[DMCA-Activists] WIPO Reform Petition + Graphic at Lessig Blog

[Seth Johnson]

Petition pasted below:
> http://www.petitiononline.com/wipo/petition.html

Graphic:
> http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002777.shtml


Seth

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [A2k] [Fwd: [Ip-health] Lessig on WIPO Accreditation for
Development Agendameetings]
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 08:46:07 -0500
From: Manon Ress <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden,a2k discuss list
<address@hidden>

EFF created the cool and telling pic.
Manon

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Ip-health] Lessig on WIPO Accreditation for Development
Agenda
meetings
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:50:50 -0500
From: James Love <address@hidden>
To: Ip-health <address@hidden>

http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002777.shtml

--
James Love, Director, CPTech, http://www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC
PO Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, USA
Tel.:  1.202.387.8030, fax: 1.202.234.5176

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva
1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Mobile +1.202.361.3040
address@hidden
_______________________________________________
Ip-health mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health



--
Manon Anne Ress
address@hidden,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC PO Box 19367,
Washington, DC 20036, USA Tel.:  +1.202.387.8030, fax:
+1.202.234.5176

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des  Morillons,
CP
2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology in London, 24 Highbury Crescent,
London,
N5 1RX, UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386
4642. Fax:
+44(0)207 354 0607

_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

---

> http://www.petitiononline.com/wipo/petition.html


To:  WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization

English version (versão em português abaixo):

Manifesto for Transparency, Participation, Balance and Access


Open Letter to the United Nation's (U.N.) World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO)

Dr. Kamil Idris
Director General
World Intellectual Property Organization – WIPO
Chemin des Colombettes 34
1211 Geneva Switzerland

We constructivelly and respectfully call on the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to reform itself in the
following ways:


A Call for Reform


We demand TRANSPARENCY within WIPO and strongly reject any kind
of disproportionate representation.

Yet, we call for an immediate PARTICIPATION of civil society and
consumer-interest non-governmental organizations (NGOs) within
WIPO's activities. Specifically, but not limited to accepting
applications from NGOs to serve as ad hoc observers at the
upcoming Inter-sessional Intergovernmental Metting next 11-13
April 2005, and for the Permanent Committee on Cooperation for
Development Related to Intellectual Property, next 14-15 April
2005, in order to provide a BALANCED discussion on the
Development Agenda and on the IP system in general, observing an
equilibrium between IP right holders and consumers.

Furthermore, we urge that WIPO, as a United Nations (U.N.)
specialised agency responsible for promoting creative
intellectual activity and for facilitating the transfer of
technology related to industrial property to the developing
countries in order to accelerate economic, social and cultural
development, plays its role in making ACCESS to knowledge
feasible for humanity, bearing in mind different needs
(including, but not limited to, those of the visual and audio
impaired) and stages of development.


Supporting Facts, Rules and Principles


WIPO's Development Agenda


There is an evident absence of balance between rights-holder
representatives, and public and civil society interests.

In this context, a Development Agenda for the U.N.'s WIPO was
proposed in September-October 2004 in WIPO's General Assembly,
having as its co-sponsors 14 (fourteen) Member states (*1) (as of
04 October 2004).

The Development Agenda's main observations and issues, as shown
in the Annex, have sparked widespread manifestations of support
from consumer advocate groups and organizations devoted to civil
society's interests.

The Development Agenda was welcomed by WIPO's 2004 General
Assembly, to be examined on Inter-sessional Intergovernmental
Meetings, on which a report will be prepared by 30 July 2005 for
the consideration of the September 2005 WIPO's General Assembly.


WIPO's Role as a U.N. Specialised Agency


The U.N. shall promote conditions of economic and social
progress, of development and solutions of international economic,
social, health, and related problems; and international cultural
and educational cooperation (Charter of the U.N., art. 55).

The U.N. recognises WIPO as one of its specialized agencies
(Agreement between the United Nations and the World Intellectual
Property Organization, art. 1).

WIPO is responsible for promoting creative intellectual activity
and for facilitating the transfer of technology related to
industrial property to the developing countries in order to
accelerate economic, social and cultural development (Agreement
between the United Nations and the World Intellectual Property
Organization, art. 1).

WIPO is subject to the competence and responsibilities of the
U.N. and its organs (Agreement between the United Nations and the
World Intellectual Property Organization, art. 1).

WIPO's Meetings for Discussion of IP and Development-Related
Matters

WIPO's annual General Assembly has to approve any request for
permanent observer status.

NGOs and IGOs may participate as ad hoc observers on WIPO's
meetings, as has been the case for many to date.

The recent WIPO policy of not accepting NGOs on an ad hoc basis
to observe the proceedings of the Inter-sessional
Intergovernmental Meeting, and on the Permanent Committee on
Cooperation for Development Related to Intellectual Property, to
be held next 11-13, and 14-15, April 2005 is manifestly unfair
and unjustifiable. This decision shuts out all NGOs and IGOs that
have not been previously granted permanent observer status.

Given that the announcement of the Inter-sessional
Intergovernmental Meeting came AFTER the last plenary session,
this decision means that it is impossible for any organization
whose interest lies solely with the Development Agenda to
participate in this key inaugural meeting. It is procedurally not
possible that an NGO that has an interest in the Development
Agenda could have received permanent observer status in time to
attend the meeting. This is a blatant "cooking" of the WIPO
process that can have only one effect: limiting the participation
of the very same civil society NGOs whose proposals spurred the
creation of the Development Agenda in the first place.

This conflicts with item 7 of the Development Agenda Annex, which
specifies that WIPO must take appropriate measures to ensure the
wide participation of civil society in WIPO's archives.

These meetings are intended to examine the proposals contained in
the mentioned Development Agenda, and will benefit greatly from
the participation of civil society NGOs.


