WIPO Director General Candidates Answer 5 Questions On IP Policy

Intellectual Property Watch posed five questions on IP policy to the 15 candidates to be the next director general of the World Intellectual Property Organization.

What actions are needed in the international IP systems, such as those that govern patents, trademarks and copyrights?
One year after you take office, what do you expect to have changed in WIPO’s management, staffing and procedures?
How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?
What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals and potential, and how will you engage with members and other stakeholders?
How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates and work with other global institutions?

Here are the 15 candidates by alphabetical order, click on the names to read their answers:

Alicja Adamczak (Poland)
Toufiq Ali (Bangladesh)
Jorge Amigo Castañeda (Mexico)
José Graça Aranha (Brazil)
Gjorgji Filipov (Macedonia)
Francis Gurry (Australia)
Masood Khan (Pakistan)
Enrique Manalo (Philippines)
Mauro Masi (Italy)
James Otieno Odek (Kenya)
Philippe Petit (France)
Bojan Pretnar (Slovenia)
Boris Simonov (Russia)
Yoshiyuki Takagi (Japan)
José Delmer Urbizo (Honduras)

Alicja Adamczak (Poland), President of the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland (2002-present); member, Administrative Council of the European Patent Organization (2006-present); IP attorney

Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the international IP systems, such as those that govern patents, trademarks and copyrights?

ALICJA ADAMCZAK: The most immediate action to take is to get back the correct balance in the intellectual property system between private and public interests. The efficiency of the IP system has always been based on the kind of balance which is built between two elements of a trade-off: providing a means for the inventor/creator to capture the benefits of its effort whilst maximising the social dissemination of knowledge. Therefore it is important to find appropriate ways to solve the tension between the maximisation of private interests of the creators and inventors on one side and the socially optimal use of knowledge on the other side. This is not new. This balanced principle is clearly recognised in many international instruments such as, among many, Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (60 years ago!), Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement or the Preamble of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT). The Commission on IPRs, created by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) also made this remark a few years ago.

If Member States are able to address intellectual property as a careful balanced implementation of obligations, flexibilities, safeguards and exceptions, then many achievements will be possible, from the integration of the development dimension into policy making IP strategy (i.e, the implementation of the development agenda), the harmonisation of IP procedures and practices on reasonable terms in order to facilitate an expeditious, high quality and cost effective IP administration and protection (avoiding the overlap and redundancy of work in the field of patent or trademark examination through greater reciprocal recognition of IP offices’ examination, opposition and acceptance procedures as well as a better sharing of search results), or the “guidance” of IP development through the consensual development of “soft law” instruments (for SPLT, copyright, TK) etc.

IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have changed in WIPO’s management, staffing and procedures?

ADAMCZAK: I feel like one well known woman politician when she says “I am ready to lead on day one”. The desk-to-desk study for WIPO was commissioned to “assist the Organization in better aligning its human resources to its strategic goals, to provide input to the development of a human resource management strategy and to assist WIPO in continuing to discharge effectively its mandate while responding swiftly to changes in its external environment.” It is fundamental to courageously implement the D2D recommendations as soon as possible. Otherwise, forget about bringing back pride, motivation and good morale within WIPO staff. On the basis of my experience in the Polish IP Office, I intend to renovate WIPO by adapting the Organization to the imperatives of independence, professionalism and competence. This means rethinking the structure of the whole Organization in order to maximise the human resources and avoid the existing overlaps and duplication of work, staffing relevant divisions to provide professional services to Member States, improving internal communication, coordination and cooperation, finding appropriate solutions to regularise the situation of long term consultants and short-terms, re-introducing a culture of professionalism and management (“The right and best person at the right place”) and developing performance-oriented culture and improving mobility within the Organization as an element of staff motivation and career development. WIPO Staff, through its Staff Association notably, has to be closely involved in the adoption of this policy.

IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?

ADAMCZAK: The need to integrate the development dimension into policy making intellectual property protection is now clearly recognised at WIPO through the work of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) on the Development Agenda, and the agreement of WIPO Member States on a methodology of work and on the implementation of many of its recommendations. After several years of discussions on the procedure, the Development Agenda is finally on the tracks and substantive work can start.

However, to move forward this issue, all stakeholders should play a fair game. The interpretation of TRIPS flexibilities by a representative of the WIPO Office of strategic use of IP for development during the recent meeting of the CDIP has shown that the development agenda has never been a true choice of WIPO Secretariat but a political deal. If we want to provide a genuine future to the Development Agenda, we need to “de-politicize” WIPO and IP. I intend to be personally involved in WIPO’s debates, to set realistic deadlines for results to be achieved and to systematise consultation in advance with all the stakeholders in order to reach a consensus during the meeting. This will also contribute to reduce the informal sessions where important stakeholders are kept aside.

As explained under question 1 above, if Member States agree to address intellectual property as a careful balanced implementation of obligations, flexibilities, safeguards and exceptions, the Development Agenda will be able to enter a concrete phase. In this respect, the introduction at WIPO of the notion (from WTO) according to which “differentiation” does not necessarily constitute “discrimination” can contribute to reduce and avoid militant and political tensions. I am a “consensus builder” – we will reach it.

IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals and potential, and how will you engage with members and other stakeholders?

ADAMCZAK: The major obstacles that should be overcome are the lack of ambition to renovate WIPO, the “conservatism” of the stakeholders and the absence of efficiency in the delivery of services.

Lack of ambition. To avoid that, WIPO should have a DG who is a real manager. The PWC report on the desk-to-desk assessment made very clear that there is a lack of a management culture at WIPO. So the question today is: does WIPO need someone who is a manager and an IP expert or just a manager? If you have to choose between a plumber – not necessarily Polish! – or an entrepreneur to fix a flood problem at your home, who will you choose? Someone who cumulates most of the qualities and competences, right? In a specialised agency, you need a specialised manager. Otherwise, who will provide the new vision? The existing team of advisors? Is this what we want for WIPO? I want to improve the governance of WIPO and its relationship with its Member States in order to create an Organization that can design and deliver effective programs, can operate significant international systems such as the PCT, Madrid or The Hague, as well as develop the IP norms appropriate to the digital age. All candidates will certainly say that. But who has already done it or is really committed to do it? And why those who are in a position to do it at WIPO have not done it so far?

