincorporatedto reflect thechanges requestedby theCommittee”,andaskedtheDelegationof Bolivia if thatcoveredtheir concern.

595. TheDelegationof Bolivia agreedthatthesentencecould covereverything, however, fortheelementsthathadnot beenagreedupon,theelementsandconcernsthathadbeenexpressedby certain Members,asin thecaseof Bolivia, therecouldbethe inclusionof TK inthepublic domain, but this wasa generalsuggestion thatshouldtake into accountthedebatesas a guidefor implementation.Clearlywhatwoulddefineimplementation weretheagreedelements.

596. TheChair askedif theDelegationof Bolivia wassatisfied thatwith theSummary. TheDelegationacknowledgedit was.

597. TheChair invited theDelegationof Bolivia to look carefully at theReport,where all thedetails of theirs andeveryintervention wouldberecorded.

598. TheDelegationof India thankedtheChair andsaidit hadonemodification to suggestand onequery to put forward. Bothwerein paragraph8 of thedraft. Actually therewere twomodifications,onein paragraph8 andonein paragraph9. Paragraph8, on thethird line, sub-


point two, “ recommendationsthatdealtwith asimilaror identical subjectmatterwouldbebrought underonethemewherepossible”. TheDelegationof Indiasuggestedreplacing“subject matter” with theword “activities.” Thesentence would readas “recommendationsthatdealt with similar or identicalactivitieswould bebroughtunderonethemewherepossible”which theDelegationbelievedwouldperhapsbetter reflect themany interventionsmadeon theproposedapproach,andreflect better theconcernsof many delegations.Theother modification wasin paragraph9, thevery last sentence; “wil l becompiledandpresentedto the fourthsessionof CDIP for furtherdiscussionon this subject”. TheDelegationrequested,with theideaof comingto a closureon thesubject, andnot makingit anAgendaItemin everyCDIP sessionwithout reachingagreement, that thewords“anddecision” beaddedbefore,sothesentencewould readas: “wil l becompiledandpresentedto thefourthsessionof theCDIP for furtherdiscussion anddecisionon this subject”. TheDelegationhadaqueryonparagraph8, thesamesentencethattheDelegationof Bolivia hadmentioned.Thequerywasregardingthe sentence“the implementationof theseprojectswouldbegininJanuary 2010with theunderstandingthatagreedmodificationswouldbeincorporatedtoreflect thechangesrequestedby theCommittee”. TheDelegationstatedthatas there wouldbeanotherCDIP session beforeJanuary 2010,in nextNovember,would theprojectsthat hadbeendiscussedbeopenfor discussion,andbeon theAgendaof thenext CDIP session,orwould theCommitteestartby consideringnewprojects? Thesecondquerywason thebudgetary front. TheDelegationstatedthat if at thenext sessionof theCDIP, theCommitteewaslikely to approveapproximatelyfour or five Thematic Projects,there would beapproximatelyeight ThematicProjectsfor implementationstarting in January2010. TheDelegationof Indiaaskedwhatwouldbethebudgetary implications,andif it wouldbepossibleto implementall theprojectsat once?

599. TheChair statedthattheSecretariathadhadseveral discussionson thequestionof thephasingof projectacceptanceby theCommittee,theapproach to thePBC,agreementsby theGeneralAssembly andtheimplementationof a timeframe. TheChair statedthathewaspersuadedthat theintention,bothon thepart of MemberStates,andon theSecretariat’s part,wasto havethoseprojectsimplemented,andthatimplementation beganassoonaspossible.TheChair addedthatthephasinghadto betakenintoconsideration, thathedid not knowhowto amend it andmakeit satisfactorybecausehedid not haveall theissuesat hand. TheChairpointedout thattheCommitteebroadlyagreedthat theprojects woulddeterminewhichPBCtheprojectwentto and, therefore, which GeneralAssembly it wassubmittedto, andwhentheimplementation wouldbegin. In termsof thelastpartof thecomments,hestated thatif therewere eightprojectsthatwentthroughtheprocess,that were ready at thesametime,providedthefundswereavailable,andprovidedMember States to whomthoseprojects were related,theycouldall start at thesametime. But if someof theminvolvedinteraction with MemberStates,thentherewasanotherelementto thephasing thatwouldhave to takeplace. TheChairpointedout thattherewaslittle hecould do with thelanguage,but theconcernsraisedwerevalid. With respectto theearlierpartof paragrapheight,theword “activi ties” insteadof“subject matter”, theChairagreed,but wassurehehadusedtheword “activit ies” ratherthan“subject matter” sothecommentwaswell taken. As for theendof paragraph9, for“discussionanddecision”,neithertheChair, nor his colleagues present, recalled anydelegationmakingthat point thatwasfor discussionanddecisionat CDIP/4. TheChair statedthatif adecisionwasreached,thatthat was fine,or if it wasdiscussedat CDIP/4, anddid notreachaconclusion, thenit wouldbediscussedfurther. Hepointedout thatwhetherheput thephrase“for decision” or not,did not affectwhethertheCDIP madeadecision in Novemberornot. But in termsof reflectingwhatwasheard, it did not includethesubmission for a


decision,asubmissionfor discussion, andtheonly reasonit wasdiscussedwasto reachadecision.

600. TheDelegationof ThailandthankedtheChair, andtheSecretariat for compilingaverycomprehensivefirst draft of theSummaryby the Chair. TheDelegationwantedto focusitscommentsonparagraph8, sayingthatit recalled vividly, thatwhentheThematic Projectswere introducedby theSecretariat,aswell asby theDirector General, they had full ysupportedit, on theunderstandingthat theagreed modificationswouldbeincorporatedtoreflect thechangerequestedby theCommittee. However,onmanyoccasionstherewasmentionof additional activitiesif Memberssaw fi t, whichcould beproposedundereachoftheThematicProjects,reviewedby theCDIP, andtheDelegation wanted it to bereflectedintheChair’sSummary, becauseafterreviewingparagraph4, where theconceptwasintroducedtogether with paragraph8, theDelegationdid not seeit anywhere,andwantedto suggestanAddendumto theparagraphbeginningwith “the implementation of theproject, with theunderstanding that theagreedmodificationswould beincorporatedto reflect thechangerequestedby theCommittee”,andthat additional activit iescould beproposed for theCDIP’sreview,at a laterdateif MemberStatessawfit. TheDelegation of Thailandunderstood thatitwouldnot beautomatically incorporatedinto theThematic Projects,it wouldbereviewedbytheCDIP first, but anoptionhadto beopen,accordingto whattheDirector Generalhadproposed for theThematicProjects.In that spirit, it wasalsomentionedthatadditionalfunding wouldbe requestedfor thoseactivities. TheDelegationwantedto questiontheinterpretationof whatwasmeantby “equitablegeographical balance”, thelastthreewordsinparagraph8, andaskedwouldEuropeandAsia, or Afri cabeequal?

601. TheChair statedthatit seemedthattheDelegationof Thailandwasnot in theroomwhentheissuewasraisedseveraltimes. It had beenraisedinitially by Algeria,andsupportedby someof theotherdelegations.TheChair pointedout that hehad resistedtheidea,becausehe thoughtthatit would presentsomeother difficulties,but was persuaded by thediscussion,thatsomethingcouldbeaccepted,andhehadacceptedit. TheChair stated thatto explain“geographical balance”hewouldassumethattheseprojects were focusedondevelopingcountries,especially LDCs,andfor some, it stated“economiesin transition”. TheChairstated thathewouldassumethatthe“geographical balance”wouldbebetween thosecountries. In otherwords, therewouldnot beanyof thesebalancesin NorthAmerica, forexample.

602. TheDelegationof ThailandthankedtheChair andapologizedfor perhapsnot beingintheroomat thetimeof thediscussion,andstated thatif all theMemberscould goalongwithit, Thailandwould goalongwith thattoo.

603. TheDelegationof Jamaicathanked theChair andstatedtheir intervention relatedtoparagraph8, andsuggestedthattheChairmight wish to amendtheSummaryto includethefactthattheCommitteediscussedandbroadly agreedupontheThematic Project“IPInformationandCommunicationTechnologiesDigital Divide andAccessto Knowledge”grouping recommendations19,24and 27.

604. TheDelegationof Argentinamadethefollowing two points. Onparagraph 4, itsuggestedin thelastsentenceto put a full stopafter recommendations,soit would finish “ theSummary” . It statedthattheideawouldbeto reportin theCDIP annually on theimplementation of recommendations,andthatit would not beaproblemto anyone.TheDelegationthenpointedto paragraph9, andstatedthat in order to haveacompromise


betweenthedates,insteadof September30,or June30, theDelegationwas moreinclinedtowardsJuly30.

605. TheChair acknowledgedthattheDelegation of ArgentinapreferredJuly30,2009.

606. TheDelegationof Algeria thankedtheChair andtheDelegationof Thailandfor itsflexibility on thepoint regarding“equitablebalance”. In fact theissuewasraisedby manydelegations.Secondly,theDelegationstatedit would like to supportwhathadbeensaidbytheDelegationof India regarding thenecessityto reflectin theninthpoint, andmakeadecisionon theissueof themechanism.This point wasmadebecausetheDelegationwasaware thatthedecisioncouldnot bemadenow,andwould haveto bepostponedto theforthsessionof theCDIP, in whichdecisionshould bemade. TheDelegationwantedthis to bereflectedin theparagraph.

607. TheChair tooknoteof thepoint and stated thathewould respondjustashehadrespondedto India. Hepointedout thattheonly thing thathewascertain of was thatit wasagreedto furtherdiscuss theissue. TheChair statedthathewasnot persuadedthattherehadbeenanydecisiontakento makeadecisionin November, andthattheissuehad to bediscussedagain,andif a conclusionwasreached,adecisionwouldbemade,if not,adecisioncould not bemadeirrespectiveof what wasreflected at theCDIP/3.

608. TheDelegationof Indonesiathanked theChair andjoinedother delegatesincongratulatinghim andtheSecretariatfor preparingthedraft ChairSummary. TheDelegationhadcommentsor queries,andalsoasuggestion.It referredto paragraph8, whereit wasmentionedthattheCommittee“discussed andbroadlyagreed”,and stated thatitwantedit furtherclarifiedwhatwasmeantby “broadly agreed”, whetherit meant thatit wasnot totally agreed,or wasagreedfor someparts only? TheDelegation statedthattheywouldlike to secondthestatementmadeby theCoordinatorof AsianGroupwhereby it hadreservedtheright to commentlateron,on theThematicProjects. TheDelegation alsohadsomereservationsonsomeof theactivitieson theIP andthepublicdomain, and expressedtheneedfor sometime to consult with their capital. It expressed its intention to bring thesubjectforwardat thenext CDIP, andsupportedthenotion by theAsianGroupthatonecouldreservetheright to commenton theThematicProjects,especially thefirst one,“ IP and thePublicDomain”. On paragraph9, althoughit was suggestedthattheproposalby Indiawasnot takenon board, it wasobservedthattherehadbeenavery lengthy discussionon theAgendaItem 8,which wasof high importanceto thedelegates.TheDelegation statedthat besidesadiscussion, adecision on theAgendaItem should bereached,andtheDelegation alsowantedto supportIndia’sproposal,alsoechoedby Algeria, thatthewords“discussionanddecision”shouldbeput forward. Thelastsuggestionconcernedparagraph2, where it wasmentionedthattheCDIP unanimouslyelectedAmbassadorClarke,whereas thecorrect reflectionwas“reelectedAmbassadorClarke” for thosewhohadjust arrived at theCDIP.

