AGENDA ITEM 7: SUMMARY BY THE CHAIR

|
AGENDA ITEM 7: SUMMARY BY THE CHAIR
|
bet | 9/10 | Sana | 07.04.2017 | Hajmi | 471,46 Kb. | | #3444 |
AGENDA ITEM 7: SUMMARY BY THE CHAIR
375 The Chair invited the Committee to consider the Summary by the Chair. He understood all delegations had a copy. He reiterated his request for delegations to be helpful by not introducing new elements to the summary that were not critically important.
376 The Chair invited the Committee to consider paragraph 1. He stated that the paragraph was adopted given that there were no observations from the floor.
377 The Chair invited the Committee to consider paragraph 2. It was adopted given that there were no observations from the floor.
378 The Chair invited the Committee to consider paragraph 3. It was adopted given that there were no observations from the floor.
379 The Chair invited the Committee to consider paragraph 4.
380 The Delegation of the United States of America referred to the phrase, “projects under implementation and the 19 recommendations for immediate implementation”. It noted that the words, “for immediate implementation”, were new. The Delegation suggested that the phrase be modified to read as follows, “projects under implementation and the 19 Development Agenda Recommendations for immediate implementation”, if indeed those were the 19 DA recommendations that were starred in the initial 45 DA recommendations.
381 The Delegation of South Africa sought clarification from the Secretariat on when these 19 recommendations for immediate implementation were identified as such.
382 The Secretariat stated that the 19 recommendations were identified by the Committee at its first session.
383 The Chair stated that the paragraph would be revised to take into account the comments made by the Delegation of the United States of America, given that there were no further observations from the floor. He then turned to paragraph 5.
384 The Delegation of Brazil referred to sub-paragraph (i). It requested the sentence, “On this project some delegations raised concerns regarding the format of regional consultations”, to be included after “Project on Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer: Common Challenges – Building Solutions, contained in document CDIP/6/4 Rev”.
385 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, referred to sub-paragraph (iii). The Group would like the words, “subject to”, to be replaced with the words, “taking into account”, as there was a mechanism to ensure that resources were made available for CDIP projects.
386 The Chair stated that the paragraph would be redrafted, taking into account the comments made by the Delegation of Brazil and the Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group. He invited the Committee to consider paragraph 6.
387 The Delegation of the United States of America referred to the last sentence in the final paragraph. It would like the word “agreed” to be replaced with the word “considered”. The sentence would then read as follows, “In addition, the Committee considered the recommendation to have a Phase II of the Project on Capacity Building in the Use of Appropriate Technology”. The Delegation believed it had intervened on this before.
388 The Chair stated that the change would result in a lack of clarity for the Secretariat. He would like to know whether the Secretariat should go ahead with preparations for Phase II of the project.
389 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that it was agreed that the Secretariat would prepare a proposal. Phase II would be considered when the document was presented. The Committee would then either agree or not agree on Phase II.
390 The Chair invited the Secretariat to make a drafting suggestion.
391 The Secretariat suggested the following, “In addition, the Committee agreed that the Secretariat should prepare a Phase II project on the subject matter and present it for consideration to the next session”, which it believed was not very different from the proposal by the Delegation of the United States of America.
392 The Chair enquired as to whether that would be agreeable to the Delegation of the United States of America.
393 The Delegation of the United States of America agreed with the suggestion by the Secretariat.
394 The Chair stated that the Secretariat would revise the paragraph based on the proposal by the Delegation of the United States of America given that there were no further observations from the floor. He then turned to paragraph 7.
395 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, requested the Secretariat to reformulate the paragraph to make it more factual. For example, it would like the agenda item, namely, the WIPO GA decision on CDIP Related Matters, to be stated. The Group would also like the paragraph to state that it had submitted a proposal for a new CDIP agenda item. Issues, particularly those that were subject to divergent views, could be explained in order for the paragraph to be more factual and understandable.
396 The Delegation of Germany believed there was a typographical error in paragraph 7 as it referred to documents CDIP/12/5 and CDIP/12/11. The Delegation believed that the latter should read as CDIP/6/12 Rev.
397 The Secretariat explained that the reference was correct as DAG had submitted a revised version of document CDIP/6/12 Rev. This was contained in document CDIP/12/11. Thus, document CDIP/6/12/Rev was superseded by that document. As such, the discussions that took place in the Committee were based on document CDIP/12/11 and not document CDIP/6/12/Rev.
398 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that document CDIP/12/11 was presented to the Committee that week. Thus, while DAG had requested for the paragraph to be reformulated to include its submission, reference could be made to the fact that it had been submitted by the Group but was not officially discussed by the Committee as it just saw the document that week. The Delegation would prefer the paragraph to state that the Committee discussed documents CDIP/12/5 and CDIP/6/12/Rev. It could be stated in another sentence that DAG submitted a new document.
399 The Delegation of Brazil, speaking on behalf of DAG, understood that the Committee actually discussed the document. Many aspects were discussed. Some members of Group B had referred to the Group’s proposal. Thus, the paragraph should refer to the document in order to be more factual. The Group would not mind if the paragraph stated that the document was presented during the session. However, it was a fact that the Committee had discussed the document.
400 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, stated that the Committee had discussed the document. However, as mentioned in its intervention on that item, the Group had presented its preliminary comments on that document. In that sense, some differentiation, as proposed by the Delegation of the United States of America, would be preferable in order for the fact to be properly reflected.
401 The Chair stated that the Secretariat would redraft paragraph 7 based on all the comments from the floor. He noted that there was consensus that the paragraph should be factual.
402 The Chair invited the Committee to consider paragraph 8. He declared the paragraph to be adopted given that there were no observations from the floor.
403 The Chair invited the Committee to consider paragraph 9. He stated that it was adopted given that there were no observations from the floor. He then turned to paragraph 10.
404 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, requested the Secretariat to reformulate the paragraph to make it more factual. For example, it would like the issues discussed and the divergent views expressed on the idea of developing specific indicators to measure WIPO’s contribution to the MDGs to be included. The Group would also like the word “agreements” in the phrase, “based upon the agreements amongst delegations on the content of the revised document”, to be clarified to indicate what these agreements actually entailed.
405 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, was completely satisfied with the text prepared by the Secretariat on this item. The details would be reflected in the report for this session. It was not good to spend precious time to negotiate the text of the Chair's summary. The Chair’s summary was the Chair's summary. Thus, the Group would like the language proposed by the Secretariat to be kept as it was.
406 The Delegation of Venezuela referred to paragraph 8. It recalled that the delegations of Argentina and Moldova had requested the Committee to contemplate the possibility of extending the project to other developing countries.
407 The Chair stated that the paragraph had already been adopted. He enquired as to whether the Delegation of Venezuela could agree to not reopen the discussion on the paragraph.
408 The Delegation of Venezuela agreed to not reopen the paragraph.
409 The Chair returned to paragraph 10 and noted that there were divergent views on the reformulation of the paragraph. Some delegations requested for it to be reformulated and some others expressed satisfaction with the current text. He enquired as to whether the Delegation of Egypt, who had spoken on behalf of DAG, was still keen for the paragraph to be reformulated.
410 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, stated that the meaning of the phrase, “based upon the agreements amongst delegations on the content of the revised document” was not clear. The Group enquired as to whether anyone in the room understood what it meant and could explain what agreements would be captured in the content of the revised document.