“Conservatism” of the stakeholders. By conservatism I mean, everybody sticking to their position and refusing change. This is true for Member States, for IPRs owners, for representatives of the civil society, and also for WIPO staff, regarding all the reforms that are needed at WIPO and regarding IP. The UN rule being based on the consensus, everyone has to make an effort and sometimes sacrifices to pave the way towards an agreement. Because of the globalisation, it is less and less easy to achieve a compromise at the multilateral level (maybe the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre could provide us some training on how to make compromise and reach a win-win solution!). If we are unable to create bridges for a harmonious discussion and cooperation between Member States, IPRs owners, civil society and consumers, WIPO will lose the trust of its stakeholders leading some to produce their own standards, norms and procedures (so-called New Route concerning the PCT filing system, bilateral and regional discussions on substantive patent law harmonisation (Group B+), protection of broadcasting organisations (Council of Europe), etc.

Absence of efficiency in the delivery of services. It is important to increase the quality and the efficiency in WIPO’s administration of its services. Services to the IPRs owners first. They contribute to 90 percent of the WIPO’s budget. The registration systems (PCT, Madrid and The Hague) are most efficient and effective global systems, used by IPRs owners. A study has demonstrated that the Madrid system is more widely used by SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises] than multinationals and that protection is sought in a few countries rather than in the whole world. It is therefore important to constantly keep these registration systems adapted to developing countries, both in terms of cost and use.

It is also imperative to improve WIPO’s services to its Member States relating to legislative advice, communication tools on IP, specialised training and seminars, extension of WIPO Mediation and Arbitration Centre’s activities to other types of IP conflicts, design of very specific tools targeting SMEs (financing, IP assets management, enforcement,), developing specific tools on collective management administration (updating the WIPO software AFRICOS), or for the protection of grassroots products by geographical indications, etc.

IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates and work with other global institutions?

ADAMCZAK: Article 2 of the WIPO-UN Agreement stipulates that “The Organization agrees to cooperate in whatever measures may be necessary to make coordination of the policies and activities of the United Nations and those of the organs and agencies within the United Nations system fully effective.” Given the crosscutting nature of IPRs, the horizontal expansion of institutions dealing with IP matters raises complex issues and concern about policy coherence. WIPO as the main multilateral provider of IP technical assistance should be the Member States coordinator on IP issues. This would bring an added value to IP debates, avoid forum shifting, duplication of activities and sterile competition among IP technical assistance providers.

There is a lack of clarity of vision and accountability in delivery at the international level. This comes to the fore in relation to WIPO where programmes and objectives can overlap and contradict one another. Various international bodies (WHO, UNCTAD, G8, regional institutions, etc.) also address IP-related issues which can lead to inconsistency, that in turn feeds mistrust. A comprehensive rethink in technical assistance program design and delivery is needed. Technical assistance should not be too focused on technical issues such as building document collections, IT systems and training IP staff. This is a valid and essential component but more needs to be done in taking a broader view and developing an understanding of IP within local business communities and societies.

By recovering its historical role and position, WIPO will contribute to avoiding or preventing other organisations or governments from enacting IP initiatives or agreements which are not multilateral in nature and detrimental to the interests of developing countries.

Moreover, as mentioned in the WIPO-WTO Agreement, cooperation among organisations should aim at maximising the usefulness of their respective activities and ensure their mutually supportive nature. Such cooperation and coordination should be a model for an increasing cooperation and coordination amongst enforcement authorities (customs, police, justice) by facilitation of information sharing and exchange, training visits, etc.

Toufiq Ali (Bangladesh), former ambassador to the WTO and UN in Geneva (2001-2007), participated in WIPO General Assemblies (2001-2006); negotiated the Least Developed Country segment on TRIPS and public health on behalf of the LDCs (2001), Coordinator of the Asian Group for negotiations in WIPO (2007)

Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the international IP systems, such as those that govern patents, trademarks and copyrights?

TOUFIQ ALI: WIPO, as an organisation, is at an inflexion point. Conceived as a body to administer the Paris and Berne Conventions, it now covers 24 agreements/ treaties/conventions. The introduction of TRIPS in 1995 changed the domain of intellectual property.

New forms of knowledge are emerging, or existing frontiers being extended. In parallel, IP has been taking up a more dominant and encompassing role in our economic and social activity. For all of us, across the globe, it has become a part and parcel of our life, either as a holder or as a user. This expanding horizon has made management of IP a complex task. Rapid advancement in the use of information and communication technology has made this task all the more demanding. Whether in the area of life sciences or in regard to the environment, particularly sustainable development or climate change, today’s IP regimes are confronted with evolving challenges.

The concepts of patents, trademarks and copyrights need to be applied to respond to this changing landscape of innovation and creativity. WIPO has been successful in some areas, such as with regard to the Internet, but much more needs to be done in other emerging areas. The key is to strengthen the understanding of IP systems among all stakeholders, as well as develop the capacity to expand its use. The IP system should be able to support a win-win outcome that benefits all.

IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have changed in WIPO’s management, staffing and procedures?

ALI: Reform of WIPO should be continual, to respond to changing demand for its services. In working out a reform agenda, with input from staff, as well as in consultation with the Membership and the stakeholders who use WIPO’s services, certain basic yardsticks must be observed.

First, there must be internal transparency. Administrative procedures must not only be right, but be seen to be right.

Second, the system of internal oversight must be strengthened, to ensure greater accountability.

Third, internal coherence in WIPO is essential, given the varied tasks the organisation is required to perform and the delivery that is expected of it.

Concurrently, skilled and committed staff is what makes an organisation function. In this regard, the objective would be to:

align the organisational structure with priorities so as to enhance managerial effectiveness and to facilitate monitoring.
establish a transparent and functional career development system that will raise staff morale.
facilitate staff participation in operational policy-making.

Finally, the universality and diversity of the Organization must be upheld, as per UN principles. I will ensure regular dialogue with Member States and other stakeholders to explore new ways of addressing the challenges that lie ahead.

