U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–830PDF 2016

ESTABLISHING ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE WORLD INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY ORGANIZATION: ILLICIT TECHNOLOGY

TRANSFERS, WHISTLEBLOWING, AND REFORM

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 24, 2016

Serial No. 114–199

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

MATT SALMON, Arizona Chairman 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

AMI BERA, California 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

GRACE MENG, New York 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. James Pooley, attorney at law (former Deputy Director for Innovation 

and Technology, World Intellectual Property Organization) ............................ 8

Ms. Miranda Brown (former Strategic Adviser to the Director General, World 

Intellectual Property Organization) .................................................................... 23

Mr. Matthew Parish, founder and managing director, Gentium Law Group ..... 39

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. James Pooley: Prepared statement ................................................................. 11

Ms. Miranda Brown: Prepared statement ............................................................. 27

Mr. Matthew Parish: Prepared statement ............................................................. 41

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 62

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 63

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Florida, and chairman, Subcommittee on the Middle East and 

North Africa: House Committee Foreign Affairs letters regarding the World 

Intellectual Property Organization ..................................................................... 64

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations: 

Prepared statement of the Government Accountability Project ....................... 71

Letter from the World Intellectual Property Organization to the Honorable 

Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs .................................... 77

Letter from Gentium Law to His Excellency Gabriel Duque, Ambassador 

and Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of Colombia ............... 82

Mr. James Pooley: Memo from Mr. Pooley to Mr. Francis Gurry ....................... 85

(1)

ESTABLISHING ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE WORLD 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION: ILLICIT 

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS, WHISTLEBLOWING, AND REFORM 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA, AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global 

Human Rights, and International Organizations) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The hearing of the three subcommittees will come to 

order. And thank you all for being here. 

Our hearing today shines a spotlight on an organization that is 

a critical component of a global system of intellectual property and 

patent protection, the World Intellectual Property Organization or 

WIPO. It is an organization that, unfortunately, appears to have 

lost its way under its current Director General Francis Gurry, and 

is in need of major reform. 

We will hear from very courageous whistleblowers today who will 

relate how they uncovered illicit transfers of technology to rogue 

nations such as North Korea, and to friendly nations like Japan, 

and how WIPO, under Director General Gurry, unbeknownst to 

member states, cuts deals with China and Russia to open offices 

in those countries, potentially putting our intellectual property at 

risk. 

This hearing is thus about national security as much as the importance of sound governance and oversight. China, for example, 

has notoriously a bad record on protecting intellectual property 

rights, and WIPO ought to be part of the solution. Parenthetically, 

you may know that I serve as chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. Senator Marco Rubio is co-chairman. 

Ominously, the Commission’s latest annual report, released last 

October, concluded that human rights violations have significantly 

worsened and were broader in scope than at any other time since 

the Commission was established in 2002. 

Last week I traveled to China on a mission to promote human 

rights, the rule of law, including intellectual property rights, and 

2

democracy. In China I met and argued with government leaders 

and had the privilege of delivering a keynote address at NYUShanghai. As I think many of us have come belatedly to understand, hopes in the 1990s that China would eventual and inevitably matriculate from dictatorship to a democracy hasn’t even 

come close to materializing. 

The Commission pointed out that U.S. companies face significant 

difficulties related to intellectual property rights in China. And, of 

course, China is not the only place where these problems exist and 

persist. 

Two of our witnesses, Jim Pooley and Miranda Brown, will recount what they saw at WIPO and what happened when they 

sought to bring to light what they saw. It is not a pretty story but 

it is one I will leave to them to explain in their own words. It is 

the personal aspect of governing from oversight that we all want 

to emphasize because it is at the heart of the story we will hear 

revealed in this afternoon’s hearing, a human drama about brave 

individuals who, at great personal cost to themselves and their 

country, saw wrongdoing and decided to do something about it. 

Today’s hearing is timely as well as topical, as there has been 

an internal investigation of WIPO by the U.N.’s Office of Internal 

Oversight Services into the allegations of wrongdoing. The results 

of this investigation are currently before the chairman of WIPO’s 

General Assembly. This is a General Assembly of member states, 

including the United States, based in Geneva. It is incumbent upon 

the General Assembly Chairman Gabriel Duque of Colombia that 

he act upon this report and share it with member states and make 

it publicly available. 

We also call upon our own State Department to follow up on this 

and to be persistent in pushing full reform, transparency, and accountability at WIPO. 

I would point out that this is the first in a series of hearings. 

And our next witnesses we hope will be the State Department. 

Today’s hearing will have reverberations beyond WIPO, for there 

appears to be a culture of corruption at many international organizations, not only at WIPO. We hear revelations, for example, about 

FIFA and world soccer and how the serpent of corruption wriggles 

its way even into the world of sports, undermining the nobility of 

athletic competition. We hear of the sexual exploitation of minors 

occurring in U.N. peacekeeping missions. 

I would note, parenthetically, I have chaired three hearings on 

that issue and traveled to D.R. Congo to investigate personally this 

issue of peacekeepers raping little girls and boys and then being 

not part of the protection force. 

This hearing is the first in what will be a series of hearings that 

this Congress will hold to focus on the need for reform at the U.N. 

and its institutions. And the next will be with the State Department, we hope, and on U.N. peacekeepers and the issue of exploitation and abuse. 

We do believe that by shining a light we can help victims and 

help the corruption come to an end, bringing healing and true reform. Organizations such as WIPO are too important to be abandoned. It is essential that we conduct vigorous oversight and deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:31 Sep 08, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\022416\98830 SHIRL
3

mand accountability to help refocus this organization on fulfilling 

its vital mission. 

Finally, I would like to thank the other chairs for joining this 

hearing. This is a group effort, three subcommittees. Frankly, it is 

unprecedented to have three subcommittees; sometimes two, but 

not three. Our distinguished Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen, Chairman 

Salmon, of course our ranking members, Ms. Bass, Mr. Deutch, and 

Mr. Sherman. This is an important hearing and we look forward 

to our distinguished witnesses. 

I would like to now yield to Ms. Bass for any opening comments. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome the 

witnesses to this joint hearing, and note that I look forward to 

hearing from each of you. 

I would also like to underscore my support for whistleblower protections. Let me say that intellectual property rights are important, 

not only to my constituency in Los Angeles in the State of California, but the country as a whole. Intellectual property rights are 

legal, private, enforceable rights that governments grant to inventors and artists. Intellectual property is and of itself essential to 

the growth and vitality of our economy and the sustainability of 

our competitive edge worldwide. The role played by WIPO is, therefore, also critically important. 

I would also like to note that intellectual property is increasingly 

important to the continent of Africa. Last year in Senegal the Africa Union organized a conference on intellectual property in coordination with WIPO, the Government of Senegal, the Government of 

Japan, and African Union member states. Building on earlier AU 

conferences on the topic, the Conference on Intellectual Property 

for an Emerging Africa emphasized the strategic use of intellectual 

property in achieving the goals of the AU’s strategic agenda for 

2063. This is a critical step in the right direction for the continent 

and, frankly, for the United States. 

I can definitely speak to the importance of intellectual property 

issues to my district in Los Angeles, which is home to Sony and 

Fox and hundreds of other studios and entertainment industry-related businesses. In Nigeria, Nollywood, the highly acclaimed 

movie industry, is a source of major revenue. This revenue can be 

doubled and tripled as jobs and apprenticeships are created and 

maintained. This is a burgeoning industry that can even be more 

effective with a greater focus on intellectual property rights. 

The same can also be said for the movie, music, and television 

industries in South Africa, Kenya, Ghana, and many other venues. 

Not only is there potential opportunity for cooperation and collaboration regionally, but internationally with and, for example, of 

course the United States. This is why the effective operation of 

WIPO remains so important both domestically and internationally. 

And in our subcommittee, Africa is one of the main issues that 

is covered. So when the chairman mentioned that there will be future hearings, I look forward to focusing on the continent. Thank 

you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ranking Member Bass. 

It is now a distinct privilege to recognize the chairwoman emeritus of the full committee and now chairwoman of the Middle East 

and North Africa Subcommittee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. 

4

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Chairman Smith and 

Chairman Salmon, as well as the ranking members Ms. Bass and 

Mr. Sherman for bringing to our subcommittees this important 

hearing. And a special thank you to our esteemed witnesses. 

Mr. Pooley and Dr. Brown are two brave whistleblowers who 

have sacrificed much in their personal and professional lives in 

order to shed light on the misconduct of the World Intellectual 

Property Organization (WIPO) and its Director General. I am 

grateful to you both for being here to finally give your testimony 

today. This has been a long time coming. 

And I also want to thank Mr. Parish for being here to represent 

the views of the WIPO Staff Council. It is about time that all your 

voices and the truth are heard. 

When I first began investigating WIPO’s illegal transfers of technology to Iran and North Korea almost 4 years ago, our committee 

could not have known to the extent that the WIPO’s misconduct 

took. We were just scratching the surface. We also could not have 

known to what length the Director General Gurry would go to silence his critics. 

Upon learning in 2012 that WIPO was secretly transferring high 

tech U.S.-origin computers, programs and equipment to Iran and 

North Korea, technology with clear dual-use benefits to those regimes, I wrote to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raising 

concern about these violations. In my letter I informed the Secretary that the committee was opening an investigation into the 

matter and I requested that the administration freeze all U.S. contributions to WIPO until we were given complete and unfettered 

access to relevant documents and witnesses without fear of retribution or retaliation until the committee and the State Department 

both finished their investigations, and until all those responsible at 

WIPO were held accountable. 

These illegal transfers violated WIPO rules and which require 

prior disclosure to member states before authorization. If known 

ahead of time, WIPO member states and, undoubtedly, U.S. representatives to the organization would have objected due to national security concerns. Even worse, these transfers violated both 

U.S. sanctions and U.N. Security Council resolutions, laws designed to prevent the regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang from getting their hands on dual-use technologies. 