411 The Chair enquired as to whether the Secretariat could assist with this matter.
412 The Secretariat (Mr. Baloch) stated that the WIPO staff member who had responded to the questions during the consideration of this item was not in the room. However, it recalled a few points. First, in terms of the UN entities that were covered, some additional entities mentioned by a few delegations would be included. Second, an observation was made that the document was only based on publicly available information. Thus, the Secretariat would undertake direct contact with those agencies. Third, for other goals that were not covered in the document, there would be an executive summary which would also include WIPO's contribution to those MDGs. Those were the three points that came to mind. However, as stated by the Delegation of Japan, a record of the discussion would be included in the report for the session. The Secretariat stated that it would refer to the report for details of the relevant discussion whenever a document was prepared. Thus, the revised document would be based on the report.
413 The Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran supported the statement made by the Delegation of Egypt on behalf of the DAG. The paragraph was very vague. It was not clear how the document would be revised, what methodology would be used and what agreements were made.
414 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, supported the proposal by Group B to leave the paragraph as it was, especially after taking into consideration the explanation provided by the Secretariat.
415 The Delegation of Brazil suggested a way to speed up the process. The explanation provided by the Secretariat on the common ground reached in the discussion on this item could be reflected in the paragraph. The Delegation understood the Committee had agreed on that. Thus, there should not be any problems for that to be written in a decision.
416 The Chair invited delegations to react to the proposal by the Delegation of Brazil.
417 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, appreciated the effort by the Secretariat to reformulate the Chair's summary. However, if it led to further negotiation, the current language should be kept, taking into account the explanation given by the Secretariat and the fact that this was a Chair's summary which could be prepared at the discretion of the Chair, but not the decision which would be the basis for further work.
418 The Delegation of South Africa stated that the paragraph would be much clearer if the elements mentioned by the Secretariat were included. What was agreed would be clearly spelt out. The paragraph as it stood was very vague because it merely stated, “based upon the agreements amongst delegations”.
419 The Chair stated that there was support for the proposal to define the areas of agreement. He enquired as to whether the Delegation of Japan would still like the paragraph to be kept as it was.
420 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, preferred the language to be kept as it was, taking into account the fact that the explanation provided by the Secretariat would be included in the report. This would be made clear in the report without the need to reformulate the language in the Chair's summary which was prepared at the Chair's discretion. If the discussion was reopened, the Group would need to meet to think about extra language which should be inserted in the Chair's summary to make it more proper.
421 The Delegation of Brazil reiterated the understanding that decisions must be included in the Summary by the Chair. The Committee was facing problems in convening the conference on IP and development as it did not give the Secretariat a clear mandate to perform an activity. There were intensive discussions on that subject in the last session and it was agreed that Member States would have the final say. Nevertheless, many delegations stuck to was written in the Summary by the Chair, irrespective of what was discussed and recorded. The points that were agreed must be included in order for the discussions in the Committee to be fruitful. The Delegation of Japan and the other members of Group B understood that there was agreement on some points. Thus, these should be put on paper. The Secretariat had provided a short explanation that would not take long to analyze if it was put on paper.
422 The Chair proposed that the Committee return to paragraph 10 after it had more time to reflect on how to move forward on this matter. He invited the Committee to consider paragraph 11.
423 The Delegation of Brazil referred to the last sentence in paragraph 11 and proposed that it be amended to read as follows, “Following the presentation of the proposals and an exchange of views, the Secretariat was requested to revise the document so as to improve the proposals and present them at the thirteenth session of the CDIP”.
424 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that it was okay with the language as it read. However, in the spirit of compromise, the term “clarify” could be used instead of the term “improve”.
425 The Delegation of Brazil stated that it could go along with the proposal by the Delegation of the United States of America.
426 The Chair stated that the paragraph would be revised accordingly. He turned to paragraph 12. He informed the Committee that the discussions on the Independent Review of the Implementation of the DA Recommendations that took place from 6pm to 9ppm the night before were fruitful. Tangible progress was made. The intention was to finalize the discussions on this issue within the drafting group after the Committee finished considering the Summary by the Chair during the morning. He turned to paragraph 13 and recalled that the Committee had initiated discussions on this issue. Proposals were made. The Committee would need to resume discussions on this issue, hopefully in the beginning of the afternoon session. He then invited the Committee to consider paragraph 14.
427 The Delegation of Brazil referred to the first sentence in subparagraph (i) and suggested that it be amended as follows, “Took note of the Manual on the Delivery of WIPO Technical Assistance contained in document CDIP/12/7.” The Delegation gave the reasons for the change. The document presented was a manual. The Committee was invited to take note of it. Some delegations made comments. Some expressed concerns on what was classified as cooperation for development in the manual. The Delegation understood that it was presented as an input from the Secretariat.
428 The Delegation of Georgia stated that the original sentence was very factual as the general attitude towards the manual was indeed satisfactory. The phrase, “and expressed satisfaction with the document”, should be kept as it was a fact.
429 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, recalled that some requests were made to publish the manual as a booklet. There were also some requests for it to be updated. The manual was not a static document. The Group would like these facts to be captured in subparagraph (i). It should also take into account the observation made by the Delegation of Brazil.
430 The Chair recalled that some delegations had requested for the manual to be printed. Other delegations highlighted that a printed document had fixed statistics. Thus, they would support the idea as long as the contents were continually updated by the Secretariat. He believed that these two ideas could easily be reflected in the paragraph as they were factual. He stated that the Secretariat would prepare a revised paragraph, taking into account the comments made by the delegations. He turned to paragraph 15 and stated that the Committee would continue discussions on this important issue in the afternoon. He then invited the Committee to consider paragraph 16.
431 The Delegation of Brazil referred to subparagraph (i) on the Study on Patents and Public Domain (II) and suggested that it could also be stated that some delegations had proposed the continuation of work on the study on patents and public domain. It would make it more factual as the Committee had discussed whether or not to continue with the study. With regard to the Scoping Study on Strengthening and Development of the Audiovisual Sector in Burkina Faso and Certain African Countries, the Delegation would like further information on how the comments made by Member States would be implemented in the scoping study, whether the Secretariat had taken notes and if the study would be revised, taking into account the concerns raised by Member States.
432 The Delegation of the United States of America referred to the Study on Patents and Public Domain (II) and recalled that it had made comments. However, it did not recall other Member States making comments on the study. There were no requests from Member States for work to be continued.
433 The Delegation of Brazil stated that it may be mistaken but it understood that the EU and its Member States had made a proposal to enhance work in a specific area with respect to patents and public domain. Perhaps that could also be included in the Summary by the Chair.
434 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, stated that it did not make an intervention on this subject.
435 The Delegation of the United States of America recalled that the Delegation and the Representative of the TWN were the only ones that made interventions on this subject. This was reflected in its notes.
436 The Delegation of Brazil stated that perhaps it had noted down the EU and its Member States instead of the TWN. The Delegation then referred to the Scoping Study on Strengthening and Development of the Audiovisual Sector in Burkina Faso and Certain African Countries and reiterated the request it made earlier.
437 The Chair enquired as to whether the Delegation of Brazil had any language to propose.
438 The Delegation of Brazil suggested the following, “the Secretariat took note of comments made by the delegations in order to improve the scoping study”.
439 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that the Delegation of Brazil may be confusing the particular studies that were discussed under this item with respect to the Scoping Study on Strengthening and Development of the Audiovisual Sector in Burkina Faso and Certain African Countries. The Delegation believed that the delegations of Burkina Faso, Kenya, and a number of others raised their flags to express support and appreciation for the work that was done and to support the continued implementation of the project.
440 The Secretariat (Mr. Baloch) recalled that the Delegations of Senegal, Burkina Faso and Kenya had taken the floor on this item. The Delegation of Kenya made some comments on certain observations made in the study. The project was ongoing and the Secretariat had taken note of the comments made. It would pay due attention to the observations in the further implementation of the project.
441 The Delegation of Brazil would like the following sentence to be included, “The Secretariat took note of the comments made by Member States in order to continue implementing the project”.