Recent WIPO Meeting on the Harmonisation of Patent Laws


Moreover, WIPO held a two-day informal meeting in Casablanca,
Marocco, on 15-16 February 2005, to discuss the harmonisation of
patent law throughout the world, inviting only Brazil but no
other country from the group of countries that co-sponsored the
Development Agenda.

At this meeting, India was invited to serve as chair. India is
one of Brazil's traditional allies on IP issues, and putting
India in the chairman's seat effectively neutralized it, as the
chair is not permitted to "interfere" in discussions. This had
the effect of isolating Brazil, and making its position seem
obstructionist to outside observers.

This was compounded by the nature of the other invitees to this
meeting. The rest of the attendees were drawn from national
patent offices, rightsholder industry organizations, and other
countries that have been passive on the WIPO debates on the
Development Agenda, or that are already committed to "TRIPS-plus"
patent regimes as part of their bilateral or regional trade
agreements. This further unbalanced the debate, and further
isolated Brazil, the sole invited proponent of less restrictive
patent regimes.


Joint International Seminar on IP and Development with the WTO
and UNCTAD

Twelve days ago (*2), the notice of the 02-03 May 2005 open
International Seminar on IP and Development, vanished from the
WIPO website. This meeting is being held jointly with the WTO,
WHO, UNIDO and UNCTAD, as per one of the proposals by the
Development Agenda. The abrupt disappearance of this notice
speaks poorly for WIPO's transparency and commitment to broad
paticipation. The WIPO General Assembly resolution of October 4,
2004 expressly provided that this seminar would be open to the
particpation of all stakeholders, including NGOs, civil society,
and academics.


(*1) Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Egypt, Iran, Kenya, Peru, Sierra Leone, South Africa,
Tanzania and Venezuela.

(*2) Since 25 February 2005 until now, 09 March 2005.



Annex
Development Agenda's main observations and issues


i) development remains a challenge, and a significant “knowledge
gap” as well as a “digital divide” continue to separate the
wealthy nations from the poor;

ii) the protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs) is not
an end in and of itself; rather IPRs are tactical instruments
used to bridge the knowledge gap and the digital divide;

iii) equally, harmonisation efforts on IPRs must be subservient
to the different development needs in Member states; these
nations being able to afford the flexibility they need to serve
their national ends;

iv) the protection of IPRs shall never come at the expense of the
legitimate interests of the public, and the cost of IP regimes
shall always be weighed against the public benefit;

v) the WTO's Doha Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public
Health is an important milestone, as it recognises TRIPs as an
international instrument for supporting public health objectives
in Member states, not as an instrument for merely expanding IPRs;

vi) as a member of the U.N., WIPO must comply with and be guided
by the broad development goals of the U.N.;

vii) despite WIPO already being mandated to take into account the
U.N. system, the WIPO Convention (1967) shall be amended to
ensure that the “development dimension” is inequivocally taken
into account;

viii) WIPO treaties are generally extending existing obligations
under the WTO's TRIPs Agreement, which unduly increases the
burden put on developing and least developed countries, thus WIPO
instruments should not expand upon TRIPs obligations;

ix) the WTO's TRIPs Agreement includes two articles – 7 and 8 –
that set out objectives and principles for international
instruments on knowledge goods. They call on these instruments to
promote technological innovation, transfer and dissemination of
technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users so as
to conduct to social and economic welfare, and to the balance of
rights and obligations; adoption of measures necessary to protect
public health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest
in sectors of vital importance to socio-economic and
technological development, and to prevent the abuse of IP rights
by right holders or the resort of practices which unreasonably
restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of
technology. Language drawn from these clauses should appear in
all future WIPO instruments;

x) higher standards of IP protection have failed to foster the
transfer of technology through foreign direct investment and
licensing;

xi) besides including clear provisions on transfer of technology
in treaties under negotiation in WIPO, a new subsidiary body
within WIPO (Standing Committee on IP and the Transfer of
Technology) shall be established in order to ensure an effective
transfer of technology to developing countries, including the
creation of an international regime that would promote access by
the developing countries to the results of publicly funded
research in the developed countries;

xii) creation of a Treaty on Access to Knowledge and Technology;

xiii) accordingly, it is important to bear in mind the relevance
of open access models and knowledge sharing for the promotion of
innovation and creativity, like free and open source software, as
well as to safeguard the exceptions and limitations existing in
domestic laws;

xiv) regarding enforcement, there must be a concern not only to
take into account right holders, but its obligations as well, in
a way that right holders take fair and equitable procedures, not
restraining legitimate competition or abusing their rights
(articles 8 and 40 of the TRIPs Agreement should be brought into
WIPO's framework);

xv) WIPO, as a U.N. specialised agency, shall considerably expand
programmes for technical cooperation in IP related matters and
qualitatively improve them, as well; bearing in mind the
requirements of U.N. operational activities: neutral, impartial
and demand-driven;

xvi) all sectors of society should be served, including its
participation in all norm-setting activity;

xvii) WIPO, besides being responsible for fostering the active
participation of public interest non-governmental organisations,
shall take appropriate measures to distinguish between user
organisations representing the interests of IP right holders, and
NGOs representing the public interest, in a way to prevent
confusion and to make things more transparent;

xviii) WIPO shall jointly organise an international seminar with
the WTO and UNCTAD on IP and development, with the active and
unlimited participation of all relevant stakeholders, including
public interest NGOs, civil society and academia;

xix) WIPO could stablish a Working Group on the Development
Agenda to further discuss the implementation of the Development
Agenda and work programmes for WIPO, and

xx) the very credibility of the IP system is undermined if a
vision that promotes the absolute benefits of IP protection
without acknowledging public policy concerns is taken, thus the
development dimension shall be brought into the IP system and
WIPO's activities.