A few days later, after some preliminary fact finding and inquiries with WIPO staff, the committee’s ranking member at the time, 

Congressman Howard Berman of California, and I sent multiple 

letters to the Director General himself and followed up with his office and through the State Department. We were appalled at 

Gurry’s lack of accountability and transparency and his lack of 

judgment at attempts at keeping these illegal transfers secret, and 

the lack of any kind of consultation with the Security Council, and 

his failure to properly control sensitive dual-use technology. Absolutely appalling. 

We were outraged by Gurry’s disgusting intimidation and retaliation against whistleblowers. And because WIPO depends on patent 

application fees, of which more come from the U.S. than any other 

country, we were also disturbed that WIPO was effectively using 

5

fees paid by U.S. inventors to fund a secret and illegal transfers 

to Iran and North Korea. 

We strongly urged Gurry to change course, to uphold his commitments as an official of an international organization, to commission 

an independent external investigation into the matter, and to provide WIPO stakeholders with access to all documents and witnesses while fully protecting whistleblowers. 

During this process Congressman Berman and I invited three of 

the whistleblowers, two of whom are with us today, to testify before 

our committee, only to be denied permission by Mr. Gurry through 

his legal counsel. Their names were then leaked to the press, further underscoring the Director General’s intimidation tactics, his 

imperious management of WIPO employees, and his outright manipulation of the investigations. Day after day, month after month 

Mr. Gurry failed to provide access to key documents, denied interviews with key witnesses, and even sought to interfere with the 

State Department’s cooperation with our committee. 

In the years following we learned even more about Gurry’s misconduct, including secret agreements to Gurry’s efforts to open satellite offices in China and Russia, two of the world’s most notorious 

cyber criminals and thieves of intellectual property. 

Last year Chairman Smith and I sent our staff to Geneva to 

meet with Dr. Brown and WIPO officials, and they discussed these 

new offices in more detail. Hosting WIPO offices in these countries 

poses an enormous security risk for the confidential and proprietary information included in patent applications, and further damages the credibility of WIPO, whose mission is supposed to be 

about protecting intellectual property, not destroying it. 

We learned from our witnesses about Gurry’s potential vote buying and nepotism, about his proposal for a WIPO satellite office in 

Iran, about his involvement in the theft of WIPO employees’ personal items to extract their DNA, and about his retaliation against 

Mr. Pooley and Dr. Brown, as well as the eventual firing of Mr. 

Moncef Kateb, the former president of the WIPO Staff Council. 

But despite multiple letters that other members and I sent to 

Secretary Kerry expressing our dismay and concern about Gurry’s 

potential reelection as Director General, the State Department did 

nada, zilch, zip, nothing to block it, and he was reelected to another 

6-year term in 2014. 

The State Department finally woke up to Gurry’s repulsive behavior last year when it decided to withhold a portion of U.S. contributions to WIPO for its violation of U.S. whistleblower protections. But that is not nearly enough to demonstrate a commitment 

to the whistleblowers and the dedicated public servants who believe in the mission of the United Nations agencies at which they 

work but are paralyzed by corrupt officials that run them. And it 

is not nearly enough to deter the Director General and others like 

him in the broken U.N. system from continuing to engage in disgraceful and dangerous behavior. 

I know that our witnesses have some excellent recommendations 

for both Congress and the State Department on reforming WIPO 

and the entire U.N. I look forward to hearing from them and discussing how we can not only make these U.N. agencies more transparent and accountable, but ensure that they are protecting their 

6

employees and working toward the mission for which they are 

funded. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for unanimous 

consent to insert into the record the letters that we have written 

from this committee sent on this important matter. I would also 

like to thank our former Ranking Member Howard Berman for his 

leadership on this issue, as well as the committee staff who led the 

effort into the initial investigation, Dr. Yleem Poblete, our former 

staff director of the committee, Harold Rees, the former chief investigator of the committee, and Shana Winters, counsel for Mr. Berman. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for not 

just the powerful statement but for all of the herculean efforts of 

yours to date. And we have got to get success on this. And again, 

our next hearing will be with the State Department. 

I would like to yield to Ranking Member Brad Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. And I want to associate myself with 

the gentlelady from California describing the importance of intellectual property, not only in the United States but to Africa and 

around the world. I am pleased to see that the employees of this 

organization have a union. If I had to pick an organization where 

employees needed a union to protect them, this would be it. 

And if I had to pick somebody who at least ought to be paying 

his own parking tickets, it would be Francis Gurry. 

This is an important international organization. We need to safeguard intellectual property worldwide. We have got limited leverage on WIPO because they get the vast majority of their money 

from fees. And we are withholding 15 percent of our contribution, 

but we are talking about roughly the same amount a Member of 

Congress gets paid every year. 

The technology transfer I look forward to finding out just how 

critical it is. It is my understanding that what was transferred is 

available on Amazon. But that doesn’t mean that it is entirely easy 

for Iran or North Korea to get their hands on it. And I believe in 

a broken-window approach to law enforcement we have got, we 

ought to do everything we can to enforce even the modest violations 

of sanctions. 

This is not a well-run agency. It is not a good governance system. 

I look forward to improving it. And I look forward I hope, also, to 

seeing it do good work to protect the intellectual property for which 

Karen’s district and mine is famous. And with that I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Sherman. 

I would like to now yield to the chairman of the Subcommittee 

on Asia and the Pacific, Matt Salmon, for any comments. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to express 

my thanks to both you and Chairman Ros-Lehtinen for holding this 

hearing with the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee. I know that the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs has taken the lead on this issue over 

the past several years. 

We are here today to investigate concerns about the World Intellectual Property Organization, or WIPO, its history of transferring 

7

technology to rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran, and its 

whistleblower protection policies. Today we seek to unravel the 

events from the perspective of our insider witnesses, determine the 

implications of technology transfers to North Korea, and assess 

whether congressional action is necessary to prevent this from happening again. I suspect that it probably is. 

In 2012 WIPO, a U.N. agency created in part to foster innovation 

and promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the 

world, sent very capable hardware, firewall and network security 

appliances to North Korea without proper consultation with U.N. 

sanctions committees. This meant violating multiple U.N. security 

resolutions on North Korea. Furthermore, the tech transfer provided the regime with technology that North Korea could not have 

purchased on its own, due to U.S. domestic restrictions. 

Worse, it was not the first time. An independent external review 

report found that the history of deliveries of information technology 

hardware and software to North Korea dated back to at least the 

year 2000. Since 2006, the report continues, WIPO has provided 

North Korea with three deliveries, including servers, computers, 

notebooks, software, printers, and accessories. The report also 

noted that prior to 2012, WIPO had no procedure in place to review 

whether technology transfers and shipments to countries like 

North Korea would potentially violate U.N. sanctions. That to me 

is unfathomable and unconscionable. 

WIPO may still have been inconsistent in requesting reviews of 

shipments to countries subject to U.N. sanctions. It should be a 

reasonable expectation that a U.N. body would follow U.N. Security 

Council resolutions. I don’t think that is outlandish. WIPO’s transfer of dual-use technology and software to North Korea should have 

undergone at least some level of scrutiny. The risk that North 

Korea could use these technologies to assist in its development of 

nuclear and missile capabilities is a risk we don’t want to take. The 

regime has already conducted cyber attacks on foreign governments 

and organizations, and it is totally unacceptable the WIPO might 

be the organization that provided the computers from which they 

conducted these attacks. We must ensure that we prevent these 

mistakes from occurring again. 

Now, we brought some very brave individuals here today who 

have brought these issues to our attention. We may not have 

learned of these activities if it weren’t for these brave people that 

are on our panel. And I commend them for their efforts and for 

their courage. I know it is not easy to stand up and do what you 

did. 

I am proud to support whistleblowers, and firmly believe in robust protections for all whistleblowers, as well as greater transparency in all government agencies. I think that is what the taxpayer and the people of the United States expect and deserve. I 

look forward to hearing from our witnesses with their first-hand 

knowledge on this issue, particularly as it relates to North Korea. 

I thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Salmon. 

I would like to now introduce our distinguished witnesses beginning first with Mr. James Pooley, who recently completed a 5-year 

term as Deputy Director General of the World Intellectual Property 

8

Organization, where he was responsible for the management of the 

international patent system. Before his service at WIPO, Mr. 

Pooley was a successful trial lawyer in Silicon Valley for over 35 

years, representing clients in patent, trade secret, and technology 

litigation. 

He currently provides litigation and management advice in trade 

secret and patent matters and has taught at the University of California, Berkeley. Mr. Pooley is author or co-author of several major 

works in the intellectual property field. 

We will then hear from Dr. Miranda Brown who is a former Australian Government official who joined the Australian Department 

of Foreign Affairs and Trade and occupied a number of positions 

in the Department before being appointed as the Deputy Permanent Representative at the Australian Mission to the U.N. in Geneva. 

As Australian Deputy Permanent Representative in Geneva she 

worked closely with Mr. Francis Gurry, the current Director General of WIPO. She worked in support of his election campaign in 

2008. She later joined WIPO as the Strategic Advisor to the Director General of WIPO in July 2011, and occupied this position until 

November 2012. 

We will then hear from Dr. Matthew Parish who is here today 

because he serves as outside counsel to the WIPO Staff Council, an 

organization that represents WIPO employees. He is an international lawyer specializing in cross-border arbitration, litigation 

and enforcement, international trade, foreign investment, resource 

extraction and export, emerging markets, and public international 

law. 

Dr. Parish has represented clients across a wide variety of industries, including shipping, international trade, energy and infrastructure sectors, banking, insurance and financial services, governments, and international organizations. He is a fellow of the 

Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and accepts appointments to sit 

as an arbitrator across Europe. He is also founder and managing 

director of Gentium Law Group in Geneva. 