442 The Chair stated that the Secretariat would work on a revised paragraph to reflect the comments made by delegations and the explanation provided by the Secretariat. He invited the Committee to consider paragraph 17.
443 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, sought clarification on the proposals and list of issues/documents referred to in the paragraph.
444 The Chair stated that these would be looked at in detail in the discussion on future work. Thus, he proposed that the discussion on this issue be postponed. He invited the Committee to consider paragraph 18. He declared the paragraph to be adopted given that there were no observations from the floor. The Chair turned to paragraph 19. It was also adopted given that there were no observations from the floor.
445 The Secretariat informed the Committee that the revised draft Summary by the Chair would be made available to Member States for their consideration after lunch.
446 The Chair invited the drafting group to continue examining the item on the Independent Review of the Implementation of the DA Recommendations in the informal session and requested delegations to continue with their constructive approach.
447 The Chair resumed discussions on the Summary by the Chair. He understood that delegations had copies of the new draft. The paragraphs in bold were approved by the Committee. Those in yellow needed to be discussed and decided. The paragraphs which were not in bold had been reformulated by the Secretariat based on the comments made by delegations. He invited the Committee to consider paragraph 7, the first of the reformulated paragraphs.
448 The Delegation of Germany believed there was a typographical error. It should refer to CDIP/6/12 Rev and not CDIP/6/11 Rev.
449 The Delegation of the United States of America referred to the last sentence, “The Committee decided to continue discussion on this subject at its thirteenth session with the view to reporting back and making recommendations on the implementation of the Coordination Mechanism”. The Delegation would prefer the language to state, “Some delegations requested”, as it believed that the Committee as a whole had not agreed on this.
450 The Delegation of Brazil stated that there was a bit of confusion in the second sentence. The comment made by the Delegation of Germany that it should refer to document CDIP/6/12 Rev instead of CDIP/6/11 Rev was correct. There was a typographical error as the second sentence referred to the new document. The Delegation suggested the following text, “Under Agenda Item 5, the Committee discussed the WIPO General Assembly decision on CDIP related matters (CDIP/12/5) and the related documents CDIP/6/12 Rev. and CDIP/12/11.” It should be followed by a reference to the new proposal submitted by the Delegation of Egypt, as this would clarify that all three documents were discussed in the session. The Delegation referred to the last sentence and the comments made by the Delegation of the United States of America. It understood that the decision by the GA required the Committee to discuss the subject and make recommendations to the GA in 2014.
451 The Chair recalled that the decision of the GA included the following, “requests the CDIP to discuss these two matters during its Twelfth and Thirteenth Sessions, report back and make recommendations on the two matters to the General Assembly in 2014”. One of those matters was related to the Coordination Mechanism.
452 The Delegation of South Africa fully agreed with the Chair’s statement. The GA decision required the Committee to discuss these issues in its twelfth and thirteenth sessions and to make recommendations to the GA. The Delegation did not understand how the Committee would make recommendations to the GA if it did not discuss these issues in the next session. It was common sense to state that the Committee would discuss these issues in the next session. The Delegation believed that was the feeling in the room. If it was not mistaken, even the Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, made the comment that the Committee could discuss this in the next session and make recommendations to the GA.
453 The Delegation of the United States of America made two comments. The Delegation referred to the last sentence. When the Delegation made its comment asking for the wording to be changed to “reporting back and making recommendations”, it was referring back to the GA decision. In keeping with that, the sentence should state, “reporting back and making recommendations on the two matters”, and not on the implementation of the Coordination Mechanism at large in order to stick to the language in the GA decision on these matters. Its other comment was related to the discussion of document CDIP/12/11. The Delegation was not prepared to discuss that document because it was presented during the week of the CDIP session. There was inadequate time to review it, or consult its capital with regard to that document. Hence, it may be appropriate to state that some delegations discussed the document, but it would not be appropriate to state that it was discussed by the Committee.
454 The Delegation of the United Kingdom supported the statement made by the Delegation of the United States of America. It preferred to stick to the language in the GA decision in order for the language to the consistent. On document CDIP/12/11, the Delegation reiterated that it was submitted quite late. There was not enough time to really analyze it.
455 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, noted that the text stated that a new proposal was presented to the Committee. It did not state that the proposal was discussed by the Committee. Thus, it was factual. The Group referred to the sentence beginning with, “The Committee decided to continue discussing this subject”, and proposed that the word “subject” be replaced with the words “agenda item” so as to refer to the agenda item. Perhaps that would clarify the issue for some delegations.
456 The Delegation of India proposed that the word “decided” be replaced with the words “will continue” as it was a fact that the Committee would continue the discussion on this agenda item in order to make recommendations to the GA in 2014.
457 The Delegation of Venezuela stated that a proposal was made although it was submitted late. The proposal was discussed by the Committee. A discussion did not require all delegations to make interventions. It had nothing to do with the number of delegations that made interventions. The proposal was discussed and it was decided that it would be considered at the next meeting.
458 The Delegation of the United States of America suggested that the language be simplified in order to find a path forward. The first sentence with the modification made with respect to the document number, as suggested by the Delegation of Germany, was just a point of information. On the second sentence, the Delegation stated that the Delegation of Egypt did indeed present the proposal to the Committee. However, the Committee did not discuss or consider the item, particularly given that the proposal was not made available in all of the WIPO languages. Therefore, the Delegation suggested that the last sentence be revised to read as follows, “The Committee will continue discussion at its thirteenth session.”
459 The Delegation of South Africa stated that the GA decision required the Committee to continue the discussion on this agenda item, and to report back and make recommendations to the GA. The sentence, “The Committee will continue discussion at its thirteenth session”, did not fully reflect what was requested of the Committee.
460 The Delegation of India reiterated its proposal. The rest of the sentence would remain as it was. Perhaps the Chair could enquire if delegations had any problems with the proposal. The Committee could agree on it if there were no objections.
461 The Delegation of Switzerland believed that all delegations agreed that the Committee must respect the terms of reference given by the GA. This could be reflected in the paragraph. Delegations also agreed that the new proposal by DAG was presented, and discussions would continue at the next session. Thus, the Delegation proposed that the third sentence be modified as suggested by the Delegation of the United States of America, “The Committee will continue discussion at its thirteenth session”. The wording of the mandate given by the GA with regard to the coordination mechanism would then be included, either as a phrase or an additional sentence. The Delegation hoped that would address all the concerns and break the stalemate.
462 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, agreed with the proposal by the Delegation of Switzerland. The Group proposed that the language in the decision by the GA be used. The decision stated that the CDIP would report back and make recommendations on the two matters to the GA in 2014.
463 The Chair noted that there seemed to be consensus that the language should be as close as possible to the decision of the GA. Thus, the paragraph would be reformulated along those lines.
464 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that if the last sentence simply stated “on the two matters” it could also be referring to the new proposal (CDIP/12/11). The two matters came directly from the GA decision, which was what the Committee wanted to reflect. However, it seemed strange as the two matters were not listed in paragraph 7. The Delegation would not like delegations to later state that one of the two matters on which the Committee was supposed to report back was document CDIP/12/11. Thus, it was necessary for the following to be stated, “requests the CDIP to discuss these two matters, as identified in the GA decision (CDIP/12/5), during its twelfth and thirteenth sessions, report back and make recommendations…”, or for the sentence to be reformulated. The Delegation would like it to be clear that those two matters were the two matters in the GA decision. It believed the Secretariat could come up with some language in that regard.
465 The Chair invited the Committee to consider paragraph 10. He stated that the paragraph was adopted given that there were no observations from the floor. He turned to paragraph 12 and requested the Secretariat to read out a draft based on the outcome of the discussions in the drafting group.