609. TheChair pointedout thatthere-election point was fineandwell-taken. As for“broadlyagreed”thelanguagehadbeenagreeduponlastyear,and was thephraseusedbeforethefinal approvalof thefinal documentonhuman andfinancial resources. With regardstotheright to comment,theChairreaffirmedeveryone’sright to comment,but askedtheCommitteeto rememberthatwhencommentsweremade,in evidencesomething thatitwanteddone,it hadto meetwith theapproval of theCommittee. This wasjust fact anddidnot have to beincludedin thedocument.TheChair reiteratedhis intention to hearif therewere anyotherinterventionson thatquestion becausehestatedhecould only tell the


Committeewhathehadtold India,Algeria andIndonesia. TheChair said hedid not mindputting forwardadecision andencouragedother delegationsto speakon thematter.

610. TheDelegationof GermanythankedtheChair on this latter point andexpressedtotalagreementwith theearlierinterventionthatnomatterwhatwasput out there, it did notcommit thedelegationsnor theCDIP into makingadecision in November. TheDelegationstated it wouldnot wantto commit,nor give theimpressionthatit could commit themselvesand moreparticularly GroupB. TheDelegation statedit could includefor ‘possibledecision’statingthatthis was‘wishful thinking’.

611. TheDelegationof Canadareferredto theproposal madeby India in paragraph8, tochange“subjectmatter” to “activities”, andthoughtit wouldbeverydifficult, becausethiscould meanthatall surveys shouldbereflectedon theonetheme,stating thatit did not allcover thesamesubjectmatters. So, if possible, theDelegation would like to revertto “subjectmatter”. With regardto paragraph9, theDelegation agreedwith theassessmentof theChairbut could also livewith theproposal madeby Germany, with theview to finding acompromisesolution.

612. TheChair askedif anyotherMembers hadaview on thesubject, but pointedthathewastalkingof “activities”.

613. TheDelegationof Brazil statedthattakinginto accountandfindingabalance in therulesthat were laid downandhardly negotiatedin theCommittee, theDelegationsoughtsomeclarificationon thewordingsuggested by theDelegationof Thailand,andon theprocessof including activitiesin theprojects. It statedthat Brazil wasnot in principle,contraryto theThai contribution,but would like to haveadditional information.

614. TheChair statedthattherewasabroadunderstandingthatwas very well articulated bytheDelegationof Brazil, thattheconclusionof aproject did not meanthattherecommendationhadbeenconcluded.If therecommendation had not beenconcluded,activities thatreasonablyfit thatrecommendation couldbebroughtup for futureaction,andhebelievedthis waswhatThailandhadaskedto berepresented.TheChair statedthathesawit asanacceptedprincipleonhowthework was done. Therecommendationwasfundamental, soif theCommitteeagreedto doA, B andC, in orderto give effectto therecommendation,and at thenextmeetingor thenext year, following discussion,find thatFand G shouldbeadded,it wouldbediscussed,andif theCommitteeagreed,F and G wouldbeadded.TheCommitteehadtheright to goback andresolveanyissues,or modify anactivity or aproject. However,theChaircautionedthattheCommitteeshould avoiddoingthis in everymeeting, because theSecretariat neededastableprojectdocumentat somestage,in orderto implementthework.

615. TheDelegationof Brazil thankedtheChairfor theclarification, stating that it wishedtoseehowtheexactwordingwouldbefor theinclusion, sothatit couldbeput forwardfor adecision.

616. TheChair statedthatwhatThailandproposed after thewordCommittee, the line thatsaid “would beincorporated”within paragraph8, on thefi fth linefrom theendofparagraph8, thatstartedwith “would beincorporated to reflectthechangesrequestedby theCommittee”,theadditionwouldbe“with theunderstandingthatadditionalactivities maybeproposed at theCDIP 4”, wasthespecificproposal by theDelegation of Thailand.


617. TheDelegationof India hadonequestion thatwas similar to thecomment madebyThailand. It addresseda query,whichwouldbe to keep thediscussionon the3 ThematicProjectsopenat CDIP/4, or whethertheCommitteewouldstartwith newThematicProjects?However,if thesentenceproposedby Thailandwaskept,thequestionwasanswered.

618. TheChair appreciatedthatit wouldalways bea challengetrying to meettheneedsofcompetingforces. Theflexibility, to look at projects or lookat recommendationsandsuggestnew activitieswouldalwaysbethere,but theSecretariat neededastableprojectin orderto getfunding andproceedwith implementation.If asuggestion wasraisedin CDIP 4, thatdid notsignificantly impacton theresourcesimplication provided,theCommitteewouldacceptit,and it wouldbetakenon board.

619. TheDelegationof EgyptthankedtheChair andsaidit hadtwo or threeshort commentsand thenaquestion. Thefirst commentwasonparagraph4, andit supportedtheproposal oftheDelegationof Argentinawhichwasacceptable to therestof themembershipthattheystopat recommendationsassuggestedby Argentina. It believedthatthis wouldbea goodcompromise.Theotherissuerelatedto theparagraph 9 and thedates,andit believedit hadan importantopportunity beforeCDIP 4 whentheAssembly would discusstheCDIP’s work.WhileMembers might not reachaconclusionon thatparticular issueof coordination,monitoring andassessment,theycouldperhapsadvance thediscussionin theAssemblies onthatissue. It believedthatthesuggestioncoming from theDelegation of Nigeria onputtingthedateof June30wouldallow delegationsandMemberStatestime to consider theproposals beforeenteringinto theGeneralAssembly, whereas if they maintainedadeadlineof July30,bearingin mind thatAugustwasaveryslowmonth,therewouldnot bemuch timeto digest anddiscusstheissuein theAssemblies. TheDelegation thoughtthatif theytookthatissue to CDIP 4 for a decision,theywouldhaveto wait until theGeneralAssembliesof2010. It thought thatif theytried to dealwith it in thecurrentyear’s General Assembly,theyshouldseizeit in suchawaythatgavethemselvestime. TheDelegation requestedwhethertheDelegationof Argentinawouldbewill ing to acceptthatit wasJune30 insteadof July 30.TheotherissueconcernedtheAgendaItem on futurework, andtheDelegation thought it wasrelevantto considerthelessonslearnt from CDIP 3, andhowthey wantedto proceedinCDIP 4, andwonderedif thereshouldbetheintroduction of anindication in theChair’sSummaryasto howtheywouldproceed. In theDelegation’spoint of view, it wouldbenecessaryto establishon thenewThematic Project that theSecretariat hadproposed,thatfourtitlesof Thematic Projectshadalreadybeenpresented. It believedthatin addition towhatevermight still comefrom theMemberStates,or theproposalsthatcame from theSecretariat, if therewouldbeaconsultativeprocess.BeforeholdingCDIP 4, it thoughtthatitwouldbeuseful for theChairto undertake informal consultationswith delegationsonproposed themesfor projects. Perhapsthis would helpavoid theissuesthat they hadtostrugglewith in theCDIP 3. TheDelegation said thatit stronglysupportedwhathadalreadybeenstatedthatsix weeksprior to themeeting, all documentsshould bemadeavailable.Thiswouldnot bedifficult, astheywouldstill haveenoughtimeto prepare,andhopefully withconstructiveconsultations onaninformal basis,wouldbeable to reachthat deadline. TheDelegationaskedtheChairif hewould bewilli ng to considerthatelement in theSummaryasit pertainedto futurework, which it consideredwasanAgendaItem that hadnot beendiscussed.

620. TheChair statedthathewasnot surethat thelessonslearntfrom thatsessionwassomethingthataChair shoulddocumentin aSummary to guidefuturework. If thelessons


had really beenlearnt,all thatneededto bedone, would beto remember thelessonslearnt.Thekey lessonslearntin thecurrentsessionthathadnot beenlearntbeforehand,werecaptured in thetopof theparagraph,in thethreepoints. Thathadbeen thegreatestchallenge,shifting from thewaytheyworkedbeforeto thenewapproach. In terms of opportunities tobemetandin early2008,beforeCDIP 1, in thefirst session,they hadentertainedandhadquitea few inter-sessionalmeetingsthatwerehelpful. Therehadbeenoneinter-sessionalmeetingbetweenSession 1 and2, but thereweresomedelegationsthat resisted theideaofhaving inter-sessionals. As far astheChair was concerned, unlesstheCommitteeproposedand agreed,andheagreedto dialoguewith thedelegationsthathaddifficul ties withinter-sessionalmeetings,to seeif in thefuturetheycould getto adifferentposition, but fornow, thatwasthepositionit wasat. Trying to getaproposal to theGeneralAssemblyinSeptember2009,on thecoordinationissuewasimpossible. TheChair said thattheCommitteehadto agreeonsomethingto put forwardto theGeneralAssembly, andtheyhadnot agreedon anything otherthanto continuediscussions,andhowto continuethosediscussions.

621. TheDelegationof EgyptagreedthattheChair’s SummarywastheChair’s document,so assuch,it would not request him to includesomething thatshould not beincluded.Meanwhile,in theDelegation’sintervention, it specifically did not usetheword“ inter-sessional” preciselybecauseit knew that it would bedifficult to arriveat aconsensus.Whatit mentionedwere“informals” andthey hadalreadyheld two sessionsof informals oneweek prior to thecurrentCommitteeSession,astheChair hadcalledfor it. Thedelegationshad engaged in theinformalsin aspirit of transparency,andit believedthatif thatexercisewere to bereplicatedin advanceof CDIP 4, but well in advance, rather thanjustoneweekbefore,andit wasreplicatedwhile discussionswerestill on-going, ratherthanonacompletewrittenproposalon theThematicProject, it wouldbeaconstructive wayforward,in thesensethatthereshouldbeaminimumdegreeof agreementonsomeof theprojectsbeingpresented.This, of course, waswithout prejudiceto whatMemberStatesmight propose,but it statedthatif theChairbelievedthat it wasnot correctto reflect it in his Summary, it abidedby hisruling, but believedthatholdinginformal discussionsin advance wouldassistin progressingCDIP 4, andthattheCDIP 3 wasthefirst initial attempt. ThoseconsiderationscouldbetakenintoaccountwhenplanningCDIP 4. On theissueof how it might assist theGeneralAssembly, theDelegation realizedthatit couldbea far shot, but obviouslyMemberStateswere freeto proposewhateverproposal theywantedin theGeneralAssembly. TheCDIP wasnot neededto suggestto MemberStatesthatit couldbringany issueforwardduring theGeneralAssembly. It believedthatevenif aminimumof consensuswasachievedonsomeaspectsof theproposals,thenperhapsit wouldbeachieving somethingbeforeengaging in adiscussion in CDIP 4, aswaspresentin thedocument. Therefore,to givemoretime toconsidertheproposals, perhapsArgentinacouldbeaskedif it agrees with thechangeof dateto beJune30, ratherthanJuly30.