Mr. Pooley, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES POOLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW 

(FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY, WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION) 

Mr. POOLEY. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and good afternoon to 

you and good afternoon to Chairs Ros-Lehtinen and Salmon, and 

to Ranking Members Bass, Deutch, and Sherman. 

I had the privilege of serving at the World Intellectual Property 

Organization and reported to Mr. Gurry from 2009 to 2014. Mr. 

Gurry is the most senior Australian national at the U.N., and has 

been working at WIPO for over 30 years. 

WIPO has a very serious governance problem. In effect, the organization is run by a single individual. And this is possible only with 

the tacit cooperation of the member states that are supposed to act 

as WIPO’s board of directors. 

I will describe today just three examples of things that Mr. 

Gurry did while I was there: First, his gift of powerful computer 

9

equipment to North Korea; second, his secret agreements with 

China and Russia to open offices, and; third, his retaliation against 

whistleblowers. 

In March 2012, I heard from my colleague here Dr. Brown that 

the Bank of America had intercepted an international payment intended by WIPO for the shipment of high-end U.S.-origin computer 

equipment and an electronic firewall to North Korea. I was very 

disturbed by this, in part because as a lawyer I knew that this was 

dual-use technology that could not go to North Korea without an 

export permit. But I was also alarmed by the firewall because there 

was no reason that we needed to give North Korea a firewall except 

for one, which was to keep North Korean citizens from using that 

equipment to get onto the Internet. 

I went to Mr. Gurry and I asked him to reconsider. I explained 

to him that in the U.S., where you can go to prison for quite a 

number of years for doing what we had done here, that it would 

be seen as unacceptable for a U.N. agency to be doing the same 

thing. He told me that he didn’t care what the U.S. thought because WIPO didn’t have to obey U.S. law. 

This committee then started an investigation, or attempted to. 

Mr. Gurry blocked the testimony by myself and Dr. Brown and, as 

a result, the hearing for July 2012 was canceled. Around that same 

time I understand that Mr. Gurry hired a DC lobbying firm to help 

him with whatever U.S. political problems he had. And in 2012, 

WIPO paid that firm $193,500. Now, that money and the money 

that went to pay for the equipment that went to North Korea was 

substantially from U.S. inventors and their patent fees. 

Second example: In 2013 I learned that Mr. Gurry had entered 

into secret negotiations with China and with Russia for the opening of satellite WIPO offices. We, on the senior management team, 

learned about this only from articles in the China Daily News and 

the Voice of Russia. And the resulting controversy around this 

caused the breakdown of that year’s meeting of member states in 

October. 

Shortly thereafter, in November, a bipartisan group of 12 Members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary Kerry asking that the 

U.S. find someone else to support for the upcoming election of Director General, it recited the problem with the shipment to North 

Korea, the offices, and also the role that Mr. Gurry had apparently 

played in the theft of DNA from staff members and his later coverup of the incident. Now, the immediate response to this letter did 

not come from the State Department but, rather, it came from Kim 

Beazley, the Australian Ambassador to the U.S., who basically denied everything and referred to the equipment that had been sent 

to North Korea as standard office equipment. 

In this, and in many other ways at that time, Australia made it 

very clear that it wanted Mr. Gurry to be reelected and as a result, 

the U.S. agreed to stand on the sidelines during the election process. 

Third example: In early 2014 I learned that Mr. Gurry had interfered with an external effort to place a contract for a competitive 

bid on an IT matter by directing that the contract be awarded directly to a company in Australia run by a friend of his. And when 

I learned this I reported that and the DNA theft to the chair of the 

10

WIPO General Assembly. The retaliation against me was both 

swift and hard. Mr. Gurry had the chief legal officer of WIPO 

threaten me and a U.S. journalist who had written an article about 

my complaint, who was told that he faced criminal prosecution in 

Switzerland if he did not immediately take down the article and 

issue a personal apology to Mr. Gurry. 

There was condemnation from the international intellectual property community about this but the State Department made no public statement. And 3 weeks later the member states of WIPO gathered and elected by consensus Mr. Gurry to another 6-year term. 

The retaliation continued. And so, as required, I reported it to 

WIPO’s chief ethics officer Avard Bishop, who told me, 

unsurprisingly, that there was nothing that could be done about it. 

Indeed, Mr. Bishop had come to me in confidence not long before 

to describe to me how he believed his entire job was hopeless under 

the circumstances. And I am sad to report that 3 months later he 

committed suicide. 

Mr. Gurry’s replacement chief ethics officer dithered with my 

complaint for retaliation for 6 months, eventually deciding that 

WIPO could do nothing with my complaint because by that time 

my term was over and I was no longer a WIPO employee. And he 

specifically refused to allow external arbitration of the sort that is 

required by the Budget Act of this Congress. 

In the meantime, the investigation into my original allegations 

was started, but it was halted in the fall of 2014 by Mr. Gurry. 

Now, the U.S. objected strongly to that. Eventually, last May the 

investigation was restarted by an internal organ of the U.N. and 

my understanding is that that investigation has been completed. 

But try as hard as I have, I have not been able to find out exactly 

who has the report and what it says. 

Any one of these three behaviors as examples that I have given 

you—and there are more—in a private company or in a public institution would result in the executive being dismissed by the 

board. In this situation, we collectively are the board of WIPO. We 

can accept that countries act in their national interests, but we 

should not accept that the U.S. stand by or stand down while its 

national interests are ignored, especially if they are interests like 

transparency and good governance. 

I also appreciate that there are competing geopolitical concerns 

that weigh on the most senior officers of the State Department. But 

in this case, when our good reliable ally Australia came to us and 

asked us to be quiet, the right response should have been, ‘‘We understand, but we have competing considerations that override your 

concerns.’’ Now, I believe that the State Department would benefit 

by having the cover that would come from Congress making very 

clear and strong what the priorities are, including proper governance and the protection of whistleblowers. We would all benefit, I 

believe, from the kinds of reforms that we have suggested in our 

submitted statements. 

So let me close here by observing, as President Reagan once did, 

‘‘There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We 

must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.’’

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pooley follows:]

11


98830a-1.eps
12


98830a-2.eps
13


98830a-3.eps
14


98830a-4.eps
15


98830a-5.eps
16


98830a-6.eps
17


98830a-7.eps
18


98830a-8.eps
19


98830a-9.eps
20


98830a-10.eps
21


98830a-11.eps
22


98830a-12.eps
23

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Pooley, thank you very much for your testimony 

and you and Dr. Brown for your courage in being so steadfast over 

the course of so many years in making sure that this information 

is made completely laid bare for all to see. And we will follow up. 

And I thank you for it. 

Dr. Brown, please provide your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MS. MIRANDA BROWN (FORMER STRATEGIC 

ADVISER TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION) 

Ms. BROWN. Good afternoon, Chairman, ranking members, and 

members of the committee. 

I will focus on what happened following my report to the U.S. 

Government of WIPO’s shipment of computers to North Korea, my 

cooperation with this committee in 2012, and subsequent retaliation against me as a whistleblower, as well as providing information on what I believe is an ongoing pattern of abuse of authority 

at WIPO. 

On March 14, 2012, I received a phone call from a WIPO staff 

member working in the procurement area who informed me that 

there was a problem with a payment for a shipment of computers 

to North Korea. At first I thought this was a joke, but I soon realized that the staff member was serious, as he explained that the 

U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC, had blocked the 

WIPO/UNDP payment by the Bank of America for the computers. 

At that stage it was not yet clear whether the computers had already been shipped to North Korea and I decided to immediately 

try to stop the transfer. 

I called Mr. Gurry and expressed my very strong concerns about 

WIPO engaging in any project with North Korea without prior approval of the member states of WIPO, including the U.S., and without clearance by the U.N. Security Council Sanctions Committees. 

I informed him that OFAC had blocked the payment for the equipment. 

Mr. Gurry’s response was profoundly disturbing. He said that 

North Korea is a WIPO member state like any other and it deserves technical cooperation. He also said that WIPO is not bound 

by U.S. domestic or U.N. Security Council sanctions. I advised him 

to immediately stop the project. He told me to go and fix the payment problem. 

I returned to my office and immediately called the U.S. Mission 

in Geneva to report the situation. Later that day I forwarded the 

email chain on the OFAC decision to the U.S. Mission. The following day I obtained all the documents on the project and provided these too to the U.S. Mission. It became clear that sophisticated IT equipment, which was American origin and which included high-end servers and firewalls, had already been shipped to 

Pyongyang. 

When I tried to find out more about the secret project, WIPO 

staff told me that this was one of North Korea’s requests in exchange for supporting Mr. Gurry’s election. 

Soon after, I learned that——

Mr. SHERMAN. Could you repeat that sentence again? 

24

Ms. BROWN. When I tried to find out more about the secret 

project, WIPO staff told me that this was one of North Korea’s requests in exchange for supporting Mr. Gurry’s election. 

Soon after, I learned that Mr. Gurry had approved a similar 

project with Iran. I reported this and the documents to the U.S. 

Mission too. 

Then Mr. Kateb, acting as the president of WIPO’s Staff Council, 

demanded that these projects be examined by the U.N.’s Office of 

Internal Oversight Service, OIOS, and by the U.N.’s Joint Inspection Unit. And shortly thereafter, your committee launched an investigation into the shipments. Mr. Gurry refused to allow me to 

testify, and forbade me from cooperating with this committee. Despite this, I provided this committee with all relevant documents 

relating to the projects, and responded to requests from staffers for 

further materials and information. 

At the time I reported the shipments, WIPO had no whistleblower policy in place. I had to use my own judgment. Had the 

member states been consulted on the North Korea project and approved it? No. 

Did the U.S. know about it? No. 

Did the U.S. have a right to know that American IT equipment 

had been shipped to North Korea in likely violation of U.S. sanctions and national law? Yes. 