466 The Secretariat (Mr. Baloch) read out the last sentence of the paragraph as follows, “The Committee decided to continue discussion on this matter based upon the draft terms of reference developed as the result of the informal negotiations during the present session”.
467 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, recalled the GA decision on the Coordination Mechanism which requested the CDIP to undertake an independent review of the implementation of the DA recommendations at the end of the 2012-2013 biennium. The Committee was supposed to decide on the TOR and the selection of the independent IP and development experts. However, as read out by the Secretariat, the Committee could not reach agreement on the TOR and the selection of the independent IP and development experts. It regretted the fact that agreement was not reached on those elements. The Group recalled that it had presented a joint proposal with the African Group in the eleventh session. It was and remained the only formal proposal on this item in the Committee’s agenda. The proposal was in line with the importance attached by its members to the implementation of the decision by the GA. The Group welcomed the work of the drafting group. Progress was made on the background of the TOR as well as the scope and purpose of the Independent Review. However, progress was not achieved on issues relating to the methodology of the review, selection of the independent IP and development experts, and other related matters. A positive atmosphere had prevailed. Perhaps more would be achieved if the drafting group had more time to work. The Group highlighted the importance of implementing the GA decision. Decisions by the GA must be respected. It would be useful if intersessional work could be undertaken before the next CDIP meeting to conclude the TOR. The work could be guided by the Chair or the Vice-Chair in order for it to be completed. The review should be started as soon as possible, bearing in mind that the Committee would not be able to do so by the end of the 2012-2013 biennium, as requested by the GA.
468 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, stated that the Committee had started the discussion on the TOR for the independent review of the implementation of the DA recommendations. This meant that the Committee could undertake the independent review at this session, i.e. at the end of 2012-2013 biennium, as requested by the GA. At the beginning of the session, the Committee had a proposal on the elements but not the draft text, i.e. the whole picture of the TOR which could serve as the basis for the drafting exercise, although the proposal contributed to that exercise. The whole picture of the draft text of the TOR could be seen for the first time during the session as a result of the significant efforts of its members. Good progress was achieved under the time constraints in the intensive drafting session. The Group underlined the fact that the drafting group agreed on one of the most important and difficult parts, namely, the purpose and scope of the review. This was a significant achievement at this session which the Committee could be proud of. The Group was committed to continue engaging in this exercise with constructive and forward looking spirits. The Committee could continue the exercise and reach a tangible outcome at CDIP/13 by maintaining the positive atmosphere and momentum of the drafting session. With regard to the intersessional work proposed by the Delegation of Egypt, the Group stated that it could not go along with the proposal as the knowledge of development experts was required in the discussion. It was very difficult for their capital based development experts to engage in intersessional work in Geneva. Although the Group could not accept the proposal for intersessional work, it believed that a tangible outcome could be achieved through intensive discussions at CDIP/13.
469 The Delegation of Brazil associated itself with the statement made by the Delegation of Egypt on behalf of DAG. In CDIP/11, DAG and the African Group highlighted the urgent need for a decision on the definition of the TOR for the Independent Review of the Implementation of the DA Recommendations. They presented document CDIP/11/8 as the basis for the discussions. Unfortunately, some members only started to engage in the discussions in this session. The Delegation was disappointed with the outcome of the Committee’s work on this issue.
470 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, stated that it was a great pity that the Committee had not been able to accomplish the task which was handed down by the GA in 2010. As of then, all delegations knew that the Committee had to undertake an independent review of the implementation of the DA recommendations at the end of the 2012-2013 biennium. Although this was known for more than two years, certain delegations felt that the exercise was so simplistic that it could be carried out through two days of consultations. The Group was not one of them. It had made a proposal in the previous session and had stressed on the need to start work. During the consultations, a lot of time was spent on details that did not really deserve such attention. That was a pity. The Group supported the proposal by the Delegation of Egypt, on behalf of DAG, for intersessional work to be undertaken. It would improve the understanding among delegations in order for work to be completed in the next session.
471 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that the Chair charted a course of action that it thought made a lot of sense. He suggested at the beginning of the week that because the Committee only had principles for a set of TOR, delegations should go into a drafting committee in order to draft those TOR. Details were exactly the point of a set of TOR. The Delegation had agreed with the Chair that this was a good idea and engaged quite constructively in that drafting session. Indeed, it had put together an entire proposal for a set of draft TOR. If other delegations preferred, the Delegation would be happy to submit that proposal, on behalf of the United States of America, as a formal CDIP document. In the spirit of cooperation, the Delegation had agreed with the Chair's suggestion that delegations go into drafting sessions. It participated quite actively and constructively in that session. The Delegation echoed the statement made by the Delegation of Japan on behalf of Group B, that the Committee had made a great deal of progress and charted out the first two paragraphs of the TOR. The Delegation hoped that when the Committee re-engaged in the thirteenth session, Member States would be prepared to finalize that draft set of TOR. The Delegation believed that good progress was made on which the new discussions could be based. However, it did not feel that this could happen in intersessional consultations because, as noted by the Delegation of Japan on behalf of Group B, many capital experts had attended and engaged quite actively in those discussions that week. They would not be able to do so in Geneva, in-between the two sessions of the Committee.
472 The Delegation of Cuba supported the statement made by the Delegation of Egypt on behalf of DAG and the statement made by the Delegation of Brazil.
473 The Delegation of the United Kingdom reiterated the statement it made during the informal consultations in order for it to be recorded. The Delegation believed that significant progress was made on this agenda item in this CDIP session. The complex review required clear and precise TOR. All delegations had worked hard to reach convergent points. The Committee had started work on the TOR. This fully complied with the mandate given by the GA for the Committee to undertake the independent review. The Delegation was confident that the Committee would conclude this important work in its future session. The Delegation also clarified that the draft TOR prepared by Group B only included basic principles. This was presented in the informal consultations during the session.
474 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, recognized that the Committee had started to implement the task mandated by the GA. The EU and its Member States acknowledged the importance of the task. Considerable progress was made due to the constructive involvement of all delegations. They believed that agreement on important elements of the TOR had been found. It was confident that work would be successfully concluded in the next session.
475 The Delegation of Spain also hoped that work on the TOR would be completed in the next CDIP session. It understood the frustration felt by many delegations that it was not completed in this session. The problem was not so much the lack of time. It would not be solved through an informal intersessional meeting. The Delegation believed that the problem was the working methodology which focused on lengthy negotiations on language, commitments and positions.
476 The Delegation of South Africa aligned itself with the statements made by the delegations of Egypt and Algeria on behalf of DAG and the African Group respectively. The task at hand was enormous. The Delegation raised the issue of the independent review at the tenth session. In that session, the Delegation requested the Committee to start discussing the TOR as it knew that the task was enormous. At the eleventh session, the African Group presented a proposal on the TOR and requested the Committee to undertake a preliminary discussion on the TOR. However, this was not done. Discussions on the TOR required a lot of effort. The CDIP also dealt with other agenda items. Thus, the Delegation supported the proposal made by the Delegation of Egypt on behalf of DAG, for intersessional work to be undertaken. As stated by the Delegation of Algeria, the intersessional work would not complete the TOR but an understanding could be reached. The TOR could then be adopted by the CDIP as per the decision of the GA.
477 The Chair stated that there was a proposal for intersessional work on this issue. However, it was opposed by other delegations. He sought the guidance of the Committee on the conclusion to this item. He invited the Delegation of Egypt to offer its opinion as it had made the proposal on behalf of DAG.