622. TheChair said hedid not haveaproblemchangingthedate, but stil l did not knowhowthatwasgoingto help. TheDelegationof Egyptmadeakeypoint that anyMember Statecould raisetheissuein theGeneralAssembly,but hedid not think therewas anythingthattheChairor theCDIP coulddo,at thatstage,to makethelaudableobjective effective. TheChairwishedto moveonasMemberStatescoulddo it, andhewassuretheywould heartheresponsefrom somemembersthatthis matterhadbeendiscussed, no agreementhadbeenreached,and theCDIP hadagreedto continuethediscussionin thenext session.TheChairadmiredtheintervention from Egypt for its statedrecognition, hedid not imply thatit hadnotbeenrecognizedbefore,theneedfor urgencyandthematters underdiscussion.Themeeting


thatit proposedwould bewelcomeat anytime. If they could find a framefor suchameetingthatdid not offendany MemberStatewhohasexpresseddiscomfort with meetings betweensessions.Regardingthetwo meetingsprior to thecurrentCDIP session,theChairstatedthattherehad beenanewprocess establishedthatneeded somediscussionandintroductionbeforehand,andit hadmadesenseandhadbeen accepted.

623. TheDelegationof EgyptthankedtheChair for takingcareof thatmatterandrequestedconfirmationwith theDelegationof Argentina, on whetherit agreed with June30,ratherthanJuly 30.

624. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica wished to echoits supportbriefly ononeor two points.Firstly, thepoint raisedon theproposalby Thailand. TheDelegation thoughtit wouldbehelpful to clarify asentence,referringto apoint thatwas raisedon theinclusionof theword“decision” in paragraph9 of thelastline. It did not think that toomuchharmwascausedbyputting theword “decision”,indicatingthatadecisioncouldbetaken,not to makeadecision.Finally, referring to point 2 of paragraph8, theDelegationstatedthatit hadnotedthattheChairhad said “activities”.

625. TheChair confirmedthathethoughthedid say “activi ties”, but Canadapointedout that“activities” would bethewrongword to reflect whatwas really meant. Guineahadalsopointedout aproblemwith aword in French,whichcould beasimilar situation. TheChairsaid hewould behappy to usethesubjectmatter if theidentical activitiesthatCanadahadidentifiedcreatedaproblem. Therefore,hewould gobackto thesubject matter unlesstherewassomeopposition.

626. TheDelegationof Nigeriareferredto theissueof June30,asEgypthadverycleverlybrought to thefloor andaskedArgentinato agree. Anythingafter July 30,would not bepossibleasmany diplomatswouldbeonvacationafterthatdate. Work would only startagain in September or at theendof September. Therewas toomuchto foreseeanda lot ofthethematics. Onparagraph9, on theissueof discussionsanddecisions,evenif adecisionwasput there,andadiscussionwashadwithout reachingagreement,therewouldnot beadecision. Onsubjectmatterandactivities,it did not know if theyhadreachedthesentencepreceeding,which talkedabouteachrecommendationandactivi ty. Thenreferring to thefollowing sentence regardingsubjectmatter thefact remainedthattheword “activity” wasmorein line.

627. TheDelegationof Argentinareferred to paragraph8 andunderstoodthatafterimplementation wouldbe3(i) whereit stated“i mplementationwould beastructure…projectand other activitiesasappropriate”thenThailandincluded“wit h theunderstandingthataninitial activity maybeproposedin CDIP 4”, andasked for a changein thewording. Insteadof “may”, would be“can” “additionalactivitiescan beproposed” andinsteadof “CDIP”wouldbe“future meetings”. Theissuewasthattheywere“cross-cutting” issues. Therefore,someactivitiesdevelopedin othercommitteescouldalsoimplementtherecommendations.Itwouldbemoreaccurateto put “with theunderstandingthat additional activit iescanbeproposed in futuremeetings.”

628. TheChair said thathewouldhaveto goback to Nigeria on that question andaskedwhatwasthedifference between“canbe” and“may be”? Therecould bea legaltechnicality.


629. TheDelegationof Argentinasaidthatadditional activi ties maynot necessaril y beproposed soit preferred“can” insteadof “may”, andit did not want anyreferencemadeto thefourth sessionof theCDIP. If theChairwantedto put a full -stop, proposedwith theunderstanding that theadditionalactivities couldbeproposedif agreed,but it did not wantamentionto thefourth sessionof theCDIP.

630. TheChair indicatedthatsomewherein thedocumenthewouldmakethepoint thattheSecretariat wouldneedstableprojectdocuments in orderto proceed. TherewastheflexibilitythatMemberStates couldcomein anytimeandmakeadjustments,but hebelievedthatoncetheyagreedon thatproject,theprojectshouldbeallowed to go ahead.If theresultof thatproject did not meetall of theexpectationsthataroseout of therelevantrecommendation,new activitiescould bediscussedasBrazil hadmentioned. Thatprojectdid not meantheendof theimplementation of therecommendation. Thepreviousyearwhen theybroadlyagreedon activities,andtheSecretariatcameback with thehumanandfinancial resources,it wasacceptedthat theprojectwentahead.TheChair stated thatthis year, therewasdebateovertheopportunity andpossibilityof makingchangesandadditions. TheChairdid not denythattherewas apossibility alwaysopento MemberStates,however it wouldbeincludedin thedocument thatit wasrecognizedthattheSecretariat wouldneedastableproject document inorder to proceed.However,hewantedto put in context thefact thatit did not stopmembersfrom makingminor adjustmentson theproject,thatit did not upset theprocessnor thattheycould not makemajor adjustmentsto newprojects.

631. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americasaidit hadlistened carefullyto theinterventionsof thosedelegationswhowould inserttheword “decision” in thelastsentenceof paragraph9, andit understoodtheintentof thoseinterventions. TheDelegation expressedthatit alsocameto eachmeetingof theCDIP with thehopeandeventheexpectation,thattherewouldbeacomingtogetherof mindsthatwould allow theconsensusrecommendationto go forward,on aparticularprojector activi ty beforetheCommittee. Indeed,it hadjustsuchhopeand expectationswith respectto abroadrangeof activit iesthatit did not getanopportunity to discuss. It alsoagreedwith theChair’s very wiseanalysisthatit couldneverbeguaranteedthattherewouldbeacoming togetherof minds. Therefore,theUnitedStatesof Americacouldcertainlynot agreeto agree. Thatsaid it believedtheway forwardmight beto inserttheword “possible” before “decision”.

632. TheDelegationof Thailandstatedthatdespite thestatement that it hadmadethreehoursbefore regarding thedelayof themeeting,it wished to supportwhat Argentinahadrecentlyproposed, but only for thelastpartthateitherthey tookout “the fourth sessionof theCDIP”or put in “futuremeetings”. Regarding“can” or “may” it foundnodifferencebecausethey“could” anyway.

633. TheDelegationof India wishedto comebackto theactivitiesversusthesubjectmatterissueandwantedto explainwhy it said “activit ies” as a replacement for thewords“subjectmatter”. It capturedwhatwasdiscussedabouttheapproach. “Subject matter” meantwhatyouassumedwasindicatedby thetitle or thewordsof a recommendation. However,“activities” would meanthecoreof whatit thoughtthesubjectmatter shoulddeliverin termsof activities for aparticularproject. Therefore,“activit ies” wouldmeaninterpretationof thesubjectmatterby MemberStatesandthatwaswhat wasdiscussedandagreedupon,asoneoftheguiding principlesfor theThematicProject. Thatwas thesubjectmatterof arecommendationwhich wouldbediscussed, interpretedby theMemberStates,whowouldproposespecific activities andthenit would beconvertedinto aproject format and


implemented. TheDelegationfollowed thatlogic, when it statedthat groupingwouldbeneededon thebasisof theactivitiesidentifi edby theMemberStates,andnot thesubjectmatter in any particular recommendation. It wasthemember-drivenaspect whichwasbrought forth by using theword “activities”. Thesecondpoint wasto echosupport for thesuggestion madeby theDelegationof Egypt, regarding futurework. Indiaunderstoodthatitmaynot bereflectedin theSummaryof theChair, but theDelegation wishedto saythathaving thedocumentssix weeksin advancewouldhelp all delegationsimmensely,astheycould processthembetterandcomebetterprepared for thenext meeting. An informalconsultationashad beenheldbeforethecurrentmeeting, couldbeheld at a morepreparatoryphase,with theideaof groupingthemsothattheprocesswouldbemember-driven,speedyand smooth.TheDelegationthought all threewould beservedby this approach.

634. TheChair confirmedthattheideaof apreparatory meeting hadbeen taken onboard andstated thathewouldconsultwith thedelegationsthatheknewhadexpresseddiff icultieswiththattypeof meeting. On thesubjectmatter “activi ties” somedelegationshadalreadymentionedthat“activities” wasthewordusedin Item1, andhethought“activities” shouldbeusedin Item 2. Canadawasaskedif it strongly insistedonusing“activities”,and wanted“subject matter”?

635. TheDelegationof Canadasaidthatit wouldnot block asolution,but its impressionwasthatthethemeshadbeendevelopedafterlookingat therecommendationsandnot theactivities. Sofor theDelegationit wouldhavebeenmoreaccurate to reflectto subjectmatter,but again, it wastheChair’sSummary, soif hewantedto say “activit ies” it wouldagreewiththat.

636. TheChair said thatif therewasaproblem,it washis own,andwouldput “activities”.Whenit cameto dealwith theissue,if “activit ies” presentedaproblemwheresubjectmatterwouldhavebeeneasierto dealwith, thelanguagecould bealtered. Thelanguagewouldbechangedbecausetheapproachwouldbethesame. TheChair statedhewas surethatthey allknewwhatwasmeant,andthathe,like SouthAfrica, recalled thathehadsaid“activities”.Thechangeswouldbemadeandthedocumentcirculatedagain.

637. TheDelegationof Serbiarequested aclarification onparagraph9, on thevery lastsentence,concerningdiscussionon thatsubject, andstatedthat if therewasadiscussionandadecision,it wouldalsoprefertheadjective“possibledecision”.

638. TheChair said hewashappyto gowith “for possibledecision” andhopedin Novemberthatadecisionwouldbepossible by compromising on thedifferencesthat wereexpressed.TheChair statedthatthatwastheChair’s Summary,whichhadtakenmuch longerthanexpected.

AgendaItem 9: Futurework

639. In terms of futurework, in abroadway, theChair repeatedandrequestedMemberStatesto givemoretimeon theprojectsdiscussingtherecommendations,andlesstimeon reviewing reportsthatcouldalwayshaveto bereviewedin thefuture. Thatdid notmeanthat hewasdiscounting theimportanceof reports,but wasadvancing thepreeminenceof gettingimplementationstartedwhichultimately it wasup to thedelegations. TheChairbelievedthattheywould havea reportonprojects9 and10,but would havetheopportunity todiscussthosetwo recommendationsandtheassociated five projects. That wassomethingthat


wouldhave to bedone. Of coursethediscussionon theThematic Projects wouldcontinueand theothersuggestionwouldbethatopeningstatementsbecompletely eliminated,if foronly oneoccasion. The Chairbelievedthat openingstatements,eventhoughtheyhadsomepolitical advantage,did not helpwith detail astheysoughtagreementon activit iesforrecommendation,and projectsthatwouldgowith them. TheChair did not think thatopeningstatementsaddedvalueto theprocessat thattime. Theywereusefulfor theGeneralAssembly andfor theinitial stagesof theCDIP,but werecurrently intoa technicalenvironment to gettheprojectsimplemented.He alsonotedthat mostof thecontributionstoItem7, “Issues”,weremadeby Geneva-baseddelegates. For thatreason,hesupportedthesuggestion by theDelegationof Egypt, but wasstill constrained by thepoint thathehadmentionedearlier, which wasthegeneralresistance to meetingsbetweensessions. However,hewould try andseeif hecoulddosomepreliminarywork on thosethemes,without comingto any conclusion,makingany decision. It would all bepreliminary work that wouldnotimpacton theprocess,andwouldhaveto undergotheformal sessions.Thepreliminary workwould just assistin thegeneralunderstandingandtheSecretariatto understandwhatitsmembers wantedout of particularrecommendations,and theywouldhaveto, if theapproachwasaccepted,find away to bring theoutput of thoseinformal discussionsto theformalsessionfor reviewandratification. Any preliminarydiscussionsto inform members andseeksomebroaderunderstandingthatwouldhelp with thework in theformal sessionwouldonlybepreliminary, informal,andnot final or decisive. On thatbasis, theChairwouldconsultonthematterandhopedthat futurework wasnot as tediousasthework of that week. It wasthefirst time thattheyhadworkedsolatein any of themeetings,and theChair did not wantit tobeanexampleto follow in thefuture. TheChair wanted theSecretariat to bearthatin mind,thatfor religiousreasons, meetingsshould not go passed 1.00p.m.onFridaysin thefuture.