Within the first year, the basic structure of reforms should be in place and there should be enough demonstration that WIPO is moving in the right direction and that positive change has taken root in many areas.

IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?

ALI: The role of knowledge in the economy has undergone tremendous shifts. Countries that have the knowledge, or are able to acquire it, are leaping ahead. People talk about the digital divide – perhaps the “knowledge divide” will become more important in future.

All countries are committed to the Development Agenda in WIPO, as their statements indicate. This emerges from the awareness of interdependence. The growing gulf between the richer and poorer countries is a source of concern.

WIPO was not conceived as a development organisation; yet, its activities may have a profound impact on development. In the design and implementation of the Development Agenda that Members agree upon, WIPO has to provide a key supportive role. WIPO should be ready to provide impartial analysis to the Membership of the implications of the proposals being discussed. This will facilitate informed judgements. It is my belief that countries will be able to work together to define the role that WIPO should perform in this area.

IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals and potential, and how will you engage with members and other stakeholders?

ALI: My long experience tells me that the task of transforming WIPO to meet the new and emerging challenges is not easy. There are some key lessons:

The ultimate test of success is the difference reforms make to the stakeholders at the country level;
Reforms must be well conceived, properly sequenced and participatory; and
Particular attention must be paid to sustaining staff quality, motivating staff through career development and securing continuous improvements in the level and relevance of their skills.

To meet this challenge, building consensus among Member States is a prerequisite for success. I also recognise that WIPO’s clients are not the governments alone. Other stakeholders have an interest – the industry, civil society, etc. WIPO provides all of them a service – this service must be improved continually, through discussion with the stakeholders and responding to their needs.

IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates and work with other global institutions?

ALI: The growing complexity of the world that we live in requires new ways of responding to the challenges. Above all else, this requires dynamism, and a desire to learn and innovate. New ideas must be considered to tackle new challenges. WIPO must reach out and network with others who have new ideas, while contributing to the debate at the frontiers of knowledge.

Recognising interdependence among nations is important. It is equally important that the institutions set up to deal with the challenges work in a coherent manner. Several global institutions are engaged in activities that involve IP; WIPO should find ways of building synergy between its activities and that of others. A structured mechanism for dialogue and coordination is essential on all matters relating to IP. WIPO must cooperate much more closely with other UN and multilateral organisations, and regional organisations. The Director General of WIPO must be in regular contact with the heads of relevant organisations.

I would seek ways to promote WIPO’s competitive advantage, and provide leadership, in matters of intellectual property.

Jorge Amigo Castañeda (Mexico), director general, Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (1994-present); president, Paris Union Executive Committee at WIPO (2005); chairman, Patent Cooperation Treaty Union (200-2001); chairman, WIPO Committee on PCT Reform (2001); chairman, negotiating group on intellectual property rights for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (2000-2001)

Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in international IP systems, such as those that govern patents, trademarks and copyrights?

JORGE AMIGO: There are multiple negotiations related to patents, traditional knowledge, folklore, genetic resources, distinctive signs, copyright and neighbouring rights, where progress could be considered minimum. It is necessary to revitalise such processes in order to analyze new significant IP issues for discussion.

WIPO should work in reaching agreements in an equitable and balanced manner to strengthen the importance of the intellectual property worldwide system. A long-term harmonisation process of intellectual property could be assessed in WIPO considering countries’ levels of development with the objective to have balanced standards to protect intellectual property for everyone’s benefit. For example, Member States should carry out a detailed analysis of currents fees, specifically those of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), without affecting other programs, specially the Cooperation Program of WIPO, which should be modernised in order to improve cooperation activities.

IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have changed in WIPO’s management, staffing and procedures?

AMIGO: The approval of the Institutional Improvement Program by Member States would benefit WIPO’s procedures and functions by implementing some amendments in order to modernise the organization and to make the services provided more efficient to the users of the world intellectual property system.

WIPO could establish and foster a specific “best practices” outline for its management, comprising adequate planning, organisation, leadership and control of its operations; and the creation of a measuring system of its institutional activities according to its goals and objectives.

Likewise it would be convenient to redirect staff to other activities or new services with the aim to create a dynamic and creative work environment, based on respect, responsibility and commitment. This will help to resolve the institutional crisis that is affecting the credibility of WIPO and the workplace.

Additionally, worldwide trends make necessary the implementation of transparency and access to information mechanisms in the Organization. By introducing effective and transparent systems for WIPO’s evaluation programs, with special emphasis on developing the capabilities and knowledge of its personnel and by using performance based criteria of efficiency and responsibility. This should be done with a view towards the future, rather than focusing on the past. Jointly, it is necessary to establish accountability mechanisms for better management and planning when looking at its financial statements.

IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?

AMIGO: It is fundamental to fully integrate the Development Agenda in the Organizations’ work program (like WIPO’s Committee for Development). WIPO as a specialised agency of the United Nations is committed to take into account the development-related goals of the UN system. As an example, the promotion of innovation, creativity and technology transfer are IP tools of countries’ development.

Member States shall work together in an equitable and balanced manner in order to reach agreements in initiatives that will strengthen the functioning and credibility of the intellectual property worldwide system. A long-term harmonisation process of intellectual property could be assessed in WIPO considering countries’ levels of development.

IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals and potential, and how will you engage with members and other stakeholders?

AMIGO: The Organization requires immediate establishment of a renewed leadership that allows recovering the organism’s credibility and prestige. Likewise it shall be necessary to resolve the institutional crisis that is affecting the workplace environment.

Some of the negotiations being carried out in WIPO have achieved small progress, therefore it is necessary to revitalize such negotiations, encourage Member States to work together in developing initiatives to benefit countries and to conclude such processes in order to analyze new significant discussion IP issues.

WIPO, Members States and Stakeholders shall jointly work in reviewing Organization’s IP policies in order to adopt the appropriate measures to foster IP community active participation in a proper and balanced manner in norm-setting processes.

IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates and work with other global institutions?

AMIGO: WIPO as a specialised agency of the United Nations system shall construct the main discussion forum of substantive intellectual property topics. Although it is quite clear that a great number of international IP related fora have generated the possibility of study and analysis of IP fields, WIPO should remain as the main forum where analysis, discussion and negotiation of intellectual property topics shall be developed.