Was this matter urgent? Yes. 

Did I stop to think about whether WIPO had a whistleblower policy in place and whether I should be protected—I would be protected? No. 

Retaliation was the last thing on my mind at that point. I felt 

confident that the U.S. Government would use its considerable influence to fully protect me for reporting secret shipments of American IT equipment to North Korea. But, sadly, the retaliation was 

severe. Mr. Gurry accused me of disloyalty and of leaking documents to the U.S. Mission and to the media. He told an Ambassador from a Western state that he would be offering me a plea 

bargain whereby I would be exonerated from any investigation into 

the so-called ‘‘leaks’’ in exchange for the names of those WIPO staff 

with whom I had shared the North Korea and Iran project documents. The names apparently included Mr. Pooley, Mr. Kateb, the 

president of the WIPO Staff Council, and others whom he apparently wanted to purge from the organization. 

If I signed the plea bargain I would not be suspended or placed 

under investigation for the ‘‘leaks.’’ Of course I could not sign any 

plea bargain and expose my colleagues to certain disciplinary sanctions, so I went on extended medical leave for stress. 

When I returned to work, Mr. Gurry immediately resumed the 

retaliation against me. And in an apparent test of my loyalty to 

him, he ordered that I work on another secret project, this one to 

establish WIPO external satellite offices, including in Beijing and 

Moscow. He expressly forbade me from talking with any member 

state and insisted on total secrecy. I again informed the U.S. and 

other member states. 

When I protested about the secrecy of this project, Mr. Gurry 

told me that he would not be renewing my contract, which was not 

due to expire for 7 months, on the basis that I was disloyal and 

25

too close to the member states, and in particular the U.S., and because I had cooperated with this committee. Given this, I had no 

option but to leave WIPO. I resigned under duress and took a 

lower-level position in another organization. 

International organizations must balance the need for confidentiality with transparency. There is no Freedom of Information Act 

and member states must rely on the integrity and good faith of the 

U.N. agency head, in the case of WIPO, the Director General, to 

run the organization in an open and transparent manner, with the 

member states being consulted on all aspects of the organization’s 

work. 

Mr. Gurry’s leadership of WIPO is sadly characterized by secrecy 

and also an extraordinary vindictiveness toward whistleblowers. 

He apparently sees the organization and its resources as his personal fiefdom, and he expects staff to demonstrate their absolute 

loyalty toward him and not the organization and its mandate. 

The adoption of the WIPO whistleblower policy in November 

2012 was a positive development, however, its implementation has 

failed under Mr. Gurry’s regime. More generally, U.N. whistleblower protections fail where the allegations of wrongdoing involve 

the U.N. agency head, because all of the internal accountability 

mechanisms report directly to the U.N. agency head. 

Prior to leaving WIPO in November 2012, I blew the whistle on 

what I strongly suspected was improper and possibly criminal behavior on Mr. Gurry’s part. Documents, including a hospital report, 

indicated that Mr. Gurry was involved in a theft of personal effects 

from WIPO staff and secret extraction of their DNA. I requested 

an independent investigation into Mr. Gurry’s role but this was denied. 

In February 2013, I filed a complaint with the U.N. International 

Labor Organization Dispute Tribunal, which is a staff tribunal, requesting that the tribunal overturn the decision not to allow an investigation. Three years have passed, and the tribunal has yet to 

consider my request for an external investigation. 

These allegations have now been examined by the U.N.’s Office 

of Internal Oversight Services. And I was told that the investigation report has been finalized and the report transmitted to the 

chair of the WIPO General Assemblies, Ambassador Gabriel Duque 

of Colombia. It’s clear, based on the investigation process, that the 

report contains adverse findings against Mr. Gurry. 

Mr. Kateb, who was fired by Mr. Gurry for his whistleblower activities, and I remain without a job. We are both unemployed. In 

October 2015, we sent a joint letter to Ambassador Duque requesting our urgent reinstatement at WIPO. There has been no response 

to date. 

Both of us stood up for the interests of WIPO, the U.S., and the 

international community. If what happens to us goes unchecked, no 

U.N. staff member will feel safe reporting corruption at the top of 

the U.N. organization. Our cases will sadly act as a very strong deterrent. 

My motive for reporting the allegations of wrongdoing at WIPO 

is, and always has been, to protect the organization. I believe that 

my government, the Australian Government, has been seriously 

misled by Mr. Gurry, as we all have been. In my opinion, Mr. 

26

Gurry’s leadership is dangerous to the organization, and his ongoing tenure as Director General risks further damaging not only 

WIPO but the U.N.’s reputation. 

I thank you for inviting me here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]

27


98830b-1.eps
28


98830b-2.eps
29


98830b-3.eps
30


98830b-4.eps
31


98830b-5.eps
32


98830b-6.eps
33


98830b-7.eps
34


98830b-8.eps
35


98830b-9.eps
36


98830b-10.eps
37


98830b-11.eps
38


98830b-12.eps
39

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Dr. Brown. 

I would like to now yield to Dr. Parish. 

STATEMENT OF MR. MATTHEW PARISH, FOUNDER AND 

MANAGING DIRECTOR, GENTIUM LAW GROUP 

Mr. PARISH. Chairman, ranking members, and distinguished 

members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today on the lack of accountability at WIPO. 

As you have learned from your investigation and from the other 

witnesses, WIPO seems to have set a new low when it comes to accountability and management of its affairs. 

I am testifying in my capacity as private legal counsel to the 

WIPO Staff Council. The Staff Council is the sole union available 

to employees of the organization. The Staff Council exists under 

purview of the rules and internal institutions that the WIPO Director General controls. It is not an exaggeration to say that members 

of the Staff Council live in daily fear for their jobs and their careers. 

The individual members of the Staff Council are effectively prohibited from testifying here today because, as WIPO employees, 

they are banned from providing testimony on matters relating to 

whistleblowing or wrongdoing because their employer, the Director 

General Francis Gurry, prohibits them from doing so. 

I wish to share with you my client’s concerns about the theft of 

staff personal effects and subsequent extraction of those staff members’ DNA without their consent. In essence, it appears that Mr. 

Gurry unlawfully employed techniques ordinarily reserved solely to 

Swiss law enforcement agencies acting under a due warrant to attempt to determine the identity or one or more WIPO employees 

critical of him. It has been reported that he orchestrated raids of 

staff members’ offices, while they were not present, to achieve this 

goal. 

Some of these allegations date back to 2008, and it took substantial time before the Office of Internal Oversight Service of the 

United Nations took the matter up. Officials of the OIOS subsequently opened an investigation, reached conclusions, and prepared 

a report. The report was copied, was forwarded to the chair of the 

General Assemblies of WIPO, from whom I have requested a copy. 

My reasoning was simple: If the report exonerated Mr. Gurry, it is 

fair and proper to Mr. Gurry that it be circulated and released so 

that his reputation might be cleared. 

But if the report criticizes Mr. Gurry, then it should be released 

forthwith, subject to any redaction appropriate to protect the identities of vulnerable witnesses. It should, first and foremost, be released to the member states whose role is to oversee the proper 

functioning of WIPO and of Mr. Gurry. Only they can decide to 

sanction Mr. Gurry, dismiss him from office, or waive his legal immunity from prosecution. They cannot perform their oversight 

mandates without receipts of a full copy of the report, as WIPO is 

required to do. 

But the report should also be released to the Staff Council, so 

that the more than 1,000 WIPO staff are informed of the investigation’s outcome. They have a right to know about whether there is 

a conclusion that the Director General violated their rights or othVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:31 Sep 08, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\022416\98830 SHIRL
40

erwise acted in a manner inconsistent with ethical management of 

the organization. 

There is another issue I wish to share with the committee today. 

The former chair of the WIPO Staff Council, Mr. Moncef Kateb, 

was renowned as a severe critic of Director General Gurry over several years. Unfortunately, he cannot be here today. But I would 

like to say a few things about how he was dismissed. 

WIPO used to have a disciplinary regime for staff accused of misconduct, in order to protect their rights and interests. Last year, 

the entire system was dismantled by Mr. Gurry and replaced with 

a system permitting him to suspend a staff member without pay 

upon an accusation leveled by him. It might be fair to classify this 

new system as a ‘‘Court of Star Chamber,’’ particularly where the 

sin of the staff member in question is criticism of the Director General himself. 

Mr. Kateb was among the first victims of this. He was dismissed 

upon 7 days’ notice on an absurd technicality. After Mr. Kateb’s 

dismissal, a new Staff Council was constituted. 

Another arch-critic of Mr. Gurry was elected as Mr. Kateb’s successor by the members of the Staff Association. Now Mr. Gurry is 

unilaterally changing the rules for Staff Council elections, in order 

to force another election of staff members to the Staff Council in 

an attempt to dislodge the new Staff Council. 

In view of the considerable power that the Director General has 

over WIPO staff in terms of their job security, I had to decide not 

to share drafts of my written testimony with the WIPO Staff Council so that Mr. Gurry can’t consider them to have taken any individual actions that would lead him to terminate them summarily 

from their jobs with WIPO, as he did to Mr. Kateb, or to threaten 

them in other ways. That is the state of employment with WIPO 

today. 

The old adage that ‘‘sunlight is the best disinfectant’’ is appropriate for the issues surrounding WIPO. The Congress is, in my 

view, well-positioned to help generate the release of the OIOS report and to provide greater transparency and accountability into 

the operations of WIPO. 

Thank you very much for listening to me today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parish follows:]

41


98830c-1.eps
42


98830c-2.eps
43


98830c-3.eps
44


98830c-4.eps
45

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Dr. Parish. 

Let me just begin the questioning. First, you know, to take your 

last point first about trying and Congress generating some pressure 

to release it, all of you might want to speak to what the Congress 

might do. Should we be looking to a resolution, for example, sense 

of the Congress or otherwise, calling on the President to use his 

full voice and vote—our representative of course at WIPO—to do 

just that? 