AgendaItem 11: Closingof thesession

640. TheDelegationof India wishedto placeon record its appreciation andwishedto thankall thedelegationsfor their flexibility, especially thedelegationsof Canada, theUnitedStatesof AmericaandGermany, andit wishedto thank theChair for facilitating themeetingwith somuch expertiseandcompetence.

641. TheChair thankedall thedelegations.

642. Therepresentativefrom IQsensatostatedthatits purposewas to inform internationaldevelopmentpolicy-makingby undertaking research,communicating research resultsandstimulatingdebateby providingaccessto thework andperspectivesof developingcountryresearchersandexperts. It providedaplatform for promoting theresearchandthinkingofresearchersandexpertsfrom developingcountriesin international policy debatesanddiscussions suchastheonethattookplacein thatCommittee. In thatcontext, IQsensatowascollaboratingwith theAfricanCopyright andAccessto Knowledge(ACA2K) Project; aproject thatwasexploring, through empiricalresearch at thecountry level, therelationshipbetweennational copyrightenvironmentsandaccessto knowledge, particularly learningmaterials in theAfricancountries. Theprevailing phaseof theproject, supportedby theInternationalDevelopmentResearchCentre (IDRC) of Canada,coveredeight Africancountries,namely: Egypt,Ghana,Kenya,Morocco, Mozambique, Senegal,SouthAfr icaandUganda.In essence,theACA2K projectsoughtto establishtheextentto which copyrightlawswere fulfill ing their objectiveof facilitating accessto knowledge.He said thatin aBriefing Paper, which wasbeingmadeavailable to theMembersand Observers at theCDIPand other stakeholders, it providedits preliminaryfindingsthat wererelevantto thework in


thatCommittee. The final findingswould bepresented at IQsensato’sGenevaSeminars onDevelopmentResearch(GSDR),to beheldat theWorld MetrologicalOrganization(WMO)headquarters,onMay 20,2009. Onthebasisof its preliminaryfindings,IQsensatosoughttomakebrief comments,basedon its findings,asfollows. Hepointedout that,in general,ACA2K researchindicatedthatcreativeworkswerestronglyprotected by national copyrightlawsin all theAfricancountriesstudied.At thesametime,therewaslittle awarenessandimplementation of copyright flexibilities thatcould facilitateaccessto knowledge. Indeed,theterm“accessto knowledge”hadlittle salience within thecorridorsof copyright law-makingandpolicy-makingin moststudy countries. Hementioned thattheconnectionbetweencopyright law andknowledgeproduction/consumptionwas, therefore,often ignored.While therewereseveralaspectsof national copyright law thatwerecrucial to accesstoknowledge,theroleof limitationsandexceptionswasparticularly noteworthytowardsthatend. In thatrespect, hesaidACA2K researchindicatedthat in all eight ACA2K studycountries,copyrightlimitationsandexceptionsweretoonarrowlyandor vaguely defined tofacilitateaccessin abalancedandeffectivemanner.He informedthat research findingsindicated thatacrosstheboard,therewere severalfactors– not copyright law alone– thatinhibitedor restrictedaccessto knowledge;thoseincludedunaffordabilit y, unavailability and,in somecases,thelackof a reading culture. Researchalso indicatedthatin all studycountries(with theexception of SouthAfrica) theeffectsof copyright law on theground– howeverrestrictivethelaw might havebeen– wereminimal, dueto weakenforcement. Hementionedthatin SouthAfrica,therelativestrengthof thelaw, coupledwith theprevalenceof globallyintegratedhighereducationinstitutions,resultedin anatmospherewherecopyright wastreatedmoresignificantly. He further said thatin thefieldof Internetand ICTs, theregulationof copyrightin thedigital environmentboreaspecial responsibilit y – applied judiciously, ithad thepotential to furtherlearningthroughICTs,andappliedover-zealously, it hadthepotential to restrictaccessto knowledge.Of particular concern,heemphasised,wereanti-circumvention provisions, thatwere,clausesin thelaw thatmadeit il legalto circumventtechnologicalprotectionmechanisms– evenwhile, for instance,auserwastaking advantageof copyrightlimitationsandexceptions,including fair dealing in a work. Yet, in ACA2KstudycountriessuchasMorocco,Egyptand Kenya, they foundthat:

(a) anti-circumventionprovisionshadbeenimplemented in thelaw alongwith arecognition of technologicalprotection measures(eventhoughdigital technologieswereat anascent,growingstagein thosecountries);and

(b) noprovisionhadbeenmadeto allow circumventionwhenexercisingfair dealingand other limi tationsandexceptions, thusjeopardising thewholesetof copyrightlimitationsand exceptionswithin theirnationalcopyright laws.

[Annexfollows]

CDIP/3/9Prov.2

ANNEX

I. ÉTATS/STATES

(dansl’ordre alphabétiquedesnomsfrançaisdesÉtats)/(in thealphabetical orderof thenamesin Frenchof theStates)

AFGHANISTAN

SaidAzim HOSSAINY, LegalAdvisor,Ministry of CommerceandIndustry,DirectorGeneral, IntellectualProperty Board,Kabul

AFRIQUE DU SUD/SOUTH AFRICA

GlaudineJ.MTSHALI (Mrs.), Ambassador,PermanentRepresentative,PermanentMission,Geneva

Johan VAN WYK, Counsellor, EconomicDevelopment, Permanent Mission,Geneva

JeannetteSWANEPOEL(Ms.), DeputyDirector,EconomicRelationsandTrade,Departmentof ForeignAffai rs,Pretoria

Sil indeleTHABEDE, AssistantDirector,Economic RelationsandTrade, DepartmentofForeign Affai rs,Pretoria

SusannaCHUNG(Ms.), First Secretary, Permanent Mission,Geneva

TshihumbudzoRAVHANDALALA (Ms.), Second Secretary, PermanentMission,Geneva

ALBANIE/ALBA NIA

Agim PASHOLLI, MinisterCounsellor, PermanentMission,Geneva

ALGÉRIE/ALGERIA

IdrissJAZAIRY, ambassadeur,représentantpermanent, Missionpermanente,Genève

BelkacemZIANI, directeurgénéral,Institut national algériendelapropriété industrielle(INAPI), Alger

HayetMEHADJI (Mme),premiersecrétaire, Missionpermanente,Genève

CDIP/3/9Prov.2Annex,page2

ALLEMAGNE/GERMANY

ReinhardSCHWEPPE,Ambassador,PermanentRepresentative, PermanentMission,Geneva

Li -FengSCHROCK, Headof Division, TradeMark andUnfair Competition,FederalMinistry of Justice,Berlin

UdoFENCHEL,Counsellor,PermanentMission,Geneva

ANGOLA

MakieseKINK ELA AUGUSTO, First Secretary,Permanent Mission,Geneva

ARABIE SAOUDITE/SAUDI ARABIA

Sami A. ALSODAIS, PatentSpecialist, GeneralDirectorateof Industrial Property,KingAbdulaziz City for ScienceandTechnology,Riyadh

Ali BAHITHAM, First Secretary, Permanent Mission,Geneva

ARGENTINE/ARGENTINA

Alberto J.DUMONT, Embajador,RepresentantePermanente,Misión Permanente,Ginebra

InésGabrielaFASTAME (Srta.),PrimerSecretario,Misión Permanente, Ginebra

AUSTRALIE/AUSTRALIA

Edwina LEWIS (Ms.), AssistantDirector,InternationalPolicy Section, IP Australia,WodenACT

TrudyWITBREUK (Ms.), MinisterCounsellor, Deputy PermanentRepresentative,PermanentMission,Geneva

KatherineWILLCOX (Ms.),Third Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

AUTRICHE/AUSTRIA

JohannesWERNER,DeputyHead,Department of International Relations,AustrianPatentOffice, Vienna

GeorgZEHETNER,First Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva


AZERBAÏDJAN/AZERBAIJAN

GulnaraRUSTAMOVA (Mrs.), Head,PatentDepartment, StateAgencyon Standardization,MetrologyandPatents,Baku

BAHREÏN/BAHRAIN

AmmarRAJAB, Third Secretary, PermanentMission,Geneva

BARBADE/BARBADOS

TrevorCLARKE, Ambassador, PermanentRepresentative, PermanentMission,Geneva

Corlita AnnetteBABB-SCHAEFER (Mrs.), Counsellor, PermanentMission,Geneva

BELGIQUE/BELGIUM

MélanieGUERREIRO RAMALHEIRA (Mll e),attaché-juriste, Officedela propriétéintellectuelle,Servicepublic fédéral,économie,P.M.E., classesmoyennes et énergie,Bruxelles

BOLIVIE (ÉTAT PLURINATIONAL DE)/BOLIVIA (PLURINATIONAL STATE OF)

Luis FernandoROSALES LOZADA, PrimerSecretario, MisiónPermanente,Ginebra

BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE/BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

EminaKEČO ISAKOVIĆ (Mrs.), Ambassador, PermanentRepresentative, PermanentMission,Geneva

Jovan SARAC,DeputyDirector,Institutefor Intellectual Property, Sarajevo

LjubicaPERIĆ (Ms.), Counsellor, PermanentMission, Geneva

BOTSWANA

PitlaganoKESUPEMANG, CommercialOffi cer,Department of theRegistrarof Companies,TradeMarks,PatentsandDesigns,Ministry of TradeandIndustry,Gaborone

Mabedi MOTLHABANI (Mrs.), Counsellor, PermanentMission,Geneva


BRÉSIL/BRAZIL

Cliffor GUIMARÃES, PublicManager,Copyright Office, Ministryof Culture, Brasilia

FábioALVES SCHMIDT DA SILVA, Secretary, Intellectual PropertyDivision,Ministry ofExternal Relations,Rio deJaneiro

BURKINA FASO

Mireille KABORÉSOUGOURI (Mme), attachée, Missionpermanente,Genève

BURUNDI

Alain Aimé NYAMITWE, First Counsellor, PermanentMission,Geneva

CAMBODGE/CAMBODIA

THAY Bunthon,First Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

CAMEROUN/CAMEROON

AnatoleFabienMarieNKOU, ambassadeur,représentantpermanent,Missionpermanente,Genève

JacquelineNicoleMONO NDJANA (Mme),directeur,Directiondudéveloppementtechnologiqueet dela propriétéindustrielle, Ministèredel’industrie,desmineset dudéveloppementtechnologique,Yaoundé