On the other hand, appropriate communication channels should be implemented between WIPO and such international IP related for a to worldwide intellectual property system that looks forward to produce major benefits for holders of rights and society. This will require the new Director General to get personally involved with the Heads of such organisations.

José Graça Aranha (Brazil), director of WIPO International Registrations Department, sector of trademarks, industrial designs and geographical indications (2006-present); former director of Information and Promotion Division, sector of trademarks, industrial designs and geographical indications (2004-2006); president, National Institute of Industrial Property (1999-2003); president, WIPO Conference (1999-2003); manager, Brazil Five-Year IP Plan (2000-2003); IP attorney; professor

Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the international IP systems, such as those that govern patents, trademarks and copyrights?

JOSE GRACA-ARANHA: We need to distinguish between matters of procedure and matters of substance. International cooperation and registration systems, which deal with procedures to facilitate the protection of patents, trademarks and designs, need continuous streamlining. The relevant treaties and regulations should be looked at with a view to further developing those systems so that they become even more user-friendly to our users. The essence of the matter is to meet users’ expectations and needs. With the procedures we have today, WIPO has already reached impressive numbers of filing and processing of international applications. If we manage to modernise them further, we will be able to achieve even better results to the full satisfaction of our users. Of course, we should not forget to work on classification standards, because they go hand in hand with procedures.

As far as substantive norms are concerned, we need to have a breakthrough in the work of the Committees in WIPO. Very little progress has been made in the recent years in the substantive work of the Organization. Developing countries are visibly taking a breath. The transitional periods under the TRIPS Agreement have just expired for a number of them. For the least-developed countries, those transitional periods have been extended. After the TRIPS Agreement entered into force, WIPO Member States have adopted the two WIPO Internet Treaties (in 1996), the PLT (in 2000), and the Singapore Treaty (in 2006). If you put on top of all this the Decision of the General Council of the WTO, of August 2003 (on a number of waivers from TRIPS obligations), you will conclude that there is a lot of new matter which WIPO Members still need to digest. However, I believe that WIPO needs to make progress in its substantive work. There are many topics that require consideration. Hopefully, future discussions will be carried out in a constructive way and lead to a balanced outcome. The next Director General will have to get personally involved in all technical discussions. A hands-on-approach will be needed. I am convinced that, as a result, roadblocks will be removed and progress will be made in this very important area of work of the Organization.

IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have changed in WIPO’s management, staffing and procedures?

GRACA-ARANHA: One year is a very pessimistic deadline. If I am honoured with the trust of Member States to be the next WIPO Director General, in ninety days from stepping into the office, I will have the internal programme of action written and ninety days later it will be in operation. That programme will cover three areas: (a) restructuring the Secretariat in accordance with the main lines of activities and expertise; (b) a clear attribution of managerial duties and obligations that correspond to the Organization’s role and mandate; and (c) the establishment of principles and rules of intra-house coordination that put emphasis on cooperation, aggregation of expertise, and accountability to the Secretariat and Member States. In one year, which is your proposed deadline, the Secretariat will be fully engaged in carrying out its business in an ethical, transparent and cost-efficient manner. To me, good governance is the essence of the matter.

IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?

GRACA-ARANHA: The role of the WIPO Director General is one of a consensus facilitator, a bridge builder. The new DG must take a hands-on approach in all technical discussions in the Organization and will seek a Development Agenda process that is exhaustive and inclusive. It must be exhaustive to the extent that there should be no IP issue that is taboo; all topics proposed by Members and approved by the General Assembly must be thoroughly analysed and debated. And that process must be inclusive, in the sense that the Development Agenda is not an expression of antagonism. The Development Agenda is an initiative to move IP forward in a set that is not framed by trade-related concessions but, instead, is dictated by the need to promote development in its holistic dimension, with its fundamental dimension of human rights. Among the 45 recommendations approved by the General Assembly for discussion and implementation in the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), there are many that are crucial. For example, the recommendation to formulate principles and values in the framework of the CDIP that would impregnate the other negotiating processes in WIPO. I am convinced that, if this works, those values and principles adopted in the CDIP will contribute to move forward negotiating processes also in other organisations, including the WTO. The reason is that the vast numbers of WIPO Member States that have proposed and supported the Development Agenda have sent out a clear message: they want that IP effectively serve the objectives of development. If this works, that will be a major change, a breakthrough in the evolution of intellectual property, as important as the adoption of the Paris Convention, in 1883, the Berne Convention in 1886 or the TRIPS Agreement in 1994.

IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals and potential, and how will you engage with members and other stakeholders?

GRACA-ARANHA: I do not see major obstacles. I see difficulties that can be overcome. The difficulties are twofold. The administrative issues that have had an impact on the credibility of the Organization and the little progress made in the substantive work lately. In this context, we have three challenges in front of us. Those challenges are: engagement, consensus, and inclusiveness. (i) Engagement speaks to the Secretariat, to the staff, and the use of our resources in a coordinated, dedicated, transparent, impartial, efficient manner. The future DG must ensure that the Secretariat is fully engaged in pursuing the Organization’s mandate. (ii) Consensus is also a form of engagement, but which corresponds to our Member States. The DG must be a consensus builder, and he (or she) can do so by leading WIPO Members to identify the common grounds, the common values, the common interest. Only the Director General has the stature and the knowledge to find the fine and balanced line that will allow the work of the Organization to move forward. Finally, (iii) inclusiveness means that intellectual property is a tool for all and that stakeholders should not be differentiated. Owners and users. Multinational companies and small artisans. Start-up firms dealing with nanotechnology and many-thousand-year-old tribes domesticating and preserving genetic resources. The DG must ensure that all stakeholders, without any distinction or discrimination, use intellectual property to protect their intangible assets, for the benefit of consumers. WIPO needs to have an open and direct line of communication with all stakeholders. WIPO is the only agency in the United Nations with a mandate to pursue such inclusiveness.

IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates and work with other global institutions?