478 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, stated that in making the proposal, its members were restating their commitment, readiness and availability to work day and night to finalize the TOR and the selection of the IP and development experts to undertake the independent review. Its members respected and adhered to the decision by the GA. They would engage their capital experts in the discussion and use IT resources, e-mail and other means of communication to keep them informed, involved and engaged in the work. The Group was ready to work on this issue. If the matter was deferred to the next CDIP session, it would be deferred for five or six months. The intersessional period could be a good time to evolve the discussion in order for the TOR to be adopted in the next session. By deferring the issue for five or six months, the Committee was also delaying the implementation of the GA decision. The Group left it to the Chair to determine the best approach to implement the decision. It was ready to work and hoped that all delegations would also engage, in good faith, in the exercise and involve their capital based experts through the various forms of communication. The Group clarified that its joint proposal with the African Group was a complete proposal, including the objective, scope and purpose, methodology, selection of experts, expected outputs and timeline for the independent review. Thus, it was much more than just basic principles. Delegations that would like to make a formal proposal should submit it to the Committee. The document should be made available to all delegations in order for them to engage on it.
479 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, reminded delegations of their experience in the informal session that was held before this session. Although communication tools were used to communicate with capital based experts, the discussion was not that useful compared to the intensive discussions that took place in the drafting group during this session. That clearly showed that the direct involvement of capital based development experts in the exercise was essential. Taking account of that fact, the Group would adhere to a discussion at CDIP/13 and not at an informal intersessional working group.
480 The Delegation of Indonesia aligned itself with the statement made by the Delegation of Egypt on behalf of DAG and supported the statement made by the Delegation of Algeria on behalf of the African Group. The Delegation believed that the main problem in the formulation of the TOR was the inconsistency of many delegations in the discussions. The only CDIP document on the table was the joint proposal by DAG and the African Group. A document was then added by Group B during the informal discussion. In that discussion, the use of the words, “evaluation”, “review” and “assessment” was found to be inconsistent. Further, the document by Group B referred to UN evaluation practices that failed to cover the general work of the CDIP. Thus, in the future work of the Committee, the Delegation wished more consistency in comments in order to facilitate discussions, understanding and flexibility. Lastly, the Delegation expressed its regrets that the Committee had not been able to finalize the process. It sought the guidance of the Chair on how the Committee could implement the mandate given by the GA.
481 The Delegation of Canada shared the views expressed by the delegations of Japan and the United States of America. The Delegation was frustrated but recognized that progress had been made. The agenda for the next CDIP session must be less heavy so as to give Member States as much time as possible to achieve this important task. This must be kept in mind in the discussion on future work.
482 The Delegation of Spain reiterated that it was not in favor of extra sessions. This was not because it did not give due importance to the issue. The Committee did not manage to deal with the issue at this session. It was really a question of attitude and not of time. The Committee met frequently and was more efficient when a clear time frame was established. Without it, the sessions were prolonged and there were other negative consequences. For example, although the Summary by the Chair was an important document, the draft had not been translated into other official languages for discussion.
483 The Delegation of Venezuela stated that the proposal by the Delegation of Egypt was important and also interesting. The Delegation of Japan may be right that the experts would not be around. Thus, an intermediate solution could be to convene an extraordinary session of the Committee for two to three days in February, for example, to discuss this issue and the experts could attend.
484 The Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago had listened carefully to the statements made by the various delegations. Perhaps some middle ground could be found as the Committee needed to fulfill the mandate given by the GA. In the period before the next session, it may be better to continue with informal consultations and not hold intersessionals per se among Member States just like what was done during that week. Sporadic consultations could take place so that some inroads could be made before the next CDIP session.
485 The Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran associated itself with the statement made by the Delegation of Egypt on behalf of DAG. According to the decision of the GA in 2010, the TOR and the selection of experts should be finalized by the CDIP at the end of the 2012-2013 biennium. The Committee was obliged to finalize it. The Delegation fully supported the idea of holding an intersessional meeting in order to fulfill the mandate given by the GA.
486 The Delegation of India referred to the proposal by the Delegation of Egypt on behalf of DAG and the proposal by the Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago. Perhaps the Committee could agree on some sort of informal consultation. Some work had to be done before the next session to avoid the possibility of not reaching consensus in the next session. Informal consultation was a normal channel of work in WIPO, particularly on very pressing or important issues.
487 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, stated that it could be flexible with regard to the proposals by the delegations of Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago. The Group had proposed intersessional work. Both proposals addressed that objective.
488 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that while it agreed that all delegations needed to go back to their respective capitals and work internally to come up with language for the next CDIP session, it did not agree with the suggestion of many delegations that informal consultations or intersessionals of any sort should take place. This was an exercise which required everyone to be present. The Delegation thought the Chair’s idea of holding a drafting session that week was very good. A way forward could be for delegations that had specific TOR proposals to provide those in writing as CDIP/13 documents well in advance of the session in order for delegations to come prepared to really engage and discuss the TOR rather than just notions or principles for the TOR.
489 The Chair requested the Delegation of the United States of America to restate its proposal on the way forward.
490 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that intersessional work and informal work would probably not help Member States to reach a conclusion. A drafting exercise required everyone to be present. Delegations that had specific TOR proposals, as opposed to just ideas behind the TOR, should submit them as formal proposals well in advance of the thirteenth session of the CDIP so that there was time for them to be translated and for delegations to consult with their respective capitals. Delegations could then engage in another active drafting session at CDIP/13.
491 The Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago stated that it could also consider the proposal by the Delegation of the United States of America. However, it did not want the idea of holding informal consultations to be ruled out. The missions in Geneva engaged with their respective capitals. Informal consultation was not a strange procedure in WIPO. Member States were allowed to engage in informal consultations, including with respect to certain issues related to this agenda item. The Delegation had attended most of the sessions that week and believed they were quite productive. If the Committee continued along those lines, some inroads or progress could be made before the next CDIP session. Thus, the idea should not be immediately ruled out.
492 The Delegation of Venezuela reiterated its suggestion to hold an extraordinary session before the next session to solely discuss this issue. All the Member States could attend. The issues would be resolved. The last proposal by the Delegation of the United States of America on submitting proposals ahead of time would only complicate matters as it would add more documents and not lead anywhere. The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, had proposed the participation of experts. The Delegation of the United States of America had also referred to it. The convening of an extraordinary session prior to the thirteenth session was the best way to resolve these issues. The experts would be present and the issues could be resolved without the need to add more paper.
493 The Delegation of China found the proposal by the Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago to be very constructive and hoped the Committee would give it serious consideration.
494 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, highlighted the need to think in the whole context of WIPO. The Group understood the importance of allocating enough time to discuss this matter. By deferring some agenda items to a later stage, more time could be allocated to the discussion on this issue at the next CDIP session. The meeting should be organized efficiently and effectively, taking into account the prioritization of work within a limited time, and paying attention to the whole context of WIPO activities.
495 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, pointed out that the problem was not the Committee’s agenda. The GA issued the decision in 2010. A formal proposal was presented in the last session. The Committee was supposed to undertake the review in this biennium. It was delaying the whole issue until the next biennium. The Group hoped that it would not take the whole of the next biennium to discuss the TOR and the experts. The Committee must work hard to achieve this task to respect the decision by the GA. If the Committee was unable to undertake the review at the end of this biennium, it should do so in the nearest possible time. This required the Committee to start work on it as soon as possible. The issue was not the Committee’s agenda. The Committee must start work on this issue as soon as it could to demonstrate that it was faithfully implementing the decision by the GA. The Group reiterated its support for the proposal by the Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago which was supported by the Delegation of China. It also supported the proposal by the Delegation of Venezuela. The Group hoped that the Committee could reach consensus on one of those proposals.