I know you point out in your testimony that the Ambassadors of 

the UK and the United States have asked by way of correspondence, but a simple ask can be very easily ignored. This ought to be 

a demand that is backed up by punch and by a great deal of pressure just to get that report out. So that would be number one. 

Secondly, why hasn’t the Obama administration been more aggressive in trying to—I mean North Korea, you talk about rogue 

states, there are few nations on Earth that are as threatening as 

Pyongyang to the world, not just to South Korea, but to the 

world—so why haven’t they been more aggressive? 

You might want to further detail what it is that was sent, the 

servers and the like. What really did make its way to North Korea? 

The accusations made against WIPO are serious, including vote 

buying by North Korea for the Director General, technology transfers to Iran, of course North Korea, Cote D’Ivoire, DRC, Iran, Iraq, 

Liberia, Libya, and Sudan. It was Dr. Brown who said that WIPO 

is not bound by U.S. domestic and U.N. Security Council sanctions. 

Are you kidding me? U.N. Security Council sanctions don’t apply 

to Mr. Gurry? I find that appalling. Is that legal for him to suggest 

that? It would seem to me that it applies to every player in the 

world. And this is a member state organization, why wouldn’t it 

apply to them, both U.S. as well as U.N. Security Council resolutions? 

I do have a number of questions but we do have a lot of members 

here so I will just hold it to that for now and yield to you for your 

response. 

Mr. POOLEY. If I may, Chairman Smith, I, there is perhaps one 

of your questions I can’t really answer because it is a broad political one. I suppose we can speculate about why certain actions were 

taken or not taken. But let me just say that in my experience at 

Geneva, one thing I can tell you is that the people that we have 

representing the United States there are very fine professionals 

and represent the interests of the United States very well. 

I think the problem that we entered into in this broad issue with 

WIPO came as a result of a miscalculation about what our relationship with Australia really meant. And sometimes I put it this way: 

Friends don’t let friends drive drunk. You are supposed to talk, in 

talking to a good friend, tell them the bad news along with the 

good news. 

And so I can only—I am not privy to the inside conversations 

that they may have had, and there may have been other issues. I 

don’t know, but it sure felt like that to me. Let me just say, I do 

believe that some sort of resolution by Congress would be extremely helpful. Having spent 5 years in Geneva talking with many 

diplomats from many other countries, what I heard over and over 

46

again was: What is the United States going to do? What does the 

U.S. think about this? 

And for a lot of probably good reasons in certain circumstances, 

our diplomatic representatives there are, well, they are very diplomatic. And now and then if we think something is very, very important, I think the representatives of the American people here in 

Congress can have a voice heard across the Atlantic in ways that 

may be more difficult to ignore. And that is an example of the kind 

of cover that Congress can give the State Department on matters 

of really great importance. 

So I can also, I think it would be helpful perhaps if I responded 

on what the equipment was here, coming from Silicon Valley. If 

anyone had come to me as a lawyer and said, I would like to, I can 

buy these things. . . . They were a Hewlett-Packard ProLiant 

DL360 G7 server which WIPO paid $7,845 for. This is not something you get at Office Depot; right? A Hewlett Packard Color 

LaserJet massive printer, almost $14,000; a 24-terabyte disc array. 

And remember, this was 4 years ago. Technology has come pretty 

far since then. Back then a 24-terabyte disc array was a massive 

storage device. And then, of course, there was the SonicWall firewall which came, itself came in at almost $5,000. 

That was the equipment. And, yes, I suppose it could have been 

purchased in the U.S., but you can’t buy it to send it to North 

Korea. And if you did, you would go to prison for a long time. 

Mr. SMITH. Before the other two witnesses answer, if you could 

also answer the question, the lobbyist firm that was hired, who is 

it? With whom did they meet? Was the pressure primarily on the 

White House, the Congress? They certainly didn’t visit me as far 

as I know. If they did, I would have showed them the door. Would 

have asked questions but shown them the door, given what has to 

be a feeble response. 

The Australians are very close friends and allies. I am bewildered. I am shocked by this. In shock for many months, and even 

years now. If you have a bad apple, you expunge the bad apple. 

This is hurting their reputation. And, again, they are good close 

friends. 

And just for the record, too, I would just point out to my colleagues, as they know, we did invite Francis Gurry to come and 

brief us. It would be a briefing rather than a hearing, pursuant to 

House rules. If he couldn’t make it, we asked that John Sandage 

come. We will repeat that over and over. We want to hear from 

them and ask them honest questions and tough questions. 

So that will remain open, our door. All three of us want them to 

come, our three subcommittees. But this lobby firm, where did they 

put the pressure? 

Mr. POOLEY. Well that, Chairman Smith, I hope that if they 

come you do ask them about that because, quite honestly, we don’t 

know and we can’t find out. We didn’t know, the U.S. didn’t know 

about WIPO spending this money on a lobbyist firm here in DC 

until it was discovered by virtue of the lobbyist disclosure regulations that apply here. And doing searches over and over again for 

something about WIPO we finally found something. And there it 

was, $193,000 paid to a company called Manchester just in 2012. 

47

Now, what actually happened as a result of that we have no way 

of knowing. When Mr. Gurry sends somebody on an overseas trip 

they are, of course, bound to absolute confidentiality. And I am 

probably one of the last people they would report on something like 

that. 

So we, I would love to find out the answer to that question. 

Mr. SMITH. And just to that final question, Dr. Brown, about the 

Security Council sanctions not applicable as to WIPO; how could 

that be? 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. I think the point there is that in the 

subsequent conversation with Mr. Gurry what he said was that 

WIPO was not a member state, therefore it wasn’t bound by U.N. 

Security Council sanctions or resolutions. 

I mean I, I am not a legal expert on this, but I have to say that 

the intent of those resolutions is surely meant to be binding on everybody, including the U.N. organizations. 

And one point perhaps I could elaborate on is at the time that 

these projects were taking place, the U.N. had gone through some 

considerable soul searching about its relation to engaging with 

North Korea. And, in fact, there had been an inquiry. The Nemeth 

report had been issued. And from then on it was determined that 

any engagement from the U.N. specialized agencies, there would be 

a board essentially that would establish the review projects, and 

the UNDP would administer these projects. 

And at that time the only projects that were really taking place, 

the only U.N. projects taking place in North Korea were very basic 

technical cooperation projects which related to seed production, 

food production. And any equipment being taken in by the U.N. 

was being closely monitored and had to come out at the end of the 

project. 

So this, this particular WIPO project was also in a way in violation of the U.N.’s own structure that had been established for 

North Korea. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. PARISH. Sir, on the issue of sanctions, United Nations sanctions, the entire analysis we have heard that came from Mr. Gurry 

is obviously specious and fictitious as a matter of law. It is completely absurd. 

WIPO is a specialist agency of the United Nations. It is designated as such, pursuant to treaty. The idea that an agency of the 

United Nations can lawfully act as an agent for the evasion of U.N. 

sanctions endorsed by the Security Council is completely absurd. It 

is ridiculous. Nobody could defend that for even 30 seconds. It is 

crazy. 

One other comment, sir, on what Congress might do. We have 

got to see this report. The report is being investigated. We know 

that the investigators investigated it. We know the report has been 

finished. We know it has been passed to Ambassador Duque who 

is the chair of the WIPO General Assemblies. I have asked him for 

it. He ignored me. I asked him again. He ignored me. I asked his 

Foreign Minister. He ignored me. I have not had any response 

whatsoever. This, everybody has been asking for this report; nobody is getting it. 

48

Where is it? Why can’t we see it? I can’t imagine of any conceivable legal or policy reason for holding it back. And there is nothing 

but a wall of silence. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Ranking Member Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. We seem to see the FIFA of U.N. agencies. I, the 

only question from me is what should Congress do? 

I sit here as ranking member of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee. First, I joined with colleagues here to introduce a resolution demanding audit, disclosure and a copy of this report. The 

question is, do we go further than that and explicitly say in the 

resolution that Gurry should resign? Based on what I have heard 

here, I am happy to throw that into the resolution. 

But then, and this comes before our subcommittee, should we explicitly criticize the Government of Australia for sticking the world 

with this person? Dr. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you very much. I think the Australian Government has been misled by Mr. Gurry. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, they, when they use their power and influence they have an obligation not to be bamboozled because someone who is a native of Australia asks a favor. And whether it is 

negligence from the Foreign Ministry of Australia or whether it is 

gross negligence is something the resolution could ask, that we 

would ask the Australians to tell us whether it was negligence or 

whether it constituted gross negligence. 

But the Australian Government has asked the United States for 

help in its national security again and again. And now it is responsible for technology that I realize now was more advanced by the 

standards of when it was shipped than it is today, they are responsible for North Korea and Iran for having this technology. So if 

Australia is going to ask for our soldiers and then foist this guy 

and put him in a position where he can evade U.S. security sanctions, it sounds like the only part of the world whose security they 

care about is Australia. Yet they ask us to care about the security 

of the world. 

So I do think we need a resolution. I would like to see the Australian Ambassador come here and brief us, our subcommittee, either publicly or privately, should we simply discount as ill-considered everything we hear from the Australian Foreign Ministry? Because obviously they didn’t spend any time determining whether 

they should fight for Mr. Gurry. 

Mr. Pooley. 

Mr. POOLEY. I, one thing I want to point out, I had a similar reaction from Mr. Gurry, that Dr. Brown has reported, when all of 

this happened. Later there was a study done by U.N. lawyers who 

determined that when you parse the Security Council sanctions 

very carefully, the kind of equipment here was not radiation-hardened or otherwise of the sort that would necessarily apply. There 

are lawyers I think who might disagree, but that was the finding. 