GRACA-ARANHA: WIPO is at a crossroads. Part of its work is progressing well, but confidence in the Organization has to be strengthened and discussions on intellectual property matters have to move forward within WIPO otherwise the Organization will become irrelevant. If discussions do not move forward, the topics under consideration will not be forgotten by Member States and interested circles. Instead, they will be taken to other fora and multilateralism will suffer a serious setback. We have to take into consideration the lessons of history and recall that the failure of multilateralism in the 1970s resulted in discussions being taken away from WIPO. The next Director General, with the hands-on-approach I mentioned previously, will have a big task to work towards strengthening multilateralism, towards building consensus among WIPO Member States and towards achieving concrete results that will be to the satisfaction of all stakeholders.

As far as work with other global institutions is concerned, WIPO has the mandate to promote the protection of intellectual property within the global framework of the pursuance of the core values of the United Nations – the values of development, international peace, and, ultimately, human dignity. But there are other global institutions for which intellectual property has relevance, and the DG must ensure that WIPO coordinates with them – for the sake not only of the proper functioning of the international system but also for the sake of WIPO’s own mandate. We should not forget that the United Nations promotes interagency coordination in various areas. Intellectual property should be one of those. Only coordinated actions stemming from the common system will permit us to envisage with realism the achievement of WIPO’s goals and objectives under a perspective of IP as a tool for development.

Gjorgji Filipov (Macedonia), Ambassador to Germany (2005-present); director general, founder of the State Industrial Property Protection Office (1993-1999); chairman, board of directors of the Berin Intellectual Property Agency (1999-present)

Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the international IP systems, such as those that govern patents, trademarks and copyrights?

GJORGJI FILIPOV: The fundamental challenge for IP experts, state administrations and WIPO at this time is to find the right concepts and procedures, to harmonise the differences we have in today’s international IP system. WIPO has to play a key role in that process.

A further improvement in harmonisation of the well-known differences is necessity – not only concerning IPR as patents, trademarks and copyright, but also to find the right concepts and procedures for the protection of traditional knowledge, genetic resources and folklore.

Therefore it is essential to define a common international basis to bring nearer the different interpretations of the necessities and tasks lying ahead. Apart from the evident basic requirements, i.e., the best protection of IP rights and in a concise concept of state-of-the-art-procedures, the following may give an idea for an outline of requirements of such a new structure: affordable, efficient and cost-effective IP system; most simple possible procedures for protection; simulative, rewardable, in appropriate time granted protection rights; strongly cooperative, taking into account different social and economic environment in developing IP systems in LDC’s; strongest possible connection between various research and development institutions and industry, and – simple IPR litigation system with uniformed criteria in and out the borders of Member States.

IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have changed in WIPO’s management, staffing and procedures?

FILIPOV: In the wake of my extensive experience as a manager, director and entrepreneur I learned that the best way to discover the reality of the internal situation in one organisation is a mind mapping process of all affected team members. Most difficulties can be eliminated and work can be brought back to efficiency by a careful and open-minded mediation. Key factors are trust in the staff, motivation among the staff and listening about ideas for further development of the organisation from the staff.

Although I do not want to deny the complexity and sensitivity of the agenda lying ahead for WIPO, I am very confident that with the support of the member countries which have to be deeply involved in the decision making processes as well as other stakeholders, such as the business community, and the highly qualified personnel in WIPO this will be achievable within a year. More details about the management tool that would be applied I’ll give you in the further phases of the DG appointment process.

IPW: How do you see the future of WIPO Development Agenda?

FILIPOV: When I participated as a representative of the International Federation of Inventor’s Associations (IFIA) at the WIPO General Assembly in 2004, I expected more frequent activities concerning the Development Agenda. Nevertheless, as the Committee on Development and IP was finally established last year, the process has now commenced. I look forward to the acceleration of its work on the Agenda as I consider it to be crucial not to lose any more time, and to start immediately with respective assessments country by country.

We should also rely on the experience of WTO and World Bank as natural partners for cooperation. This cooperation among WIPO, WTO and World Bank should be understood as a proactive approach from each of the sides which can be the basis for success in this area.

IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals and potential, and how will you engage with members and other stakeholders?

FILIPOV: Honestly, I don’t like to think about obstacles, I prefer to see challenges which can be tackled in a mutual approach.

I see the main challenge in overcoming the different perceptions of the developing and developed countries. A fair enough geographical representation of the staff of WIPO might be a step towards a better mutual understanding.

An often debated challenge is the one concerning experts in IP matters in the executive level of the Secretariat of WIPO. WIPO has broad basis of human resources and so I am confident that a solution can be found.

This is closely connected to the third challenge, which is the requirement of a close cooperation between the Member States representatives and the WIPO Secretariat.

The main task of the Director General of WIPO should be to harmonise the interests of all stakeholders for a more efficient and dynamic institution in the world of intellectual property. A trustful relationship here is the basis for efficient and thriving business and political surroundings to promote future developments. Therefore, the Director General should understand the requirements of the inventors, the business communities, as well as the procedures in administration.

When I’ll be honoured with the trust to be elected Director General I will do everything in my capacity to promote WIPO as respectable and strong matrix-structured organisation that will respond to all challenges. With the background of my personal experience in all of these areas, I am convinced about the worth and the necessity of international cooperation in the field of intellectual property.

IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates and work with other global institutions?

FILIPOV: It is not a question of keeping WIPO relevant to international policy. WIPO is a specialised UN Agency that has to intensify the collaboration with the WTO and the World Bank and other relevant (for IP and economic development matters) international institutions. WIPO’s central function, which is constitutionally determined, relates to development of an IP system in the world. What is also very important, WIPO has to contribute to the economic development protecting the rights to creative community and taking care about public interest. WIPO must elevate its level of cooperativeness among Member States from one hand and between WIPO management and country representatives from other hand. This cooperation will deliver a new power which will reinforce WIPO position among other global institutions. As a candidate who is coming from a country in transition, and at the same time being ambassador in Germany, a country where the word “innovation” is daily life, I can cherish such a contribution. I am also aware of the necessity and requirements within established institutions. I would appreciate the chance to share my experiences to [make] the best of WIPO’s future. I tried to be as short as possible. More about my attitudes you can find on my web site www.gjorgjifilipov.com. Thank you very much for the interest and big success to Intellectual Property Watch!