496 The Delegation of South Africa referred to the concerns raised by Group B with regard to the participation of their experts in intersessional meetings. As their experts would not be available for those meetings, the Delegation proposed that the duration of the next CDIP session could be extended to seven or eight days. Two days would be allocated to specifically discuss the TOR. The rest would be devoted to discussing other items on the Committee’s agenda. That could be a further option.
497 The Delegation of the United Kingdom stated that it was dedicated to fulfilling this mandate and continuing with the TOR, especially after the hard work done by delegations in this session. The Delegation proposed a compromise. The Secretariat could be requested to take on board the work that was done in the drafting sessions and the decision reached at this point. Delegations would be given a set time to submit comments. The Secretariat could then continue with the drafting of the TOR and submit it for consideration at the next session.
498 The Delegation of the United States of America supported the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom.
499 The Chair requested the Delegation of the United Kingdom to repeat its proposal for the sake of clarity.
500 The Delegation of the United Kingdom stated that good work was done in the drafting sessions. The spirit was very constructive in those sessions. The Delegation believed that a good compromise would be for the Secretariat to take the decision from the drafting sessions of the TOR as it stood and give delegations a certain amount of time to submit additional comments on how the TOR should be concluded. The Secretariat would then continue with the drafting of the TOR. The document could be discussed at CDIP/13.
501 The Delegation of Germany supported the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom. It was a pragmatic way forward. The Committee required a draft text as a basis for the discussions. The Committee had the proposal by Group B and the joint proposal by DAG and the African Group. However, progress was slow. Thus, if the Secretariat was requested to continue work on what had been achieved with additional comments from delegations, it would certainly speed up the discussions.
502 The Delegation of Greece was also of the opinion that substantive progress was achieved. It supported the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom.
503 The Delegation of Brazil sought clarification from the Delegation of the United Kingdom on the value of its proposal as delegations could already submit comments to the Secretariat for circulation to all Member States. Informal consultation was a possible compromise. The proposal by the Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago was the best way forward. The Committee was not discussing a treaty. It was discussing the TOR for the Independent Review. It was only natural for delegates in Geneva to gather and discuss the matter in order to produce some results and to prepare work for the next CDIP session.
504 The Delegation of France endorsed the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom.
505 The Delegation of India referred to the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom. It understood that the Secretariat would be requested to compile the work that was done. Thereafter, it would seek inputs and comments from Member States. As highlighted by the Delegation of Brazil, these were not treaty negotiations. It was suggested that participation in person was required in the drafting group. This approach would not lead to a fruitful conclusion. It would just complicate matters rather than provide a solution. Delegations could agree to hold one or two informal meetings with the participation of Geneva-based delegates. Countries could seek inputs from their respective capitals on the TOR. All delegations could contribute to the TOR. It was a simple and precise document. The Delegation reiterated that these were not treaty negotiations.
506 The Chair invited the Delegation of the United Kingdom to respond to the requests for clarification from the delegations.
507 The Delegation of the United Kingdom stated that this was an extremely important document. The Delegation wanted to try and progress with it as much as possible in preparation for the next CDIP session. If the work that was done in the drafting sessions could be collated and comments were submitted by delegations that wished to do so, the Secretariat with their experience and expertise in drafting such documents could take on board all the different views and draft a balanced and objective document. The discussions in the next session could then be based on the document.
508 The Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago believed that the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom could work in tandem with an informal procedure or informal consultations. After all the inputs were obtained, delegations could engage in informal consultations to discuss them in small numbers. The Delegation believed that the informal sessions conducted that week were good. The procedure was not peculiar to WIPO. It was used in various committees. As the coordinator of GRULAC, most of the Delegation’s time was spent in informal consultations. It was not new to the Organization. It was something that could be considered. The Delegation also believed that Member States, especially DAG and the African Group, wanted to keep this issue on the front burner in order for it to be on the minds of all delegations. The Delegation believed that informal consultation was the way forward.
509 The Delegation of India referred to the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom. It understood that the expertise of the Secretariat could be used to guide the process. However, thus far, delegations had not relied on the expertise of the Secretariat to guide the process. It was led by the proposals from Member States or groups. The Committee seemed to be considering some other methods. The Delegation was not comfortable with that.
510 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, supported the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom. The Group observed that the discussions in the drafting exercise held during that session sometimes went round and round. The Secretariat’s knowledge and sense of balance was essential. Thus, the Group welcomed more involvement by the Secretariat in the process. In this regard, the proposal by the United Kingdom was the most effective and efficient use of time in the intersession. The Committee could discuss the issue in a more constructive and effective manner at CDIP/13 on the basis of that text.
511 The Delegation of Spain found the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom to be sound. A compilation of work done would help to identify, simplify, merge and collate the proposals on the table. Delegations would be more prepared for the next session and time could be saved in the negotiating exercise. The Chair could assist the Committee if some delegations believed that the Secretariat should not carry out this exercise. Perhaps there could be a document from the Chair.
512 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, enquired as to whether the Secretariat had a draft template for the TOR, in particular, the TOR prepared for the last review that took place on a CDIP related matter. Perhaps that could be made available to the delegations in order for it to be considered with the document that they had been working on for the last three days and the formal proposal by Member States.
513 The Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran supported the statement made by the Delegation of Egypt on behalf of DAG. It believed that the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom would not help to facilitate the work of the CDIP on completing the TOR.
514 The Delegation of Venezuela referred to its proposal and stated that there had been no objections to it. The proposal took into account the proposals from both parties. It did not know why the Committee had moved on to discuss the proposal from the Delegation of the United Kingdom. The Committee continued to discuss it when half the room was opposed to it. Perhaps the Chair could enquire as to whether anyone was opposed to its proposal. If there was no opposition, the Committee could move ahead with the proposal.
515 The Chair understood that there was an objection to the proposal.
516 The Delegation of Venezuela stated that it may be that the objection was raised when it left the room to get some water. It would like the delegation that had opposed the proposal to restate its objection.
517 The Chair enquired as to whether there was support for an extraordinary meeting of the CDIP to be held ahead of the next CDIP session.
518 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, reiterated that it could not accept extending the period of the next session or to add an extraordinary session to the next session.
519 The Chair requested the Secretariat to respond to the query by the Delegation of Egypt.
520 The Secretariat stated that the last TOR for such a review were those for the review of WIPO technical assistance. This was mentioned in the informal consultations. The TOR were included in document CDIP/8/INF/1. The DA Coordination Division was not aware of a model TOR. The IAOD or the Program Management and Performance Section may have standard TOR that they modified to suit each case. If the Secretariat was to be given this responsibility, it would need to pull resources from the other concerned divisions within the Organization to try and respond to the request.
521 The Delegation of Georgia was ready to facilitate the process for reaching consensus. Delegations should not dwell on unimportant details of the draft text, and work in a constructive and cooperative spirit. The drafting group sessions already indicated some convergence and potential for agreeing on the text. The Delegation was flexible on the way forward for finalizing the TOR as long as an agreement was reached by other delegations on this matter.
522 The Delegation of Venezuela noted that Group B was opposed to its proposal. Although the Delegation accepted the Group’s response, it was far from convincing. The Delegation believed the Group had no desire to move ahead.
523 The Chair invited the Vice-Chair to temporarily preside over the meeting as he had to leave the room for ten minutes.
524 The Vice-Chair resumed the discussions. She noted that several suggestions were put forward. However, Group B was not in favor of an extraordinary CDIP session or informal consultations. She enquired as to whether the Group could be flexible on either of those, or if they were absolutely unacceptable.
525 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, reiterated that an extraordinary session or extension of a session would not be a useful way to reach a final agreement on the TOR. The Group strongly believed that the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom was a more efficient and effective way to continue work in order to reach agreement on the TOR. That was its position.