So I think in fairness what, what we need to focus on——

Mr. SHERMAN. What Mr. Gurry did is contrary to security, national security interests of the United States. And he obviously did 

not care whether he was violating U.N. security. Now, even if as 

a technical matter he can come back after the fact and point to 

49

some loophole, this is a man who has asserted that he will boldly 

violate U.N. Security Council resolutions designed to protect the 

national security of the United States and the world. And he puts 

forward the idea that U.N. Security Council resolutions do not 

apply if you have an entity created by two countries, therefore it 

is not a country. 

If that were the case, anyone, say Paraguay wanted to ship 

something to North Korea, all they have to do is form the Paraguay-Cayman Islands Joint Committee, and apparently every U.N. 

Security Council resolution can be evaded by any country completely legally so long as the Cayman Islands will participate, or 

any one of the other tiny countries in the world. 

So the Australian Ambassador wants us to take them seriously. 

They want us to listen to them on the theory that they care about 

world security and that their comments are not rubbish. Support 

for Mr. Gurry demonstrates one or other of those statements is 

false: Either they will just repeat without investigation anything 

that a well-paid Australian asks them to say, or they really don’t 

care about the sanctions against North Korea, the sanctions 

against Iran, not to mention how this agency is being run. 

So I, I would hope that Australia would remedy this by taking 

the lead on this organization in demanding this man’s resignation. 

And I think that that is something that would be listened to because we are not the only country aware that this gentleman was 

foisted on the world by a Australian Foreign Ministry that either 

didn’t know or didn’t care. 

But I will ask the panel, other than the soft resolution I am talking about here, what else can Congress do? 

Mr. POOLEY. Well, one of the things we have indicated in our 

written submissions is to reconsider the issue of diplomatic immunity for top executives. We give unqualified, more or less, diplomatic immunity. And it actually is qualified in a certain way. But 

we need to have a different standard applied so that they don’t retreat and they don’t know that they can retreat into this safe harbor of diplomatic immunity. 

Mr. SHERMAN. But in this case the gentleman is based in Switzerland; correct? 

Mr. POOLEY. He is. He is. But and he has, he enjoys that status 

because we have generally agreed to it. And that, that allows him 

to know that he can’t be pursued and he can’t be held accountable 

in some of the ways that would matter the most. And so that is 

one thing that could be looked at. 

Another thing is to create some sort of executive board that he 

could not manipulate. And by ‘‘he’’ I mean any Director General of 

any agency could not manipulate in a sense of seeing to it who was 

appointed. 

Mr. SHERMAN. How many countries are in the organization? 

They each have an equal vote? 

Mr. POOLEY. It is one country, one vote. And it is about 185 I 

think. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Gotcha. 

Mr. POOLEY. In that, it is in that range. So that would be very, 

very helpful. 

50

Mr. SHERMAN. That is how FIFA was run by a director who then 

bought off the smallest and most needy countries. 

Mr. POOLEY. As a personal note, Congressman, I have to say that 

when I saw the first long article about the FIFA problems it almost 

threw me back on how you could substitute names. And it represents——

Mr. SHERMAN. Does anybody else have a program for Congress? 

Ms. BROWN. No. I would agree with what Mr. Pooley and Dr. 

Parish have said. I mean I think the Congress could play a very 

significant role here. Your voice is what matters. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I would say that we shouldn’t criticize Australia 

in the resolution so long as prior to the introduction of the resolution Australia calls for the resignation of Mr. Gurry. 

Dr. Parish, anything else Congress can do? 

Mr. PARISH. The only point I would make, sir, is this: Mr. Gurry 

is completely immune from any Swiss criminal or civil jurisdiction. 

If the evidence you have heard today is correct, then it does appear 

that he is has committed some very serious criminal offenses. They 

are criminal offenses in Switzerland, just like they are criminal offenses in the United States. But there is nothing anybody can do 

about it because whereas he can waive anybody’s immunity that 

works for him, his immunity is completely unwaivable unless you 

get a majority of these member states to waive it. And it is an absolutely impossible bar to achieve. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield back. 

Mr. POOLEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Pooley. 

Mr. POOLEY. If I might make one more suggestion, and that is, 

and you may have noticed that external arbitration was refused to 

me, we may benefit greatly from Congress taking steps to enforce 

that idea, that across the U.N. the only way that you can get justice for whistleblowers who have come forward and presented 

something important and who have suffered retaliation as a result, 

the only entity that can make a judgment about whether or not 

that has happened and what to do about it is an entity other than 

the U.N. itself or its agencies. 

So external independent arbitration would be very helpful. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Chairman Smith. And 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for excellent testimony today, 

especially Mr. Pooley and Dr. Brown. Thank you so much. It has 

been a very long road to this point and you both have been incredibly brave to continue coming forward despite the grave risk involved. And I am very concerned by Mr. Gurry’s capacity to continue retaliating against you both. 

Dr. Brown and Mr. Pooley, I want to ask, I want to ask you, has 

the State Department been asked to watch Mr. Gurry closely? Do 

you get that sense, Dr. Parish, that to ensure that these whistleblowers, as well as Moncef Kateb are protected in the months 

ahead? Do you get the sense that Mr. Gurry feels any pressure 

whatsoever? 

Mr. POOLEY. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen. I 

have probably been more closely in touch with State Department 

personnel than others here. And I can say certainly the ones that 

51

I have been dealing with are all very concerned and watching very 

closely. There is no doubt that they receive all of this information, 

they are concerned about it. At a personal level they have made expressions of concern to me. 

And so they certainly are aware. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Does Mr. Gurry, do you think he feels any 

pressure? 

Mr. POOLEY. I have no idea. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And his behavior at WIPO by any standard 

would be judged to have been absolutely despicable. And I am 

shocked that he remains in office. Are you shocked as well or do 

you know that agency so well that it is hard to shock you? 

Mr. POOLEY. Well, maybe that is true by now. As I said to someone today, nothing would surprise me anymore. 

I would prefer not to take a position on that. I have from the beginning said that my involvement in all of this has one goal and 

one goal only, and that is to get information to the member states 

so the member states on an informed basis can decide what to do. 

Mr. Gurry has on various other occasions tried to make this a 

personal issue. I do not want to go there and so I hope you will 

forgive me if I don’t comment. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Absolutely. I understand. 

But I hope that this administration would use every bit of its 

voice, its vote, its influence at WIPO and with the member states 

to ensure that Gurry is removed from office as soon as possible. 

This administration must also ensure that whistleblowers are reinstated at WIPO immediately. 

So I will ask you both about whistleblowers. Dr. Brown, how will 

the failure to protect whistleblowers like you impact the entire 

U.N. system? And why are whistleblowers at one U.N. agency subject to retaliation, if so, at another? 

And then I will ask Mr. Pooley, continuing on whistleblowers, if 

you could please comment on the impact on whistleblowers like 

yourself and Dr. Brown, both in a personal and in a professional 

capacity. How has it impacted you, Dr. Brown? 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. I think just looking at the U.N. more 

generally, there is the U.N. Secretariat which has a U.N. policy on 

whistleblowers, and then WIPO which has a separate one. And 

each, the different bodies have different tribunals where the staff 

go to take a complaint, for example. And the problem really faced 

by whistleblowers is that in the case of WIPO it will take 3 years 

before the tribunal will consider your case. So you will find yourself 

unemployed potentially or without a job for 3 years waiting for this 

tribunal to decide on whether you will be reinstated or not. 

This is why I took the decision to—I jumped before I was pushed. 

And then in terms of the vulnerability of whistleblowers, I think 

generally when it comes to reporting wrongdoing or allegations or 

wrongdoing by a U.N. agency head, we have to remember that the 

senior echelons of the U.N. the staff move around. This is a political situation, political body and political appointees. And, therefore, one staff member who is retaliated against in one organization 

may well face retaliation if they move to another organization. 

There is no protection for that across the system. There is not a 

uniform policy across the system. 

52

There is the ILO Tribunal for WIPO. There is the U.N. Dispute 

Tribunal for the U.N. Secretariat. And staff easily get caught in the 

morass, and there is very little that can, that can be done if you 

are a staff member. Once the retaliation starts it is difficult to respond to. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Pooley. 

Mr. POOLEY. Thank you, Chair Ros-Lehtinen. At WIPO, like 

other U.N. agencies, staff are prohibited from speaking with the 

outside world except by permission. And because of this confidentiality and secrecy, this cone of silence that is imposed on staff 

members who are naturally fearful of losing their jobs, the only 

way that we will ever learn of misconduct within these organizations is from whistleblowers who are prepared, notwithstanding 

those challenges, to come forward. 

At this point, given what has happened with WIPO, many others 

within the U.N. system are watching what is going to ultimately 

happen as a result of what we have done here. And in the event 

that we don’t achieve something useful, you may be looking at the 

last U.N. whistleblowers ever to come forward. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. That is what I worry about as well. Thank 

you. 

And finally, Mr. Pooley, you mentioned that you gave Mr. Gurry 

a risk analysis, which he rejected, of his secret plan to open offices 

in Russia and in China. What did you tell Mr. Gurry about the 

risks of putting offices in these countries? How do the risks impact 

WIPO’s mission of protecting intellectual property? And did Gurry 

understand that he might be aiding and abetting violations of U.S. 

sanctions with the transfers to Iran and North Korea? 

Mr. POOLEY. Thank you. The transfers to North Korea were separate from the risk analysis that we did. But that, that effort was 

a more or less standard management tool where you look at some 

operation or proposed operation and you identify all the things that 

can go wrong and what their effects would be, and whether or not 

you can mitigate them, or if there is some irreducible level of risk 

that you can’t get rid of. That was the process that I assembled a 

team to do with respect to a particular office that he wanted to 

open in China. And I presented that to him. And his response was 

to come back to me with a note that said stop that work. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is just incredible. 