Francis Gurry (Australia), WIPO deputy director general (2003-present) responsible for patents, the Arbitration and Mediation Center, and global IP issues; former WIPO assistant director general and legal counsel (1993-2003)

Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the international IP systems, such as those that govern patents, trademarks and copyrights?

FRANCIS GURRY: Multiple actions are possible and some are needed. It is a question of developing a consensus of the Member Sates on a strategic plan that can address systematically the many areas where existing treaties and systems might be adjusted or new instruments introduced.

On the broadest level, it is a question of adapting the territorial IP system to global markets and the global use of technologies, while preserving policy space at the national level to allow flexibility to deal with national priorities. In developing a strategic plan to address this broad objective, two questions should always be asked: (i) is there is a real need for action, by virtue of a gap or lacuna or because of the obsolescence of existing rules or norms? (ii) is it an international issue, as opposed to one that might be more effectively or appropriately addressed at the national level.

Two immediate areas (there are others) that produce positive answers to these methodological questions are, in my view, the need for greater cooperation in the search and examination of patent applications in order to reduce duplication of work, enhance quality and improve efficiency; and traditional cultural expressions and traditional knowledge.

IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have changed in WIPO’s management, staffing and procedures?

GURRY: Change in these areas must follow a strategic plan that I would expect will take longer than one year to implement. The necessary elements of such a strategic plan, some of which may be implemented more quickly than others, include:

the introduction of a service-oriented culture in the Secretariat;
the stream-lining of the structure or organigram, including the elimination of areas of duplication;
the establishment of vertical and horizontal lines of communication throughout the Organization;
the introduction of new skills in IP specialisation, management, information technology, economics and the languages of new demand in the Organization’s registration systems;
the re-engineering of cumbersome administrative procedures, and the introduction of an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system after that re-engineering has taken place.

IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?

GURRY: It is vital to a healthy future for the Organization. I see it as a dimension of all the activities of the Organization, that is, that the development dimension should be “main-streamed.” There is a consensus in the Organization’s membership on the need for the Development Agenda, but that consensus is formed around rather general and abstract propositions, which now need to be translated into concrete projects, with measurable outcomes, that can deliver effective assistance. A number of such concrete projects are possible, and the next Director General will need to engage with the Member States to develop agreement on those projects that should be tackled first.

IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals and potential, and how will you engage with members and other stakeholders?

GURRY:

Lack of credibility – we are a service organisation and those services, whether to the enterprise sector or our Member States, will not attract support unless the Organization and its services are seen to be credible;
Lack of communication, both within the Organization and with the Member States and the general public;
Lack of focus on the subject matter for which the Organization exists, namely, intellectual property – we are a specialised agency with a limited mandate.

It follows from the preceding enumeration of obstacles that I consider credible and frequent communication concerning our area of specialisation with the Member States, and with all stakeholders, to be essential to the success of the Organization.

IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates and work with other global institutions?

GURRY: I would emphasise the need for establishing trusted, neutral and authoritative expertise in our area of specialisation, so that it will be natural to look to WIPO for engagement on questions of intellectual property, as well as the need for open lines of communication with all stakeholders to facilitate that engagement.

Masood Khan (Pakistan), Ambassador to the UN (2005-present); representative to the following WIPO bodies: General Assembly, Coordination Committee, Program and Budget Committee (2005-07); chairman, Committee on Internet Governance of the World Summit on the Information Society (2005)

Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the international IP systems, such as those that govern patents, trademarks and copyrights?

MASOOD KHAN: The IP systems covering patents, trademarks, and copyright must keep pace with the rapid economic, technological and regulatory changes. International IP systems are dynamic tools for the governance of global technology markets. We need to continue to refine and upgrade the PCT and the Madrid systems. We also need to find ways and means to promote better understanding and cooperation on enhancement of international patent, trademark and copyright policies. But that is not enough. The Organization must take a more proactive approach on identifying and dealing with new emerging IP issues which have a bearing on WIPO and other international organisations.

IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have changed in WIPO’s management, staffing and procedures?

KHAN: Foster institutional mechanisms to ensure transparent financial management; accountability; performance-based human resource management, recognition of merit; consolidation of a culture of work ethics, and strengthening technical expertise. Procedures could be revisited to make them more functional and productive.

IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?

KHAN: The future of the Development Agenda is promising because now most of the developed countries are supportive. I foresee movement. The Development Agenda should be substantive, resilient, and sustainable. Effective implementation requires proper orientation of the WIPO Secretariat and generation of adequate resources. The Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), under the chairmanship of Ambassador Trevor Clarke, has made a good beginning. The new Director General will have to mobilise support of all stakeholders to ensure effective implementation of the Agenda.

IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals and potential, and how will you engage with members and other stakeholders?

KHAN: I would not call them obstacles, but challenges. Three challenges: First, to build trust and confidence among states and other stakeholders. Second, to build on convergences and narrow down continuing divergences over substantive issues. Gaps will have to be bridged. Third, to leverage expertise within the Organization and attract talent to place IP in the contemporary technological, economic and development context.

IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates and work with other global institutions?

KHAN: The WIPO is relevant to international policy discourse and it is a key player on IP. WIPO is the centre of excellence on IP, serving as a natural source of expertise and advice for other global institutions. What we need to do is to move it to a higher plane of engagement and productivity. It should aim for better brand name recognition. It is time for the WIPO to go global and emerge as the most authentic and authoritative voice on intellectual property covering legal, enforcement and development dimensions. The WIPO should develop synergy with other multilateral organisations, regional IP entities and national governments. The WIPO should emerge as the global hub on IP. More importantly, it should use its pivotal role in the areas of the Internet and biotechnology to influence decision-making in the new international economic landscape.

Enrique Manalo (Philippines), undersecretary for policy, Department of Foreign Affairs (2007-present); former ambassador to the UN in Geneva and Chairman of the WIPO General Assembly (2005-07); chairman, WIPO Construction Selection Board (2006-07); chairman, WIPO Committee on Cooperation for Development Related to Intellectual Property (2005)

Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the international IP systems, such as those that govern patents, trademarks and copyrights?