AurélienETEKI NKONGO,premiersecrétaire, Missionpermanente,Genève

CANADA

Julie BOISVERT(Ms.), DeputyDirector,Intellectual Property,Information andTechnologyTradePolicy Division,Departmentof Foreign Affairs andInternationalTrade,Ottawa

StéfanBERGERON,SeniorPolicyAnalyst, International RelationsOffice, CanadianIntellectualProperty Office, Gatineau

DarrenSMITH, SecondSecretary, PermanentMission,Geneva


CHILI/CHILE

NancyPÉREZ OJEDA(Sra.),Subdirectora, SubdirecciónTransferenciadeConocimiento,InstitutoNacionaldePropiedadIndustrial (INAPI), Santiago

LucianoCUERVO, Economista,DepartamentodePropiedadIntelectual, DirecciónGeneraldeRelacionesEconómicasInternacionales,MinisteriodeRelacionesExteriores,Santiago

Maximiliano SANTA CRUZ, Consejero,Misión Permanente,Ginebra

CHINE/CHINA

WANG Xiaohui (Mrs.), DeputyDirectorGeneral, International Cooperation Department,State Intellectual PropertyOffice (SIPO), Beijing

ZHANG Yaning (Mrs.), Official, No. 2 Division, InternationalCooperationDepartment,StateIntellectualProperty Office (SIPO),Beijing

DUAN Yuping (Mrs.), Director,Copyright Division, NationalCopyright AdministrationofChina(NCAC), Beijing

LIU He Zhen(Mrs.), DeputyDirector,TrademarkExamination,StateAdministrationforIndustryand Commerce,Beijing

CHYPRE/CYPRUS

Andreas HADJICHRYSANTHOU, Ambassador,PermanentRepresentative,PermanentMission,Geneva

NicosP. NICOLAOU, Counsellor,DeputyPermanentRepresentative, Permanent Mission,Geneva

MariaMICHAEL (Ms.), Counsellor, Permanent Mission,Geneva

MariaSOLOGIANNI (Ms.),Advisor,PermanentMission,Geneva

COLOMBIE/COLOMBIA

MarthaIrmaALARCÓN LÓPEZ (Sra.),Ministro Consejero,MisiónPermanente,Ginebra

YulianyAndreaISAZA GUEVARA (Srta.), Attaché, MisiónPermanente,Ginebra


CONGO

LambertBISSEYOU, directeur,Cabinetduministre, Ministèredudéveloppementindustrielet dela promotiondusecteurprivé,Brazzaville

ClaureKOMBO, directeur,Antennenationale dela propriété industrielle,Ministèredudéveloppementindustriel et dela promotiondusecteurprivé,Brazzaville

COSTA RICA

RandallSALAZAR SOLÓRZANO, MiembrodelaJuntaAdministrativa, RegistroNacional,ComisiónNacional dela PropiedadIntelectual, MinisteriodeJusticia y Gracia, SanJosé

CristianMENA CHINCHILL A, Subdirector, Registrodela PropiedadIndustrial, MinisteriodeJusticia y Gracia, SanJosé

CÔTED’IVOIRE

TiémokoMORIKO, conseiller,Missionpermanente,Genève

CROATIE/CROATIA

Željko TOPIĆ, DirectorGeneral, StateIntellectualPropertyOffice, Zagreb

CUBA

Fidel ORTEGA PÉREZ, Consejero,Misión Permanente,Ginebra

AlinaESCOBAR DOMÍNGUEZ (Srta.), TercerSecretario, Misión Permanente,Ginebra

DANEMARK/DENMARK

Christian TROLLE ANDERSEN,Headof Section, Policy andLegalAffai rs,DanishPatentand TrademarkOffice,Ministry of Economics andBusinessAffai rs,Taastrup

DOMINIQUE/DOMINICA

RicardoJAMES,SeniorTradeOfficer, Geneva


ÉGYPTE/EGYPT

HishamBADR, Ambassador,PermanentRepresentative, PermanentMission,Geneva

AhmedIhab GAMAL EL DIN, DeputyPermanentRepresentative, PermanentMission,Geneva

Youssef Dia El Din MEKKAWY, Director,UnitedNationsSpecializedAgenciesDepartment,Ministry of ForeignAffairs, Cairo

Tahani Abdel LatefElsayedIBRAHIM (Mrs.), InformationSpecialist, EgyptianPatent Office,Academy of Scientific Research andTechnology(ASRT),Ministry of Scientific Research,Cairo

NeveenMohamedMAHMOUD (Mrs.), InformationSpecialist, EgyptianPatentOffice,Academyof Scientific ResearchandTechnology (ASRT),Ministry of Scientific Research,Cairo

MohamedGAD, First Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

EL SALVADOR

MarthaEvelyn MENJIVAR CORTÉZ(Srta.), Consejera,Misión Permanente, Ginebra

ÉMIRATS ARABES UNIS/UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

Rita SAYAH (Miss),AdministrativeStaff, PermanentMissionto theWorld TradeOrganization(WTO)

ÉQUATEUR/ECUADOR

Mauricio MONTALV O, Embajador,RepresentantePermanente,MisiónPermanente,Ginebra

AndrésPatricio YCAZA MANTILLA, Presidente, InstitutoEcuatorianodela PropiedadIntelectual (IEPI), Quito

Luis VAY AS VALDIVIESO, PrimerSecretario, MisiónPermanente,Ginebra


ESPAGNE/SPAIN

Javier AlfonsoMORENORAMOS, Subdirector General, Director, Departamento deCoordinaciónJurídicay RelacionesInternacionales,OficinaEspañoladePatentesy Marcas(OEPM), Ministerio deIndustria, Turismoy Comercio,Madrid

JaimeJIMÉNEZLLORENTE,ConsejeroTécnico,DepartamentodeCoordinaciónJurídicayRelacionesInternacionales, OficinaEspañoladePatentes y Marcas (OEPM),Ministerio deIndustria,Turismoy Comercio,Madrid

CarmenCARO(Sra.),ConsejeraTécnica, SubdirecciónGeneraldePropiedadIntelectual,Subdirección Generalde PropiedadIntelectual,MinisteriodeCultura,Madrid

PatriciaFERNÁNDEZ-MAZARAMBROZ (Srta.),SubdirectoraGeneral Adjunta,DepartamentodelaPropiedadIntelectual, SubdirecciónGeneraldePropiedadIntelectual,Subdirección Generalde PropiedadIntelectual,MinisteriodeCultura,Madrid

Miguel ÁngelVECINO QUINTANA, Consejero,MisiónPermanente,Ginebra

ÉTATS-UNIS D’A MERIQUE/UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

MichaelSHAPIRO, SeniorCounsel,Offi ceof Intellectual Property,PolicyandEnforcement,UnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffi ce(USPTO), Departmentof Commerce,Alexandria

Neil GRAHAM, AttorneyAdvisor,UnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice (USPTO),Departmentof Commerce,Alexandria

CarrieLACROSSE(Ms.), ForeignAffairs Officer, Officeof Intellectual PropertyEnforcement,Bureauof Economics, EnergyandBusinessAffairs, U.S.Departmentof State,Washington,D.C.

Deborah LASHLEY-JOHNSON (Mrs.), Intellectual PropertyAttaché,Permanent Mission,Geneva

EX-RÉPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACÉDOINE/THE FORMERYUGOSLAVREPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

SafetEMRULI, Director,StateOffice of Industrial Property (SOIP),Skopje

IrenaJAKIMOVSKA (Mrs.),Head,PatentandTechnologyWatchDepartment, StateOfficeof Industrial Property(SOIP),Skopje


FÉDÉRATION DE RUSSIE/RUSSIANFEDERATION

Mikhail FALEEV, Director,InternationalCooperationDepartment, Federal ServiceforIntellectualProperty, PatentsandTrademarks(ROSPATENT), Moscow

ElenaKULIKOVA (Ms.), Headof Division, Legal Department, Ministryof ForeignAffairs,Moscow

Dmitry GONCHAR,Counsellor,PermanentMission,Geneva

FINLANDE/FINLAND

RiittaLARJA (Ms.), Coordinator,International andLegal Affai rs,National Boardof Patentsand Registrationof Finland,Helsinki

FRANCE

BruneMESGUICH-JACQUEMIN (Mlle), chargéedemission,Direction del’économieglobaleet desstratégiesdedéveloppement,Sous-direction desaffaireséconomiquesinternationales,Ministèredesaffairesétrangèreset européennes,Paris

ChristopheGUILHOU, représentantpermanent adjoint, Missionpermanente,Genève

DelphineLIDA (Mme),conseillère,Missionpermanente, Genève

GHANA

LorettaASIEDU (Mrs.), First Secretary, Permanent Mission,Geneva

GRÈCE/GREECE

FranciscosVERROS,Ambassador,PermanentRepresentative, PermanentMission,Geneva

StellaKYRIAKO U (Mrs.),Attaché,PermanentMission,Geneva

GUATEMALA

LorenaBOLANÓS,ConsejeraLegal,Misión Permanente, Ginebra


GUINÉE/GUINEA

MohamedCAMARA, ambassadeur,représentantpermanent, Missionpermanente,Genève

AminataKOUROUMA-MIKA LA (Mme), premiersecrétaire, chargéedesaffaireséconomiqueset commerciales,Mission permanente,Genève

HAÏTI/HAI TI

GladysFLORESTAL(Mme),premiersecrétaire, Missionpermanente,Genève

INDE/INDIA

K. NANDINI (Mrs.), First Secretary,Permanent Mission,Geneva

INDONÉSIE/INDONESIA

I. Gusti AgungWesakaPUJA, Ambassador,Deputy Permanent Representative,PermanentMission,Geneva

Y. YASMON, Head,Division of Administration, Secretariat of theDirectorateGeneralofIntellectualProperty Rights,Departmentof Law andHumanRights,Jakarta

YanuarARDHITIY A PRIBADI, Staff Member,Division for Standardization, IntellectualPropertyRightsandDisputeSettlement,Departmentof ForeignAffai rs,Jakarta

JoseA. M. TAVARES, Counsellor,PermanentMission,Geneva

YasmiADRIANSYAH, First Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

WidyaSADNOVIC, Third Secretary, PermanentMission,Geneva

IRAN (RÉPUBLIQUE ISLAMIQUE D’)/IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF)

YazdanNADALIZADEH, SecondCounsellor, PermanentMission,Geneva


IRAQ

Ahlam AL-GAILANI (Mrs.),Chargéd’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission,Geneva

HussainA. ALI, DirectorGeneral,Technical andManagementServices,Central Organizationfor Standardization& QualityControl (COSQC),Ministry of PlanningandDevelopmentCo-operation, Baghdad

TraizaJASIM RIDHA (Ms.), Director,Intellectual Property Section,Central OrganizationforStandardization & QualityControl(COSQC),Ministry of PlanningandDevelopmentCo-operation, Baghdad

AhmedAL-NAKASH, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission,Geneva

IRLANDE/IRELAND

Dáithí O’CEALLAIGH, Ambassador,Permanent Representative,Permanent Mission,Geneva

AnnaPERRY (Ms.), IntellectualPropertyUnit, Departmentof Enterprise,TradeandEmployment,Dublin

JoanRYAN (Ms.), IntellectualPropertyUnit, Departmentof Enterprise,TradeandEmployment,Dublin