Mr. SMITH. I know. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. And let me admit I 

am not personally equipped with all the knowledge that I need to 

analyze what your testimony is about today, so I am going to ask 

you some fundamental questions. And that is the purpose of WIPO 

itself as an organization, first of all, it is an official United Nations 

organization. And that is right. Okay. 

And the purpose of it is what? Is it to prevent, is it to prevent 

the theft of American or other people’s intellectual property in certain countries? Or is it—and what is the other purposes then, if not 

that? 

53

Mr. POOLEY. In general the purpose of WIPO is not to deal with 

issues of enforcement of intellectual property rights. Instead, WIPO 

exists to facilitate the acquisition in the international sphere of intellectual property rights that are essentially national in character. 

There is no international patent. There is no international copyright. There is no international trademark. But we have a system 

at WIPO that allows you to use it as a portal to get access in a 

much easier and more efficient way to these national rights and 

bundle them much more easily and efficiently. That is what it does. 

And it actually does that very, very well. The Patent Cooperation 

Treaty that I oversaw——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So it does not protect the American inventor 

who has a patent, that is not their purpose? 

Mr. POOLEY. It is not their purpose to enforce any inventors’ intellectual property rights; correct. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And it is only, and it is designed then to facilitate the transfer of technology that if it is not owned what, isn’t 

it fair game then that people take what is not owned? 

Mr. POOLEY. It is not part of their mission to deal with the enforcement or what you do when someone steals someone else’s intellectual property rights. What they, what they handle is the acquisition of those rights in the first place and making it easier to 

do that. 

Enforcement has to happen with the courts of countries that recognize those rights. And sometimes those are cross-border disputes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, I am—quite frankly this is all a little 

confusing to me. And I——

Mr. POOLEY. I can understand. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. And I consider myself someone 

who knows a lot about our own patent system. 

Mr. POOLEY. I know that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And this, so this organization is aimed at trying to, how would you say, regulate or to be able to have an overview of technology that is being transferred from one country to another? 

Mr. POOLEY. It doesn’t deal directly in technology transfer. But 

what it does is bring together, in the case of the Patent Cooperation Treaty, 148 countries from around the world, all of whom have 

agreed to take an application that is submitted to WIPO as if it 

was one of their own, and to recognize it when it comes to their 

country. And that gives those who want to acquire rights among 

a number of countries a much more efficient way to go about it. 

And they get an extra, they get 30 months to decide before they 

have to start spending the money on any particular national application. 

So it is about acquisition. People in the U.S. often start out at 

the U.S. PTO and file their application there. They have a year 

then to file that application with WIPO, which gives them an additional period of time within which to think about it, develop the 

technology before they go in and spend the money to get patents 

in another jurisdiction. That is what it is good at. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And but it is not dealing directly with people 

in other countries that are engaged in theft, actual hacking in and 

stealing someone’s technology; is that right? 

54

Mr. POOLEY. That is correct. It doesn’t, it doesn’t deal with those 

issues. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Doesn’t do that. Okay. 

And if, indeed, what we are talking about then is trying to facilitate transfers, why would they want to have it secret that they 

have an agreement or they are negotiating with Beijing and Moscow to open up some kind of office there? Wouldn’t that facilitate 

discussions? And why would someone want to keep that secret? 

Mr. POOLEY. All I can tell you is what Mr. Gurry told me, which 

is that if people knew that he was doing this the flood gates would 

open and he wouldn’t be able to get it done. It was for political purposes that he did this in a way that it could be presented as a fait 

accompli. That is my understanding. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But in reality, do you see anything philosophically or morally or legally wrong with opening up an office in 

Beijing and Moscow to actually have someplace to step forward 

with your claims, if nothing else? 

Mr. POOLEY. Well, having a, having a WIPO office in Beijing I 

felt was at least, at least nominally justifiable because at the time 

China was the fastest growing customer of the international patent 

system and other systems. And it would make sense, it seemed to 

me, to have a customer service office there. 

I have a lot more trouble understanding the office in Russia because it didn’t seem to meet any of those kinds of guidelines. But 

then we were not asked our opinion on the senior management 

team, this was just a decision by Mr. Gurry. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And we are talking about now there was a 

transfer of some kind of equipment and technology that was part, 

to North Korea. What was that equipment that we are talking 

about? 

Mr. POOLEY. That equipment consisted of a, at least among other 

things, a high-end server, a very, very fancy printer, a 24-terabyte 

disc array, a memory device that is, and an electronic firewall, the 

only purpose of which was to keep North Korea citizens from using 

this equipment to access the Internet. All of that was transferred, 

ostensibly, in order to support the North Korean Patent Office in 

its efforts to modernize its technology. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And, okay, so we know that. I guess what we 

are saying then, if a country is known to be a thief and knowingly 

been involved or at least maybe not directly but they are letting 

this happen, like North Korea, they steal intellectual property, or 

is it the fact that they are preceding with a nuclear weapons program? What is the reason for singling out North Korea and Iran, 

for example? 

Mr. POOLEY. Yes. Whether or not a country seems to be encouraging or allowing the theft of intellectual property is not an issue, 

and probably shouldn’t be an issue, when it comes to just whether 

or not you support their Patent Office so that they can be part of 

the international community. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. POOLEY. But whether or not they are using or could use 

equipment that you send to them to help their Patent Office for 

some other purpose that would violate U.N. Security Council sanctions or would violate the intention of U.S. export controls——

55

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. POOLEY [continuing]. That is very much a concern. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is export control and it is United Nations 

sanctions that this organization then will be conscious of in terms 

of enforcing those type of restrictions, and not that there is a bunch 

of hackers up in North Korea who are coming in and stealing 

Boeing’s secrets on or patents on how to build a wing for an airplane? 

Mr. POOLEY. That is, that is not part of their mission to deal 

with that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Well, thank you for your testimony 

today. I am still not fully satisfied that I understand the whole 

process. But I am glad you brought this to our attention. 

And I am also glad that you have stepped forward to try to have 

a public discussion on something that you felt was wrong and you 

were willing to courageously step forward, even though you could 

pay a personal price for it. And we want to thank you for that because we will, you know, we are so busy here. You know, you have 

got Chris over here who is the champion of human rights all over 

the world, every country, and we are so busy at times that we 

need, we certainly need people like yourselves to draw our attention to these things so that we can have a proper judgment of it 

and see if some legislation will help. 

So thanks for guiding us in that today. 

Mr. POOLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Let me just ask some concluding questions and then we will conclude the hearing. I remember, because I have been in Congress 

now for 36 years, when U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh 

did extensive research and made landmark recommendations for 

U.N. reform. And that was back in 1993, 23 years ago. 

I remember when he sat right where you sit and called for the 

establishment of Inspectors General; that there was no accountability; waste, fraud, and abuse were habitual in the U.N. It was 

degrading its image as well as the mission. And he was very, very 

eloquent. And he was one of our best Attorney Generals ever, Dick 

Thornburgh. 

So my question, you know, that I would like to ask: The U.N.’s 

response has been lackluster, I believe, when it comes to IGs in 

terms of real robust interventions and protections for whistleblowers. Are there other, as far as you know, other agencies where 

there is a better situation, where whistleblowers, while they may 

be seen as a nuisance, bring forward information that honorable 

and noble people will take and say this is a problem, we need to 

fix it? 

Because, frankly, we are going to do a great deal of follow-up on 

this. And I take to heart, as do the other chairs and ranking members who are here today, when you said that if you come forward, 

as you have done, and there is not a robust response on the part 

of Congress, that that could spell the end for whistleblowers coming forward because they know they will not be pushing on an open 

door but it will be a cul-de-sac to get in for them. We need to have 

56

your back. And I can assure you this chairman will do everything 

humanly possible. 

Because I remember Dick Thornburgh; he said, if we don’t fix 

this, the U.N. is in serious trouble going forward. It is not a sustainable organization if we don’t make sure that every dollar is accounted for and that policies are followed. 

And, again, as you pointed out, Dr. Parish, to suggest that they 

are not covered, they being WIPO, by U.N. sanctions—and Dr. 

Brown as well—is ludicrous. U.N. policies, Security Council policies 

have application for the world, not just for those who, you know, 

there is no immunity there. And we will follow up on that as well. 

But if you could speak to whether or not there is any other sister 

agency where there might be a better situation, if you would like 

to speak to that. 

Dr. Brown, you spoke of the 9 months, March to November 2012, 

where you remained in close contact with the U.S. Mission in Geneva, and also kept staffers from this committee, of course, informed. When the U.S. Mission intervened do you recall how they 

intervened? Was it just a letter? Was it a very strong response? 

Was there any possible penalty affixed to it? 

I do write a lot of laws on human rights, and the trafficking 

laws, four of them now, including the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. There were a lot of people who didn’t want that law because it had punitive sanctions. Our own civil rights laws, as you 

know, in the United States would not have had the kind of impact 

they have had if it wasn’t for the threat of a sanction. And I think 

the greater the Sword of Damocles that hangs over the head of an 

agency or a state or a country, the better, so long as the sanctions 

are judiciously included and implemented. 

What did our representative do, Dr. Brown, if you could speak 

to that? 

And let me finally, if I could, Mr. Pooley, on Shanghai—I was 

just in Shanghai—what was the nature of the office that was 

opened there? Or was it in Beijing; did I mishear that? 

Mr. POOLEY. The office ultimately that was opened was in Beijing. 

Mr. SMITH. Oh, it was ultimately opened. 

Mr. POOLEY. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. If you could, Dr. Brown and Dr. Parish. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. Well, this morning I can only really comment on what I know and what I was told, which is essentially that 

the U.S. Mission made multiple representations to Mr. Gurry and 

demanded that he fully protect whistleblowers. I am not aware 

apart from that. And, of course, the U.S. Mission or the U.S. Government pursued the whistleblower policy which wasn’t in existence at WIPO. 