ENRIQUE MANALO: WIPO, as an intergovernmental and multilateral institution for IP matters, needs to take a leading role in offering fresh perspectives on the future of the international IP system in the context of rapidly changing needs and a globalised economy. The new Director General himself must pursue policies and goals that can guide internal WIPO debates and IP norm setting in order to produce outcomes that can credibly impact on the IP system.

I have always believed that a truly responsive IP system significantly depends on achieving consensus and cooperation among governments through the open and inclusive engagement of all Member States and other stakeholders. Therefore, I intend to promote consensus on the issues before WIPO by engaging not only Member States but also other stakeholders such as IP owners and users, industry, consumer interest groups and the media. I also intend to raise awareness of IP issues by proposing approaches other than negotiations, such as open forums and debates that could clarify understanding on outstanding issues.

IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have changed in WIPO’s management, staffing and procedures?

MANALO: I intend to address WIPO’s governance and staffing issues from day one. My main priority is to ultimately create an effective Organization. I can assure Member States that the Office of the Director General will not balk at addressing allegations of misconduct or mismanagement within WIPO. I shall implement fair and transparent staffing policies and approve appointments that are based on merit, open competition and duly considered by the WIPO appointment and promotion board. I think it would be possible to put in place within one year an effective, accountable, and transparent organisational system that gives full respect to staff rules, regulations and procedures.

IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?

MANALO: I see a positive future for the development agenda and its place in WIPO. I am proud that the WIPO General Assembly under my Presidency was able to reach agreement on the elements and substance of the Agenda. I attended the first meeting of the CDIP and felt extremely encouraged when Member States quickly approved the committee’s rules of procedure and went on to discuss the 45 agreed proposals. I believe this shows the commitment of Member States, developed and developing countries alike, to make progress on the Agenda for Development. I can assure Member States that they can rely on my active support and help as Director General in moving these discussions forward and achieving concrete and lasting results.

IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals an petential, and how will you engage with members and other stakeholders?

MANALO: A big obstacle is the often mentioned trust deficit among Member States and between the latter and the Organization. That in turn, has to some extent contributed to the impasse/deadlocks in negotiations in WIPO on a number of important issues being considered by some of the committee of WIPO. The failure to approve the budget for the 2008-2009 [biennium], which directly impinges on the programmes and priorities of the Organization, is a painful reminder of the lack of sufficient trust and division among Member States. Another obstacle emanates from management and staff issues. The new Director General must squarely address all of these obstacles.

As Director General, I intend to restore trust and confidence in the Organization by regularly engaging Member States and other stakeholders. I think the best way for the Organization to achieve growth and progress is to encourage all Member States to participate actively in negotiating processes. I shall also address the problems of WIPO Staff, as well as provide them with access to the Office of the Director General. It will also be a priority to enhance the working relationship between Member States and the Organization through greater transparency in our work and more regular contacts or informal discussions on issues.

IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates and work with other global institutions?

MANALO: I will strengthen WIPO’s policy research capabilities to enable it to keep abreast with current IP policy issues and debates. I also believe that WIPO is in a unique position to promote coherence in multilateral approaches to intellectual property issues beyond the existing relationships and contacts, specially those under consideration in other fora such as WHO and WTO. In this regard, I am prepared to initiate regular consultations with due regard to our respective mandates, with the heads of other international organisations so as to exchange views on IP issues being discussed in our organisations. I also intend to promote greater appreciation of IP issues by initiating debates and forums on the IP system and their relationship to and implications on issues such as the development process, innovation, access to knowledge, and public health.

Mauro Masi (Italy), delegate of the Italian Government for intellectual property issues (2006-present); professor

Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the international IP systems, such as those that govern patents, trademarks and copyrights?

MAURO MASI: As we know, a fully functioning intellectual property system has become an essential factor for the development of the global economy. Unfortunately, there has been a certain delay in the international community in perceiving the importance of the radical changes introduced in the field of intellectual property by the processes of globalisation and by the new technologies.

The complexity of those changes makes this delay understandable, to a certain degree. Nevertheless, we all know that at the root of the problem, there is also a different approach between industrialised countries and developing countries, in a debate which is still strongly influenced by the North-South dialectic.

In this frame, it is certainly necessary to open a new international dialogue on intellectual property protection, on many important issues: the role of intellectual property protection in economic and social development; the effectiveness of market incentives for innovation and for the diffusion of knowledge; the importance of harmonising the international patent system in order to improve the acquisition and protection of patent rights worldwide; the promotion of an innovation-friendly business environment, in particular with regard to small and medium-sized enterprises, including the issue of licensing as a major driver for the international transfer of technology.

The new dialogue should also address the problem of the effective implementation of intellectual property rights. It is in fact out of question that the benefits of innovation for economic growth and development are increasingly threatened by infringements of intellectual property rights worldwide, through counterfeiting and multimedia piracy. In the same view, we should also find a solution for the long-standing issue of the effective protection of genetic resources and traditional knowledge.

Without a new international dialogue, it will be extremely difficult: a) to progress towards a positive evolution of the intellectual property system; b) to maintain the central role of WIPO in Intellectual Property negotiations.

In my view, WIPO cannot just be an “honest broker.” WIPO should adopt a pro-active role in fostering a spirit of dialogue, in order to achieve the concrete results expected by the international community.

IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have changed in WIPO’s management, staffing and procedures?

MASI: Over the past two years, since the publication of a report by the Joint Inspection Unit, we have seen growing tensions between Member States and Management, among Member States themselves; moreover, there has been a growing lack of confidence between the staff and the management.

A number of actions have been undertaken, namely the creation of the Audit Committee and the desk-to-desk study review, recommended by the Joint Inspection Unit. The desk-to-desk study review has represented an excellent basis to start reviewing the management of WIPO. This very complex task would be facilitated by the ground work initiated within the framework of the “Organizational Improvement Plan” prepared by the Secretariat of WIPO and by the recommendations made by the Audit Committee.

With this introduction, I would say that, in just one-year-time, it is difficult and not realistic to expect big changes, which need to be endorsed by Member States. As clearly stated by the General Assembly at its last session, the reorganisation of WIPO must be based on an “integrated plan”. I fully share this approach and would work accordingly.