Brian HIGGINS,SecondSecretary, PermanentMission,Geneva

ISRAËL/ISRAEL

RonyADAM, DeputyPermanentRepresentative,Permanent Mission,Geneva

ITALIE/ITA LY

AugustoMASSARI, Counsellor,PermanentMission,Geneva

FrancescaFUSCO(Ms.), Intern,PermanentMission,Geneva

JAMAHIRI YA ARABE LIBYENNE/LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA

Fathi AbdulrahmanALGHALI, TrademarksDepartment, PublicNational CommitteeforIndustry,EconomyandTrade,Tripoli

Khalid MohamedALSADAWI, TrademarksDepartment,Public National CommitteeforIndustry,EconomyandTrade,Tripoli

Hussin MAGHADMI, First Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva


JAMAÏQUE/JAMAICA

RichardBROWN, First Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

JAPON/JAPAN

ShintaroTAKAH ARA, Director,Multilateral Policy Office, InternationalAffairs Division,GeneralAffai rs Department,JapanPatentOffice (JPO),Tokyo

Harumi WATANABE, SeniorCultural Policy Analyst,Policy PlanningandCoordinationDivision,Agency for CulturalAffairs, Tokyo

TakaoTSUBATA, Deputy Director,InternationalAffairs Division, General AffairsDepartment, JapanPatentOffice (JPO),Tokyo

KenichiroNATSUME, First Secretary, PermanentMission,Geneva

Kiyoshi SAITO, First Secretary, PermanentMission,Geneva

JORDANIE/JORDAN

BasharABU TALEB, First Secretary,Permanent Mission,Geneva

MohammedHINDAWI, SecondSecretary,Permanent Mission,Geneva

GhailanQUDAH, Third Secretary, PermanentMission,Geneva

KENYA

JamesAggreyOtienoODEK, ManagingDirector,KenyaIndustrial Property Institute(KIPI),Nairobi

MarisellaOUMA (Ms.), ExecutiveDirector, KenyaCopyrightBoard, Attorney-General’sChamber,StateLaw Office, Nairobi

EdwardKiplangatSIGEI,StateCounsel,KenyaCopyrightBoard, StateLaw Office, Nairobi

Nill y KANANA , First Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

KOWEÏT/KUWAIT

FahedBAGER,Headof Sectionof Intellectual Property, Ministryof CommerceandIndustry,Kuwait City


LETTONIE/LATVIA

Janis MAZEIKS,Ambassador,PermanentRepresentative,PermanentMission,Geneva

Zigrids AUMEISTERS, Director,PatentOfficeof theRepublicof Latvia,Riga

IevaDREIMANE (Miss), First Secretary,Permanent Mission,Geneva

LIBAN/LEBANON

Hani CHAAR, Adviser,PermanentMission,Geneva

LITUANIE/LITHU ANIA

EdvardasBORISOVAS,Ambassador,PermanentRepresentative, PermanentMission,Geneva

Robertas NAUDŽIŪNAS, Attaché,PermanentMission,Geneva

LUXEMBOURG

ChristianeDALEIDEN DISTEFANO (Mme), représentantpermanentadjoint, Missionpermanente,Genève

MALAISIE/MALAYSIA

Siti Eaisahbinti MOHAMAD (Mrs.),Director, PlanningandCorporateServicesUnit,IntellectualProperty Corporationof Malaysia(MyIPO), Kuala Lumpur

TEE Lin Yik, Policy andCorporateExecutive, Intellectual PropertyCorporationof Malaysia(MyIPO), KualaLumpur

IsmailMOHAMAD BKRI, First Secretary,Permanent Mission,Geneva

MALI

Sékou KASSÉ, premierconseiller,Missionpermanente, Genève


MAROC/MOROCCO

Omar HILALE, ambassadeur,représentantpermanent,Missionpermanente,Genève

Abdellah OUADRHIRI, directeurgénéral, Bureaumarocain dudroit d’auteur(BMDA),Rabat

DouniaELOUARDI (Mme),chefdedépartement, Unitésystèmed’i nformation, Officemarocain dela propriétéindustrielleet commerciale (OMPIC), Casablanca

MohamedEL MHAMDI, conseiller,Missionpermanente,Genève

MAURICE/MAURITIUS

Tanya PRAYAG-GUJADHUR (Mrs.), SecondSecretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

MEXIQUE/MEXICO

Alfredo RENDÓN ALGARA, DirectorGeneral Adjunto dePropiedadIndustrial, InstitutoMexicanode la PropiedadIndustrial(IMPI), México

Alfredo TOURNÉ GUERRERO,Director,Proteccióncontra la Violación del DerechodeAutor, Instituto Nacionaldel DerechodeAutor (INDAUTOR), México

Miguel MALFAVÓN ANDRADE, Consejero,Misión Permanente, Ginebra

MaríaVictoriaROMEROCABALLERO (Sra.),PrimerSecretario, MisiónPermanente,Ginebra

GustavoTORRES,Asesor, Misión Permanente,Ginebra

MONACO

CaroleLANTERI (Mlle), conseiller, représentantpermanent adjoint, Missionpermanente,Genève

GillesREALINI, troisièmesecrétaire,Missionpermanente,Genève

MYANMAR

Ko Ko OO,Director General,Ministry of ScienceandTechnology,NayPyi Taw

ChoMin HAN, Director,Ministry of ScienceandTechnology,NayPyi Taw

Khin Thidar AYE (Ms.), First Secretary, Permanent Mission,Geneva


NIGÉRIA/NIGERIA

JamilaKandeAHMA DU-SUKA (Mrs.), Registrar,Trademarks,Patents and IndustrialDesigns,FederalMinistry of CommerceandIndustry,Abuja

AdebamboADEWOPO, Director-General, Nigerian CopyrightCommission,FederalMinistryof Justice,Abuja

OlusegunAdeyemiADEKUNLE, Director, PlanningResearch andStatistics,NigerianCopyrightCommission,FederalMinistry of Justice,Abuja

KunleOLA, SeniorCopyright Officer andPersonalAssistantto theDirector General,NigerianCopyrightCommission,FederalMinistryof Justice,Abuja

OsitadinmaANAEDU, Minister,PermanentMission,Geneva

IfeanyiE. NWOSU,Minister,PermanentMission,Geneva

Maigari GuramaBUBA, Counsellor,PermanentMission,Geneva

NORVÈGE/NORWAY

MariaENGØYDUNA (Ms.), Director,Legal andInternational Affai rs,NorwegianIndustrialPropertyOffice (NIPO), Oslo

Gry KarenWAAGE(Mrs.), Counsellor,PermanentMission,Geneva

OMAN

YahyaBin IssaAL-RIYAMI, IntellectualProperty Expert, DirectorateGeneral ofOrganizationsandCommercialRelations,Ministryof Commerceand Industry, Muscat

FatimaAL-GHAZALI (Mrs.), Plenipotentiary Minister,PermanentMission,Geneva

OUZBÉKISTAN/UZBEKISTAN

Bakhtiyor AMONOV, Director,StatePatentOfficeof theRepublic of Uzbekistan,Tashkent

PAKISTAN

Pervaiz KAUSAR, Chairman,IntellectualProperty Organizationof Pakistan,Islamabad


PARAGUAY

RigobertoGAUTO VIELM AN, Embajador,RepresentantePermanente,Misión Permanente,Ginebra

Raúl MARTÍNEZ, SegundoSecretario,MisiónPermanente,Ginebra

PAYS-BAS/NETHERLANDS

Margreet GROENENBOOM (Ms.),SeniorPolicy Advisor,Ministry of EconomicAf fairs,TheHague

Irene KNOBEN (Ms.), First Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

PÉROU/PERU

Flavio NUÑEZ ECHAIZ, SecretarioTécnico, Instituto Nacional deDefensadelaCompetenciay delaProteccióndela PropiedadIntelectual (INDECOPI),MinisteriodeIndustria,Turismo,Integracióny NegociacionesComercialesInternacionales(MITINCI) ,Lima

Giancarlo LEÓN, SegundoSecretario,Misión Permanente, Ginebra

PHILIPPINES

ErlindaF. BASILIO (Mrs.), Ambassador,PermanentRepresentative, PermanentMission,Geneva

DenisY. LEPATAN, DeputyPermanentRepresentative, PermanentMission,Geneva

MariaTeresaC. LEPATAN (Mrs.), Minister, PermanentMission,Geneva

AdrianS. CRISTOBAL Jr.,DirectorGeneral, Intellectual PropertyOffice (IP Philippines),Makati City

JosephineM. REYNANTE (Ms.), First Secretary, PermanentMission,Geneva

KatrinaF. ONDIANO (Ms.), Attaché,PermanentMission,Geneva

POLOGNE/POLAND

GrażynaLACHOWICZ (Miss),Head,International CooperationUnit, Patent Officeof theRepublicof Poland,Warsaw

MalgorzataCICHUCKA (Mrs.), First Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva


PORTUGAL

Maria LuisaARAÚJO(Ms.),Head,International RelationsDepartment,National InstituteofIndustrial Property(INPI), Ministry of Justice,Lisbon

QATAR

NasserSaleh.H. AL SULAITI, TradeMark Registrar, Industrial Property Office,Ministry ofEconomyandCommerce,Doha

NasserLENQAWI, AttachéCommercial, Permanent Mission,Geneva

RÉPUBLIQUE ARABE SYRIENNE/SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC

Abd Al KhalekALAAN Y, Deputy Minister,Directorateof Commercial andIndustrialProperty,Ministry of EconomyandTrade,Damascus

Jamil ASA’D, Director,Directorateof Commercial andIndustrial Property,Ministry ofEconomyandTrade,Damascus

MaherAL MATROUD, Head,NationalReceiving Officeof IntellectualProperty, Damascus

SouheilaABBAS (Mrs.), SecondSecretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

RÉPUBLIQUE DE CORÉE/REPUBLIC OFKOREA

PARK EunKyuil (Ms.),DeputyDirector,International Organization Division,KoreanIntellectualProperty Office (KIPO),Daejeon

PARK Seong-Joon,First Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

RÉPUBLIQUE DÉMOCRATIQUEDU CONGO/DEMOCRATICREPUBLICOFTHECONGO

FidèleSAMBASSIKHAKESSA, ministreconseiller, affaireséconomiques,Missionpermanente,Genève

RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA/REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

DorianCHIROŞCA, Director General,StateAgencyon Intellectual Property (AGEPI),Kishinev


RÉPUBLIQUE DOMINICAINE/DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

Ysset ROMÁN MALDONADO (Srta.),MinistroConsejero,Misión Permanente,Ginebra

RÉPUBLIQUE POPULAIRE DÉMOCRATIQUEDE CORÉE/DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’SREPUBLIC OF KOREA

SOK JongMyong, Counsellor,PermanentMission,Geneva

RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE/CZECHREPUBLIC

Pavel ZEMAN, Director,CopyrightDepartment, Ministry of Culture,Prague

AdélaFALADOVÁ (Ms.), Deputy Head,CopyrightDepartment, Ministry of Culture,Prague

KristínaMAGDOLENOVÁ (Ms.),Copyright Department, Ministry of Culture,Prague

Lucie ZAMY KALOVÁ (Ms.),Senior Officer,PatentLaw Issues,InternationalDepartment,Industrial PropertyOffice, Prague

LucieTRPÍKOVÁ (Ms.), Lawyer, International Department, IndustrialPropertyOffice,Prague

PetrBAMBAS, Counsellor,PermanentMission,Geneva

AndreaPETRÁNKOVÁ (Ms.), Third Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