But I’m not aware, I can’t really comment on any other initiatives; I’m not aware of them. 

Mr. SMITH. And the 15 percent contribution, because our contribution is de minimis anyway, only because so much of it is derived from patents, if I am not mistaken—what kind of impact 

would that have? Why not a 100-percent cut and some other action 

that says we are not kidding? 

57

And that is what kills me. You have put your lives, your careers 

on the line. And again, I say to my Australian friends, please take 

note: You are good friends and allies. This is an aberrant departure; hopefully it is an exception. There needs to be more introspection on the part of that great friend and ally. 

I like what you said: Friends don’t let friends drive drunk. Well, 

friends don’t let friends commit human rights abuses or back a bureaucrat who with impunity is misusing his authority. 

And, again, we invite him to come and testify. I can’t wait to ask 

questions. We invited him today and they sent a note. I would 

rather have him in the flesh and let’s hear their side of the story. 

It will be a briefing, not a hearing, and they could ask us, the 

chairs and ranking members, any questions they want to ask as 

well. 

Mr. POOLEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, all I would say is we would 

very much welcome any kind of ‘‘we really mean it’’ consequence 

that Congress, working with the professionals at the State Department, can develop that would prevent these kinds of things from 

happening in the first place, and that would protect whistleblowers, 

give whistleblowers strong enough protection so that you can get 

the kind of information that you need in order to be able to engage 

in the oversight that you are supposed to do. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, Dr. Parish. 

Mr. PARISH. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I followed issues relating to the accountability of various different international organizations within the U.N. system, some are without, outside the 

U.N. system, and some that seem to be appended to the U.N. system like WIPO, for about the last 10 to 12 years. And I am just 

going to offer some general observations in as far as they can be 

helpful to you. 

I would say that things are patchy and they have generally and 

gradually improved within the United Nations system. The United 

Nations Disputes Tribunal is one form of staff right protection, 

which is certainly better than what came before. And we found 

that in some cases the system of dispute resolution has, has improved, has become more public, and has created a, we hope, a 

more effective structure to protect staff rights, whistleblowers’ 

rights. But it is patchy. It is not perfect. 

But the real bottom of the barrel, if I can describe it like that, 

sir, are cases where there are organizations which sit on the outskirts of the United Nations system, like WIPO, over which the 

hands of tradition may be more for loss of public scrutiny of any 

kind whatsoever, which have kind of fallen away. And the danger 

you find with an organization like that is that they might become 

captured by any one particular individual who doesn’t frankly 

have, may not have model scruples of any particular kind, and may 

not be at all committed to the goals of transparency and accountability, in which case the danger in a case like that is that the organization may simply be run off, run away with by such person 

and ends up who knows where. 

And it might be that the committee concludes on the basis of the 

evidence it has heard today that WIPO is an organization in that 

category. 

58

Now, as to the question of what the committee can do, I am, certainly my own view is that although, yes, the 15 percent cut is effectively de minimis for reasons of WIPO’s funding, nonetheless the 

message of Congress is going to be an extremely important one because U.S. entrepreneurs and businesses are major users of WIPO. 

And, therefore, the United States does have a very, very strong 

voice. And a 100 percent cut is one option. 

But in any event, a public statements of censure in the strongest 

possible terms is something that is going to cause people to say, 

hang on, this is an important organization. My own view is that 

it has an extremely important mandate which is to promote intellectual property rights worldwide. The basic idea is that a U.S. entrepreneur can obtain some sort of patent pending protection in 

many of the jurisdictions through applying with WIPO. It is a very 

important mandate to promote the obvious goals of intellectual 

property advancements. 

And perhaps what is necessary is that some public light of scrutiny is shone into what the organization is doing, and that is something which I respectfully suggest it would be most appropriate for 

Congress to do. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. I just have one last question and then any concluding 

comments, if you would like. Anything that my colleagues and I 

may have missed or not asked, please speak out. 

Dr. Brown, you mentioned that Mr. Gurry ‘‘decided not to renew 

my contract.’’ It will ‘‘take over 3 years of litigation in the International Labour Organization’s Administrative Tribunal’’ before 

being granted a hearing, as WIPO, like most international organizations is immune to national laws. ‘‘During that period, I would 

not have a salary,’’ you said, ‘‘and would most likely not have been 

allowed by the Swiss Government to remain in Geneva, where my 

children are schooled.’’

Let me ask you, even with a hearing, how much longer would it 

have taken for them to adjudicate the case and render an opinion? 

And then, is that standard operating procedure that it takes so 

long to get a hearing, and meanwhile you are out of a job? 

That seems to me—‘‘justice delayed is justice denied’’—that 

seems to me that that is a de facto advantage to the offending 

party because you don’t have a right of recourse there. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. Yes. I think you have summarized the 

situation accurately. Essentially if you go through the Tribunal, 

you will find that it is 3 years, most likely it will take 3 years before your case is heard. And during that time you will be waiting 

to find out what happens. You will be unemployed probably or you 

have to look for——

Mr. SMITH. And there is no provision to continue your employment pending the outcome of the case? 

Ms. BROWN. No. 

Mr. SMITH. Wow. 

Ms. BROWN. And the ILO Tribunal can order reinstatement. So 

at WIPO, after 3 years if you win your case you could be reinstated. But there again, the Director General would have to implement what the Tribunal orders. And in the case of Mr. Gurry, on 

occasion that has not occurred. 

59

I would then add that in the U.N. system it is probably a little 

bit faster. But the problem there is that the Tribunal does not necessarily order the reinstatement and it is the Secretary General 

who decides whether or not his staff member is reinstated. And in 

practice, what happens is that the staff member is usually given 

a small payout. 

So whichever system you look at, it doesn’t work well for whistleblowers. And I would like to emphasize that the situation in general, probably, whistleblowers across the U.N. system, and it may 

have improved in some respect, but where this problem is really exacerbated is where the allegations of wrongdoing involve the U.N. 

agency head. There the system just doesn’t work. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. POOLEY. If I may add, Chairman, the problem that you have 

identified is a very serious one. The way that the system is set up 

now encourages the agency to not only take a position against a 

staff member, but to string it out for as long as possible. 

And I have to say that, again I have been a lawyer for a long, 

long time, and I know that there is a certain view of the law that 

focuses on procedure and delay. And I think Dickens gave us some 

really good examples of it. Some of what happened in Bleak House, 

you find repeated and worse at WIPO. 

In terms of focus on tiny distinctions in procedural issues in 

order to try to produce the longest possible delay to the, to the detriment of the staff member. And basically, as you said, it becomes 

so delayed that there is no possibility of reasonable justice. Mr. 

Gurry used to be the organization’s legal counsel. And he is very 

well-versed in how to take advantage of these procedural rules. 

Mr. SMITH. I do have one final question. And that is, is there 

anything or any provision in the founding documents that established WIPO that protects personnel from retaliation other than 

these long, drawn-out, the Tribunal process for example? 

And can a member, can member states table a resolution perhaps at the Assembly to reform WIPO to get it right, so that, you 

know, a hearing could be within 30 days or 60 days so that everything is on the table? 

Because I would think, and I do believe whistleblowers are one 

of the most noble and important groups of persons in any organization. They are the canaries in the coal mine. If there is a problem 

and somebody comes forward, corrective action can be taken. 

And I would think that the way you have been misdealt with has 

had a chilling effect on anybody else in WIPO coming forward. As 

they say, except for the grace of God, there goes I; jobless because 

of your courage. 

Is there anything can be done? Is there anything in the founding 

documents? And again, can a member state like America, the 

United States, table a resolution that would reform this flawed system? 

Mr. POOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, if I would leave 

you with one final thought it is that WIPO belongs to the U.S. and 

the other member states. It is up to them, if they don’t like what 

they see in how it is being governed, to change it. And one of the 

most impactful ways to change that and resolve some of the concerns that we have seen here would be to ensure that staff memVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:31 Sep 08, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\022416\98830 SHIRL
60

bers have a legitimate, easy to use, and fair way to get their problems and issues resolved. 

And for whistleblowers, as I have said earlier, that really needs 

to include external independent arbitration. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Thank you. 

Dr. Brown or Dr. Parish, any final comments? 

Ms. BROWN. I would agree with what Mr. Pooley says. External 

arbitration is really vital. And at the moment it is denied to U.N. 

staff across the system. 

Mr. PARISH. One final remark from me, Mr. Chairman. The problem in WIPO, specific to WIPO, is that there are internal rules and 

procedures but they all start and finish at the end of the day with 

the Director General. So if you have got a complaint against the 

Director General there is absolutely nothing you can do because he 

can, and he will, be able to block you at absolutely every touch and 

turn. And that may well be, sir, why we are here giving evidence 

before you today. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much. I can assure you we will 

follow up. You have provided enormous insight and wisdom to the 

committees. And we need to come up with an action plan. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:39 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

(61)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

62

f


98830n.eps
63

f


98830m.eps
64

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA


98830d-1.eps
65


98830d-2.eps
66


98830d-3.eps
67


98830d-4.eps
68


98830d-5.eps
69


98830d-6.eps
70

f


98830d-7.eps
71

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


98830e-1.eps
72


98830e-2.eps
73


98830e-3.eps
74


98830e-4.eps
75


98830e-5.eps
76


98830e-6.eps
77

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


98830f-1.eps
78


98830f-2.eps
79


98830f-3.eps
80


98830f-4.eps
81


98830f-5.eps
82

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


98830g-1.eps
83


98830g-2.eps
84

f


98830g-3.eps
85

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MR. JAMES POOLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW

(FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY, WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION)


98830h-1.eps
86


98830h-2.eps
87


98830h-3.eps
88


98830h-4.eps
89


98830h-5.eps
90


98830h-6.eps
91


98830h-7.eps
92

Æ


98830h-8.eps