526 The Vice-Chair enquired as to whether the African Group or DAG could take into consideration the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom and perhaps build on the work in the drafting session. There were already some points of convergence and a spirit of agreement at some point. Agreement was almost reached. However, it was not possible in the end. Perhaps the Secretariat could redraft the text based on what was already achieved and submit it before the next CDIP session in order for the delegations to reflect on it.
527 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, welcomed the outstanding role by the Secretariat. Building on the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom, the Group stated that the Secretariat could assist the process by making available the TOR for the last review that was conducted to serve as a reference for all delegations. The Secretariat could also expound on the missing elements of the negotiated text, especially with regard to the budget and timeline for the review. That would certainly help and add to the process. The Group referred to the proposal by the Delegation of Spain for a Chair’s document to be provided. If such supporting documents could be provided to Member States, they could engage in some kind of informal discussion on the documents in preparation for the next CDIP session. The Committee would then be building the blocks for implementing the GA decision. The end result would be to implement the decision in the nearest possible time as the Committee was not able to do so in the timeline stated in the decision. There should be no further delays in the process. The Committee must start implementation as soon as possible as it was not able to do so in this biennium.
528 The Vice-Chair requested the Secretariat to reflect on whether and when it would be able to provide a document built on what was already agreed at the informal drafting sessions. Perhaps the Secretariat could also suggest another way forward.
529 The Secretariat (Mr. Baloch) stated that it could provide a draft. However, the Secretariat also recalled that it had raised the issue of whether it had the necessary guidance to produce a draft. In the eleventh CDIP session, the Secretariat was asked to come up with draft TOR. In reply, the Secretariat had stated that the guidance of Member States was required in order for it to do so. Divergent views were expressed throughout the session. Although the Secretariat could produce a draft, it may not meet the expectations of Member States if clearly articulated principles and detailed information were not provided.
530 The Vice-Chair stated that there was consensus on an important section of the draft TOR, namely, the scope and purpose of the review. Perhaps that could guide the Secretariat to develop a further document.
531 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, assured the Secretariat that it would not draft TOR for the Member States. The Secretariat could guide them on the budget and timeline for the review. However, the key elements should be in the hands of the Member States. This was recognized by the Secretariat. The TOR should be guided and drafted by the Member States. The Group was open to other suggestions.
532 The Vice-Chair enquired as to whether delegations would be comfortable with a Chair’s document. The Chair or Vice-Chair could produce a new document which could be discussed. She sought the Committee’s guidance on the way forward.
533 The Delegation of Venezuela stated that the Secretariat’s explanation was perfectly reasonable. The Secretariat could not draw up the TOR without clear guidance from the Member States. The objectives were not clear as the opinions and comments of Member States differed. Whatever the Secretariat produced would complicate the discussion at CDIP/13 as the document would be based on its interpretation of the comments which were translated into the official languages. The Secretariat required clear guidance on how to draw up the TOR.
534 The Delegation of the United Kingdom clarified that its proposal did not give the Secretariat the role to prepare the TOR as such. The lead role in the process was still in the hands of the Member States. There were two reasons for this. First, it was proposed that Member States would submit their comments. Second, the final decision would be made by Member States. It was up to them to discuss and modify whatever the Secretariat would come up with to facilitate the process. It was the Member States that would agree on the TOR. The Delegation requested the Delegation of Egypt to repeat its latest proposal on behalf of DAG.
535 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, recalled that it had requested the Secretariat to make available the TOR for the last review. The Secretariat could also provide their views and inputs on the budget and timeline for the review based on the experience of the last review. The Secretariat could make those documents available to the delegations. They could then make good use of the Vice-Chair’s kind efforts to start work on this issue in preparation for CDIP/13.
536 The Delegation of the United States of America supported the idea that the Chair or
Vice-Chair could put together a document based on the consensus that was built with respect to both the background and the scope and purpose of the TOR in the drafting session. As an alternative, the Delegation also supported the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom that the Secretariat provide a compilation of materials for the consideration of Member States. The Delegation would certainly provide its submission or proposal to the Secretariat for that compilation. Should the Secretariat indeed put together that compilation, the Delegation recommended that the Secretariat look at the most recent review or evaluation that was performed for the Committee which was much more recent than the document referred to by the Delegation of Egypt. There was a set of TOR in document CDIP/12/4. The Delegation recommended that all Member States took a look at that document as well. The Delegation believed the Committee had a way forward with respect to the background and scope and purpose of the TOR. It was open to the idea mentioned by the Delegation of Egypt with regard to the Secretariat providing further information on budget and timeline.
537 The Vice-Chair enquired as to whether the delegations could be agreeable to what was just mentioned by the delegations of Egypt and the United States of America on the compilation of materials and for the Secretariat to also provide guidance on the budget and timeline for the review. The Chair or Vice-Chair could provide a draft if required to do so.
538 The Chair returned to preside over the meeting.
539 The Delegation of Brazil explained its position. A compilation of the information and positions of countries on its own would not necessarily help the Committee to get closer to an agreement. This exercise was conducted on the issue of external offices in WIPO. It would only work if informal consultations were held to narrow down the proposals and find a compromise. The Delegation referred to the proposal by the Vice-Chair. She could facilitate the process by bringing together the positions of countries. Perhaps that could be the way forward. A text could be provided by the facilitator as the basis for the discussion in the next CDIP session. The compilation would only add value to the Committee’s work if informal consultations were conducted to find common ground.
540 The Chair enquired as to whether delegations were comfortable with the proposal by the Delegation of Georgia.
541 The Delegation of Algeria requested the Delegation of Brazil to repeat its proposal.
542 The Delegation of Brazil stated that the idea was to rely on the kind offer of the Delegation of Georgia as Vice-Chair. She would compile the versions and try to find common ground in the positions of countries. The text would be the basis for work in the next CDIP session. It would be a working document for the next CDIP session. If the Committee was to build on the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom, informal consultations would be required, as mentioned by the Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago. In a nutshell, since agreement could not be found, the Committee could accept the offer by the Delegation of Georgia.
543 The Delegation of India supported the Vice-Chair’s offer to facilitate discussions or consultations during the intersession. It preferred to continue the discussion in that manner in order to get closer to an agreement before the next session. The format could be further discussed and decided.
544 The Delegation of Spain referred to the proposal by the Delegation of Brazil on a working document. It was a very good idea. Perhaps the Delegation of India had stated something different. The Delegation could support the proposal if it did not include intersessional meetings.
545 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, referred to the offer by the Vice-Chair. The Group understood she had offered to act as a facilitator and conduct consultations in order to build on the text that was discussed, especially with regard to continuing with the remaining elements such as the methodology, selection of experts, timeline and budget for the review. The text would be made available to delegations in CDIP/13. The offer by the Delegation of Georgia was very good. The Group noted that the Committee had yet to discuss other pending issues, including the International Conference on IP and Development and the External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development.
546 The Delegation of the United Kingdom referred to the offer by the Delegation of Georgia as Vice-Chair. Taking into account that there were still pending issues on the agenda and the late hour, the Delegation supported that way forward and to work on the Vice-Chair’s proposal at the next session of the CDIP.
547 The Delegation of the United States of America requested other Member States to provide their submissions to the Vice-Chair or Secretariat well in advance of the next session in order for the Committee to decide on this item during that session and move on to the many other items on the agenda.
548 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, believed that a consolidated text would be one of the most effective and efficient ways to facilitate the discussion at CDIP/13.
549 The Delegation of India understood that the Vice-Chair had offered to compile a text to facilitate consultations in the intersession. However, it now appeared that the text would be compiled only for discussion in the next CDIP session. If that was the case, it would not be a good idea to give the Vice-Chair the task of compiling the comments or inputs by the Member States. That could easily be done by the Secretariat. There was no need for the Vice-Chair to be involved.