PetraMYŠÁKOVÁ (Ms.), Trainee,PermanentMission,Geneva

ROUMANIE/ROMANIA

RodicaPÂRVU (Mrs.),DirectorGeneral,Romanian Copyright Office (ORDA), Bucharest

Liviu BULGĂR, Director,LegalandInternationalAffairs, TrademarksandDesignsDirectorate,StateOffice for InventionsandTrademarks(OSIM), Bucharest

ROYAUME-UNI/UNITED KINGDOM

NathanielWAPSHERE,SecondSecretary(Specialized Agencies),Permanent Mission,Geneva


SAINT-SIÈGE/HOLY SEE

SilvanoM. TOMASI, nonceapostolique,observateur permanent, Missionpermanente,Genève

Anne-MarieCOLANDRÉA (Mlle), attaché,Missionpermanente, Genève

SÉNÉGAL/SENEGAL

Elhadji Ibou BOYE, deuxièmeconseiller, Missionpermanente,Genève

SERBIE/SERBIA

SlobodanVUKČEVIĆ, Ambassador,PermanentRepresentative,PermanentMission,Geneva

EminaKULENOVIĆ-GRUJIĆ (Mrs.), Head,InternationalCooperationDepartment,IntellectualProperty Office, Belgrade

VesnaFILIPOVIĆ-NIKOLIĆ (Mrs.), Counsellor, PermanentMission, Geneva

SINGAPOUR/SINGAPORE

JaimeHO, DeputyPermanentRepresentative, PermanentMissionto theWorld TradeOrganization(WTO), Geneva

LIEW Li Lin (Ms.), SecondSecretary,PermanentMissionto theWorld TradeOrganization(WTO), Geneva

SOUDAN/SUDAN

Amal HassanEL TINAY (Mrs.),Registrar Generalof Intellectual Property, MinistryofJustice,Khartoum

MohammedHassanKHAIR, First Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

SUÈDE/SWEDEN

Henry OLSSON, SpecialGovernmentAdvisor,Division for IntellectualProperty andTransportLaw, Ministry of Justice,Stockholm

Elisabeth BILL (Mrs.), LegalAdvisor, Division for Intellectual Property andTransport Law,Ministry of Justice,Stockholm


SUISSE/SWITZERLAND

AlexandraGRAZIOLI (Mme),conseillèrejuridique,Divisiondroit et affairesinternationales,Institut fédéraldela propriétéintellectuelle (IPI), Berne

LenaPAPAGEORGIOU(Mme),conseillère juridique,Division droit et affairesinternationales,Institut fédéraldela propriétéintellectuelle (IPI), Berne

THAÏLANDE/ THAILAND

Puangrat ASAVAPISIT (Mrs.), DirectorGeneral, Departmentof Intellectual Property,Ministry of Commerce,Nonthaburi

Vijavat ISARABHAKDI, Ambassador, Deputy PermanentRepresentative, PermanentMission,Geneva

Kajit SUKHUM, AssistantDirectorGeneral, Departmentof Intellectual Property, Ministry ofCommerce,Bangkok

KwanjaiKULKU MTHORN (Mrs.), Senior Officer,Departmentof Intellectual Property,Ministry of Commerce,Bangkok

Tanyarat MUNGKALARUNGSI (Ms.), First Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

NamyardNANTA (Ms.), Official, Departmentof Intellectual Property,Ministry ofCommerce,Bangkok

Vowpailin CHOVICHIEN (Miss),Third Secretary,Departmentof InternationalEconomicAffairs, Ministry of ForeignAffairs, Bangkok

TRINITÉ-ET-TOBAGO/TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

DennisFRANCIS, Ambassador,PermanentRepresentative, PermanentMission, Geneva

MazinaKADIR (Ms.), Controller,IntellectualPropertyOffice, Ministryof LegalAf fairs,Port of Spain

TUNISIE/TUNISIA

Youssef BEN BRAHIM, directeur,Secteurdes affairesjuridiques,Ministèredela cultureetde la sauvegardedupatrimoine,Tunis

AymenMEKKI, directeurgénéral,Institut national dela normalisation et dela propriétéindustrielle(INNORPI),Tunis

MohamedAbderraouf BDIOUI, conseiller, Missionpermanente,Genève


TURQUIE/TURKEY

FüsunATASAY (Ms.), Division Director,International Affairs Department, TurkishPatentInstitute,Ankara

Yeşim BAYK AL (Mrs.), LegalCounsellor,PermanentMission,Geneva

UKRAINE

Mykola PALADII, Chairman,StateDepartmentof Intellectual Property(SDIP),Ministry ofEducationandScience, Kyiv

OlenaSHCHERBAKOVA (Ms.),Head,EuropeanIntegrationandInternational CooperationDivision,StateDepartmentof Intellectual Property (SDIP),Ministry of Education andScience,Kyiv

NatalyaUDOVYTSKA (Mrs.), Head,Financial-Administrative Division,StateDepartmentofIntellectualProperty (SDIP),Ministry of Education andScience, Kyiv

RoksolyanaGUDZOVATA (Ms.), ChiefSpecialist, European Integration andInternationalCooperationDivision,StateDepartmentof Intellectual Property(SDIP),Ministry ofEducationandScience,Kyiv

URUGUAY

Luis AlbertoGESTAL, EncargadodeDivisión deMarcas,DirecciónNacional delaPropiedadIndustrial (DNPI), Montevideo

MartaRamonaFRANCOOXLEY (Sra.),Encargadadel ÁreaMultilateral, DireccióndeRelacionesEconómicasy NegociosInternacionales,Ministerio deRelacionesExteriores yNegocioInternacional,Montevideo

VIET NAM

MAI VanSon,Head, InternationalCooperation Division,National Officeof IntellectualProperty(NOIP),Hanoi

YÉMEN/YEMEN

FawazAL-RASSAS, Third Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

ZAMBIE/ZAMBI A

ChristopherMeebeloSITWALA, First Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva


ZIMBABWE

Innocent MAWIRE, SeniorLegalOfficer, Ministry of JusticeandLegalResearchDepartment, Harare

II. OBSERVATEUR/OBSERVER

PALESTINE

BakerM.B. HIJAZI, First Secretary, PermanentObserverMission,Geneva


III. ORGANISATIONS INTERNATIONALESINTERGOUVERNEMENTALES/

INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTALORGANIZATIONS

CONFÉRENCEDESNATIONS UNIES SURLE COMMERCEET LEDÉVELOPPEMENT(CNUCED)/UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCEON TRADE ANDDEVELOPMENT(UNCTAD)

Kiyoshi ADACHI, LegalOfficer, IntellectualProperty Team,Policy ImplementationSection,Geneva

ErmiasBIADGLENG, LegalExpert,Intellectual Property Team, Policy ImplementationSection,Geneva

ChristophSPENNEMANN, Legal Expert,IntellectualProperty Team,Policy ImplementationSection,Geneva

Anbin XU (Ms.), IntellectualPropertyTeam, Policy Implementation Section,Geneva

ORGANISATIONDESNATIONS UNIES POURL’AL IMENTATION ETL’ AGRICULTURE (FAO)/FOODAND AGRICULTUREORGANIZATION OFTHEUNITED NATIONS (FAO)

ManzourAHMAD, Director,FAO LiaisonOffi cewith theUnitedNations,Geneva

ORGANISATIONMONDIALE DE LA SANTÉ(OMS)/WORLD HEALTHORGANIZATION (WHO)

GinaVEA (Ms.), TechnicalOfficer, WHO Secretariat onPublic Health, InnovationandIntellectualProperty, Geneva

COMMISSION DESCOMMUNAUTÉSEUROPÉENNES(CCE)/COMMISSIONOFTHEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIES (CEC)

ClaudiaCOLLA (Ms.), LegalandPolicy Affai rs Officer, Industrial Property,Directorate-Generalfor theInternal MarketandServices,Brussels

SergioBALIBREA SANCHO,Counsellor, Permanent Delegation, Geneva


COMMUNAUTÉ DESCARAÏBES (CARICOM)/CARIBBEAN COMMUNITY(CARICOM)

BevanNARINESINGH, SeniorLegalOfficer,CARICOM Secretariat,GreaterGeorgetown,Guyana

LIGUEDESÉTATS ARABES(LEA)/LEAGUE OFARAB STATES(LAS)

YoucefTILIOUANT, Third Secretary, PermanentDelegation, Geneva

OFFICE DES BREVETSDU CONSEIL DE COOPÉRATIONDESÉTATS ARABES DUGOLFE(CCG)/PATENT OFFICEOF THE COOPERATIONCOUNCIL FORTHE ARABSTATES OFTHE GULF (GCC)

Rashid K. AL-GHATRIFI, AssistantDirector,Technical ExaminationDepartment,Riyadh

OFFICE EUROPÉENDESBREVETS(OEB)/EUROPEANPATENTOFFICE(EPO)

KonstantinosKARACHALIOS, Director, Relationswith International IntergovernmentalOrganizationsandInstitutions,Munich

ORGANISATIONARABE POUR L’ ÉDUCATION, LA CULTUREET LA SCIENCE(ALECSO)/ARAB LEAGUE EDUCATIONAL , CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFICORGANIZATION (ALECSO)

Rita AWAD (Ms.), Director,Departmentof Culture,Tunis

ORGANISATION DE LA CONFÉRENCEISLAMIQUE (OCI)/ORGANIZATION OFTHEISLAMIC CONFERENCE(OIC)

Babacar BA, Ambassador,PermanentObserver, PermanentDelegation, Geneva

JakhongirKHASANOV, Department of Economic Affairs, Jeddah

AissataKANE (Mrs.), First Secretary,PermanentDelegation, Geneva

ORGANISATIONEURASIENNE DESBREVETS (OEAB)/EURASIAN PATENTORGANIZATION (EAPO)

KhabibulloFAYAZOV, Vice-President,Moscow


ORGANISATIONMONDIALE DU COMMERCE (OMC)/WORLD TRADEORGANIZATION (WTO)

JayashreeWATAL (Mrs.), Counsellor, Intellectual PropertyDivision,Geneva

XiaopingWU (Ms.), Counsellor,IntellectualPropertyDivision, Geneva

SOUTH CENTRE

XuanLI (Miss),Coordinator,Geneva

Vivi anaMUÑOZ (Ms.), ProgrammeOffi cer,Geneva

NirmalyaSYAM, ProgrammeOfficer, Geneva

ArtitayaPUASIRI (Ms.), Intern,Geneva

UNION AFRICAINE (UA)/AFRICAN UNION (AU)

KhadijaRachidaMASRI (Mrs.),Ambassador,Permanent Observer,Permanent Delegation,Geneva

Georges-Rémi NAMEKONG, SeniorEconomist, Permanent Delegation,Geneva


IV. ORGANISATIONSINTERNATIONALES NON GOUVERNEMENTALES/INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Association européennedesétudiantsendroit (ELSA international)/EuropeanLaw Students’Association (ELSA International)StefanieGEISS(Miss) (Representative, Germany); Vil danHRUSTEMOVA (Miss)(Representative, Sweden); ChristophJESCHECK(Representative, Germany);KristinaLEHNER (Miss) (Representative,Germany)

Association internationaledel’hôtellerie et restauration (IH&RA)/International Hotel andRestaurantAssociation(IH&RA )Abraham ROSENTAL(DirectorGeneral, Geneva); Thalis PAPADOPOULOS(DirectorofIndustryAffai rs,Geneva)