550 The Chair requested the Delegation of Georgia to clarify the process.
551 The Delegation of Georgia was ready to redraft, compile and work on a new draft text based on what was agreed and taking into consideration the compilation of documents to be furnished by the Secretariat. It would work on a single document which would be considered by the CDIP. It would not be possible to hold intersessional meetings as there were clear objections from the members of Group B. They and their capital-based experts were not ready to meet informally before the next session. However, the Delegation was flexible in terms of the format. It could work on a new text that would be a starting point for the discussion in the next session.
552 The Delegation of Brazil understood that the Committee could agree on the proposal by the Vice-Chair. She would draft a text and it would be the basis for the discussion in the next CDIP session. It would help to speed up the discussion and perhaps a decision could be reached early in the next session. The Delegation’s first preference was the proposal by DAG. It could be flexible and accept the proposal by the Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago. However, in the spirit of compromise, the Delegation could support the proposal by the Vice-Chair as the way forward.
553 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, stated that the process was clear following the clarification provided by the Delegation of Georgia. The text should reflect the views of all delegations. The Vice-Chair could meet with delegations in the intersession. Delegations that did not want to meet with the facilitator were free to do so.
554 The Delegation of India stated that the draft text to be prepared by the Vice-Chair could be seen as a text by the Delegation of Georgia text if other delegations were not involved. The Delegation believed it was not meaningful for the Vice-Chair to attempt something which would not be acceptable. Thus, it would be better for the Secretariat to compile all the comments and inputs provided by Member States. The Committee could not embark on intersessional work if there was no agreement for it to do so.
555 The Delegation of Venezuela stated that the proposal by the Delegation of Georgia seemed to be easy. It would work on a compilation. The Delegation could not understand why informal meetings could not be held to achieve progress. This was done all the time with regard to the rotation of the Chair. The delegates were in Geneva. They received orders and attended meetings. They engaged in consultations. However, they could not do so on this subject. They would meet in the next CDIP session. The Delegation believed that progress would not be made in that session as there was no will to achieve progress.
556 The Delegation of the Russian Federation stated that it was extremely important to conserve the results of the work done during the session. It would be useful to keep the points on which consensus had been reached in the document. The Chair or the Secretariat could draw up a compilation that would reflect all views. In terms of finding a compromise on the methodology for future work, the Delegation found the proposal by the Delegation of Egypt to be quite interesting. It understood that the Delegation of Egypt had proposed that the Chair or the Vice-Chair should act as a facilitator. Interested delegations could contribute to the document which would be drawn up by the Chair or the Vice-Chair. The document would then reflect the positions of the Member States to some extent. The document would be received by the next session of the Committee. It would help the Committee to make progress if delegations were able to receive a single document that would take into account, to some extent, the views of the Member States or groups on this matter. The Committee would not need to then spend much time on this in the next session. Member States could provide inputs during the intersession. The Delegation was flexible on that and could go with the proposal put forward by the Delegation of Egypt.
557 The Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago reiterated that it had tried to find some middle ground. It had earlier accepted to work with the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom. However, it reiterated that informal consultation was a norm in WIPO. It was normal to try to resolve this issue through such consultations. The Delegation had witnessed it in almost every single normative committee in the Organization. The delegations of Brazil, China, India, Venezuela, and DAG were just a few of those that supported its proposal. The Delegation would like to know if there were any definite objections to the proposal as informal consultations were normal in WIPO. It did not understand why any delegation would object to the proposal as it was a practice that was normally used in the Organization.
558 The Delegation of Morocco supported the proposal by the Delegation of Georgia. It preferred to work on a text that was a compilation of the comments and opinions of the Member States. The text should be sent out as soon as possible in order for all interested delegations to comment on it before submitting the last draft to the next CDIP session.
559 The Delegation of Algeria supported the statement made by the Delegation of Egypt. The proposal by the Delegation of Egypt was an acceptable compromise.
560 The Delegation of Brazil reiterated that it shared many of the concerns raised by the Delegation of Egypt and others. It shared the understanding that intersessional work was needed. Nonetheless, it could demonstrate flexibility. Perhaps the middle ground could be to follow the same method that used for this session. An informal meeting was held in the week before the session. The Vice-Chair could provide her version of the working document in that session. Delegations could then start work and prepare for the CDIP session.
561 The Delegation of Ecuador had listened very carefully to the discussion and believed that consensus could be achieved with the Chair’s guidance based on the proposal by the Delegation of Egypt. It was clear and there were no objections to it. No delegation had opposed the suggestion by the Vice-Chair that she could facilitate a compilation of the various proposals in order to start a process of consultations which was a usual practice in the Organization. The consultations would involve delegations that were interested to take part. The purpose would be to develop a document on which work would begin in the next CDIP session.
562 The Delegation of the United States of America requested for a few minutes to consult.
563 The Chair resumed the discussions. He understood that the break and the consultations were useful and allowed for a compromise to emerge.
564 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, referred to its internal consultations. The Group had decided to show maximum flexibility, taking into account the strong demand from some groups for informal consultations to be held. The Group proposed a draft decision paragraph which read as follows, “The Committee decided to continue discussion on this matter at its 13th session based upon a Chair's text of TOR that reflects both the consensus achieved in informal negotiations held during this session and the Secretariat's input on budget and timeline. Member States are invited to submit their comments by the end of January 2014. The Secretariat will facilitate one informal meeting prior to the 13th session. During the 13th session of the CDIP, sufficient time will be allocated to discuss this item.” Taking into account the situation and the late hour, the Group requested other groups to also show maximum flexibility on pending issues that would be discussed after this agenda item.
565 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, requested for a copy of the proposed text as it was not able to note down all the elements.
566 The Delegation of Japan stated that the Secretariat had taken a copy in order for it to be distributed.
567 The Vice-Chair resumed the discussions. She stated that a decision was reached on paragraph 12 of the Summary by the Chair. This was as follows:
“The Committee discussed the Independent Review of the Implementation of the Development Agenda Recommendations as requested in the Coordination Mechanisms and Monitoring, Assessing and Reporting Modalities (WO/GA/39/7, Annex II). The Committee decided to continue discussions on this matter at its 13th session, and sufficient time will be allocated to finalize the Terms of Reference. To this end, Member States are invited to submit comments by the end of January 2014. The CDIP requests the Chair to prepare draft Terms of Reference based on the consensus achieved during the informal negotiations held during the twelfth session, the comments received, and the Secretariat’s input on budget and timeline. The CDIP further requests the Chair of CDIP to hold one informal consultation to discuss the draft Terms of Reference prior to the 13th session.”
568 The Delegation of Belarus, speaking on behalf of CEBS, endorsed the proposal. It hoped that other groups could also do so.
569 The Chair stated that the decision paragraph was adopted given that there were no objections from the floor. He then referred to the two remaining issues on the agenda, namely, the External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development and the International Conference on IP and Development. He proposed that the consideration of those issues be deferred to CDIP/13 as the Committee would not be able to achieve consensus in a reasonable time.
570 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, supported the Chair’s proposal.
571 The Chair stated that the proposal was adopted given that there were no objections from the floor. He then invited the Committee to examine paragraph 14 of the Summary by the Chair. It was reformulated by the Secretariat based on the comments made by delegations.
572 The Secretariat (Mr. Baloch) referred to a minor change in paragraph 14. Sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v) should be renumbered as (i) and (ii). The Secretariat then referred to what appeared as sub-paragraph (v). The following was added at the request of delegations, “The Secretariat took note of the comments made by Member States, in particular with regard to publishing the manual as a booklet and continue to update its content”.
573 The Chair stated that the paragraph was adopted given that there were no observations from the floor.
|
| |