Association internationalepourla protectiondela propriété intellectuelle (AIPPI)/InternationalAssociationfor theProtectionof Intellectual Property(AIPPI)KonradBECKER(Representative,Zurich)

Association IQSensato(IQSensato)SisuleF. MUSUNGU(President,Geneva); Dick KAWOOYA (Research Associate,Geneva);PerihanABOU ZEID (Ms.) (ResearchAssociate,Geneva)

Centred’échange et decoopérationpourl’Amériquelatine(CECAL)/ExchangeandCooperationCentrefor Latin America(ECCLA)DildarRABBANI (Delegate,Geneva)

Centreinternational decommerceet dedéveloppementdurable (ICTSD)/InternationalCenterfor TradeandSustainableDevelopment(ICTSD)Pedro ROFFE(SeniorFellow, Intellectual Property andSustainable DevelopmentProgramme,Geneva);DavidVIVAS (Deputy ProgrammesDirector, Geneva);CarolynDEERE(Ms.) (ResidentScholar,Geneva); Ahmed ABDEL LATIF (IPRsandTechnologyProgrammeManager);Camille LatoyaRUSSEL(Ms.) (IPRsResearchAssistant,Geneva)

Centralesanitairesuisseromande(CSSR)Louis HENNY (représentant, Genève); Ann GUT (Mme) (représentant, Genève);BrunoVITALE (représentant,Genève)

Centrepourledroit internationaldel’environnement(CIEL)/Centrefor InternationalEnvironment Law (CIEL)DalindyeboSHABALAL A (Director,Projecton IP andSustainable Development,Geneva);BaskutTUNCAT (Intern,Geneva);AnniseMAGUIRE (Intern, Geneva); JohannesNORPORTH (Fellow, Geneva)

Chambredecommerceinternationale(CCI)/International Chamberof Commerce(ICC)ThaddeusBURNS(SeniorCorporateIP Counsel-Europe, Geneva)


Civil Society Coalition (CSC)MarcPERLMAN (Fellow, Washington,D.C.)

CropLife InternationalTatjanaR. SACHSE(Ms.) (Representative,Geneva)

ElectronicFrontier Foundation(EFF)EddanKATZ (Director,InternationalAffai rs,SanFrancisco); Kai KIMPPA (Lecturer,Departmentof InformationTechnology, Departmentof Information Technology, Universityof Turku,Finland)

ElectronicInformationfor Libraries(eIFL)TeresaHACKETT (Ms.) (ProjectManagereIFL-IP, Rome)

EuropeanDigital Rights(EDRI)Kai KIM PA (Lecturer,InformationSystems,Departmentof InformationTechnology,University of Turku,Finland)

Fédération ibéro-latino-américainedesartistesinterprètesouexécutants(FILAIE)/Ibero-Latin-AmericanFederationof Performers(FILAIE)Luis COBOS(Presidente,Madrid); Miguel PÉREZSOLÍS(AsesorJurídico,Madrid);CarlosLÓPEZSÁNCHEZ(AsesorJurídico, Madrid); PalomaLÓPEZ PELÁEZ (Sra.)(AsesorJurídico,Madrid); JoséLuis SEVILLANO (AsesorJurídico,Madrid)

Fédération internationaledel’industriedumédicament(FIIM)/InternationalFederationofPharmaceutical ManufacturersAssociations(IFPMA)Douglas HAWKINS (Representative,Geneva); GuilhermeCINTRA (International TradeandMarketPolicy, Geneva)

Fédération internationaledel’industriephonographique(IFPI)/International Federationof thePhonographicIndustry (IFPI)GadiORON(Senior Legal Advisor,London)

Fédération internationaledesassociationsdeproducteursdefi lms (FIAPF)/InternationalFederation of Film ProducersAssociations(FIAPF)BertrandMOULLIER (Representative,Paris)

Fédération internationaledela vidéo(IVF)/International VideoFederation (IVF)Philipp RUNGE(LegalAdvisor, Brussels); Scott MARTIN (Legal Advisor,Brussels);Philip JENNER (LegalAdvisor,Brussels)

Fédération internationaledesassociationsdedistributeursdefil ms(FIAD)/InternationalFederation of Associationsof Film Distributors(FIAD)AntoineVIRENQUE (secrétairegénéral, Paris)

Fédération internationaledesorganismes gérant les droits dereproduction (IFRRO)/InternationalFederationof ReproductionRights Organizations(IFRRO)TarjaKOSKINEN-OLSSON(Mrs.) (HonoraryPresident,Helsinki)


FreeSoftwareFoundationEurope(FSFEurope)GeorgGREVE (President, Zurich); ThomasJENSCH(Intern,Zurich)

IndigenousICT TaskForce(IITF)Ann-Kristin HÅKANSSON (Ms.) (Member,Sapmi)

IngénieursduMonde(IdM)FrançoisULLMANN (président,Genève)

Institutefor Policy Innovation(IPI)Tom GIOVANETTI (President,Lewisville)

InternationalTrademarkAssociation(INTA)BrunoMACHADO (GenevaRepresentative, Rolle)

KnowledgeEcology International(KEI)Thiru BALASUBRAMAN IAM (Representative, Geneva)

LibraryCopyrightAlliance (LCA)JaniceT. PILCH (Ms.) (Representative,Slavic andEastEuropean Library, UniversityofIll inois,Urbana)

Max-PlanckInstitute for IntellectualProperty,Competition andTax Law (MPI)HenningGROSSERUSE-KHAN (Research Fellow, Munich)

Organisationpourun réseauinternationaldesindicationsgéographiques(oriGIn)/Organizationfor anInternationalGeographical IndicationsNetwork (oriGIn)MassimoVITTORI (Secretary General,Geneva)

Third World Network (TWN)SaniaSMITH (Ms.) (Representative,Geneva); SangeetaSHASHIKANT (Miss) (LegalAdvisor,Geneva)

Union internationaledeséditeurs(UIE)/International PublishersAssociation (IPA)Jens BAMMEL (SecretaryGeneral, Geneva)


V. ORGANISATIONS NATIONALESNON GOUVERNEMENTALES/NATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

ChambredecommercedesÉtats-Unis d’Amérique(CCUSA)/Chamberof Commerceof theUnitedStatesof America(CCUSA)BradHUTHER (SeniorDirector,Washington,D.C.); PatriciaKABULEETA (Miss)(Advisor, Intellectual PropertyDepartment,WashingtonD.C.)

FundaçãoGetulio Vargas(FGV)Pedro PARANAGUÁ (ProjectLeader,Rio deJaneiro)

VI. BUREAU/OFFICERS

Président/Chair: TrevorCLARKE (Barbade/Barbados)

Vice-Président/Vice Chair: JavierAlfonsoMORENORAMOS (Espagne/Spain)MohamedAbderraouf BDIOUI (Tunisie/Tunisia)

Secrétaire/Secretary: Irfan BALOCH (OMPI/WIPO)


VII. SECRÉTARIAT DE L’ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LAPROPRIÉTÉ INTELLECTUELLE (OMPI)/

SECRETARIAT OFTHE WORLD INTELLECTUALPROPERTY ORGANIZA TION (WIPO)

Francis GURRY,Directeurgénéral/Director General

Irfan BALOCH, secrétairedu Comité du développement et de la propriétéintellectuelle (CDIP) et directeurparintérim, Divisiondela coordination dupland’actionpour le développement/Secretaryto theCommittee on Development and Intellectual Property(CDIP) andActing Director,DevelopmentAgendaCoordination Division

Yoshiyuki TAKAGI, directeurexécutif,Départementdel’infrastructuremondialeenmatièredepropriétéintellectuelle/ExecutiveDirector,GlobalIP InfrastructureDepartment

Herman NTCHATCHO, directeur principal,Secteurdel’assistancetechniqueet durenforcement descapacités, Bureaude l’assistancetechniqueet du renforcementdescapacitéspour l’Afrique/SeniorDirector,TechnicalAssistanceandCapacityBuildingBureauforAfrica, Technical AssistanceandCapacityBuilding Sector

Svein ARNEBERG,directeur parintérim,Départementdela gestion desressourceshumaines/Acting Director,HumanResourcesManagementDivision

GuriqbalSingh JAIYA, directeur,Division despetiteset moyennesentreprises(PME),Bureaudel’ut ili sation stratégiquedela propriété intellectuelle pourle développement/Director,Small andMedium-SizedEnterprises(SMEs)Division, Office of StrategicUseofIntellectualProperty for Development

MarcoPAUTASSO, directeur-conseillerparintérim, Secteur del’assistance techniqueet durenforcement descapacités/Acting Director-Advisor,Technical Assistance andCapacityBuilding Sector

Kiflé SHENKORU,directeur,Secteurdel’ assistancetechniqueet du renforcementdescapacités, Divisionpour lespayslesmoins avancés/Director, Technical AssistanceandCapacityBuildingSector, Division for Least-Developed Countries

Nicholas TREEN, directeur,Division del’audit et dela supervisioninternes/Director, InternalAudit andOversight Division

Dimiter GANTCHEV, directeur parintérim,Divisiondesindustriesdelacréation, Bureaudel’utilisationstratégiquedela propriétéintellectuelle pourledéveloppement/Acting Director,CreativeIndustriesDivision, Office of Strategic Useof Intellectual Propertyfor Development

GAO Hang(Mme/Mrs.), chefet vice-doyenne,Programmed’élaborationdespolitiques,Bureaududoyen, Bureaudela planificationstratégiqueet dudéveloppement despolitiquesetde l’Académiemondialedel’OMPI, Académie mondialedel’OMPI et Divisiondela miseenvaleur ressourceshumaines/DeputyDeanandHead, Policy DevelopmentProgram,Offi ceof


theDean,Office of Strategic PlanningandPolicy Development, andtheWIPOWorldwideAcademy,WIPOWorldwideAcademyandDivisionof Human ResourcesDevelopment

NunoPIRES DE CARVALHO, directeurparintérim, Division delapolitiquegénéraleet dudéveloppement, Bureaudel’utilisation stratégiquedela propriétéintellectuelle pourledéveloppement/Acting Director,Division for Public Policy andDevelopment, OfficeofStrategicUseof IntellectualPropertyfor Development

Alba STEINER(Mme/Mrs.),chef,Service desconférences/Head,ConferenceService

BajoeWIBOWO, administrateurdeprogramme, Division dela coordinationdupland’actionpour le développement/ProgramOfficer, Development AgendaCoordination Division

EstebanBURRONE,administrateurdeprogramme, Divisiondela coordination dupland’action pour ledéveloppement/ProgramOfficer,DevelopmentAgendaCoordinationDivision

Paul REGIS,administrateuradjointdeprogramme, Divisiondela coordination du pland’action pour ledéveloppement/Assistant Program Officer, Development AgendaCoordinationDivision

Georges GHANDOUR,consultant,Divisiondela coordination dupland’actionpourledéveloppement/Consultant,DevelopmentAgendaCoordination Division

UsmanSARKI, consultant,Division delacoordinationdupland’action pourledéveloppement/Consultant,DevelopmentAgendaCoordination Division

[Fin del’annexeet dudocument/Endof Annexandof document]

W ORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION · CDIP /3/9 Prov.2 page 4 General S tatements 13....

Documents

Transcript of W ORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION · CDIP /3/9 Prov.2 page 4 General S tatements 13....