Nevertheless, to work at the establishment of an “integrated plan”, does not mean that no action should be undertaken until the next General Assembly. As a consequence, I would expect, within the limits of the authority vested in me, to have the basic rules established in order to ensure full transparency in the decision making process in the financial, personnel and procurement areas; to have a constructive dialogue with the staff; and to have built the confidence of all Member States in the management team. This aspect concerns in particular the selection of staff and the methodologies for assigning the staff resources according to the demands of users of WIPO’s services and to the priorities decided upon by the Member States. Last but not least, I would ensure that the ethics code in WIPO will be aligned to the highest standards existing within the UN system.

To be successful, the Organization must have a credible and competent management team. I will endeavour therefore to select the highest ranking officials who would be working with me at reshaping the Organization, primarily on the basis of their proven management skills, with due consideration to balanced representation.

IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?

MASI: WIPO Development Agenda represents one of the few successful negotiations in the last few years: the 45 Recommendations have been approved in a spirit of effective dialogue and compromise among the different groups.

On the other side, on many of the crucial issues of the Development Agenda (Norm-setting, Public Policy and Public Knowledge, Technical Assistance and Capacity Building, Technology Transfer and Access to Knowledge, etc), there are different views among the various groups; and those differences are quite visible in all IP negotiations.

Therefore, I think that the possibility of ensuring the implementation of the 45 recommendations will depend on the capacity of Member States to progress toward a positive evolution of the intellectual property system, in a spirit of dialogue and flexibility, in all negotiations in the WIPO.

In this view, the Development Agenda may be considered a sort of barometer: it will reflect the general climate in the WIPO.

IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals and potential, and how will you engage with members and other stakeholders?

MASI: The first obstacle is the inadequate importance of intellectual property in many Member States’ internal political agendas, which encourages defensive stances. It is not coincidental that the most active positions are taken by countries which are deeply aware of the importance of Intellectual Property in the global economy, both in the industrialised and developed world.

The second obstacle is the persistent weight of a specialised, mainly technical mentality and attitude. For a long time, intellectual property has been a technical matter, far from the big political and economic issues. While it is no longer like that, the persistence of this technical attitude is complicating the effectiveness of the dialogue, also at the internal level of many Member States. IP stakeholders should make a better effort in order to make intellectual property fully understandable, and to stress its vital connection to the global economy.

The third obstacle is the current, static scenario of economic and commercial international negotiations – as evident by the [WTO] Doha Round – and, in this frame, the specific difficulties of the North-South dialogue.

IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates and work with other global institutions?

MASI: As I have said, this is one of the most important issues, for intellectual property and for WIPO. The era of intellectual property as a mainly technical matter is definitively over: intellectual property must be fully integrated in the international debate. Actually, the most important international economic and social issues are constantly overlapping among the different international organisations (UNDP, WTO, UNCTAD, WHO, WIPO, UNESCO, etc), but an effective dialogue is still problematic. Specialists of the various sectors have problems in fully understanding each other and in translating their specific receipts into viable political solutions.

We need a new wave of international representatives, fully capable to control the technical aspects and to translate them into understandable political messages. In my view, WIPO’s personnel should improve its capacity to understand the other big issues – environment, energy, health, etc – to which intellectual property is strategically connected. As a first step, I would certainly potentiate WIPO’s human resources in charge for the dialogue with the other specialised agencies of the United Nations.

James Otieno Odek (Kenya), professor; managing director of Kenya Industrial Property Institute (2004-present); chairman Paris Union (2007); chairman Madrid Union (2005-07), chairman Berne Executive Council (2006-07) of WIPO; member, governing council, African Regional Intellectual Property Organization; vice chairman, WIPO Committee on Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Industrial Designs (2005-2006)

Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the international IP systems, such as those governing patents, trademarks and copyrights?

JAMES OTIENO-ODEK: Various actions are needed in the field of patents, trademarks and copyrights. At the trademark levels, the action needed at the moment is administrative in nature. This basically involves improving efficiency of the Madrid System and striving towards ratification and implementation of the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks. For developing countries, technical assistance is needed to understand and implement the provisions of the Singapore Treaty in line with the Resolution of the Diplomatic Conference.

With regards to Patents and Copyright, treaty making and norm setting should be given priority. On patent matters, the fee issue as is being discussed in the Standing Committee on Patents, issues of non-disclosure, Prior Informed Consent, Transfer of Technology and Flexibilities need to be addressed. There seem to be an emerging consensus on issues of prior art, grace period and meaning of inventive step. On all these pending issues, Member States and parties should be brought together to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.

As relates to Copyright, a lot of work needs to be done. In this area, the countries have far and wide positions on whether there is need for a Diplomatic Conference on Broadcasting. Discussions to bridge the gap between countries should be given priority.

IPW: One year after taking office, what do you expect to have changed in WIPO’s management, staffing and procedures?

OTIENO-ODEK: There are several changes that I do expect to attain within a year of office. These are:

Restore credibility of WIPO by inculcating integrity, good governance, financial disclosure and ethics at the organisation
Introduce professionalism and strong leadership at WIPO
Setting up an Ethics Office at WIPO in line with United Nations Practice;
Enhancing systems in WIPO that seal loopholes for malpractice (i.e strengthening governance and management);
Implementing the desk-to-desk review recommendations in a fair and humane manner.
Provide efficient global IP services to industry and other stakeholders

IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?

OTIENO-ODEK: The Development Agenda has a bright future in WIPO. The first thing is to recognise the establishment and work of the Committee on Development of IP. Given the importance of IP for development, I intend to strengthen the Committee so that it fulfills its functions and mandate. Discussion will focus on encouraging Member States to come up with a programme of action that has support from all. Of priority will be to enhance technical assistance to developing countries, least developed countries and countries in transition to improve their IP infrastructure, develop their technologies, ease the role of IP in transfer of technology and facilitate developing country participation in WIPO norm setting meetings.

IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals and potential and how will you engage with members and other stakeholders?

OTIENO-ODEK: The three big obstacles are: lack of credible leadership that has Member States support; lack of programme of action on the Development Agenda and different expectations from Member States on what the Development Agenda entails; lack of progress in treaty making and norm setting particularly in patents and copyright and thus insensitivity to industry and stakeholder concerns. A further obstacle in WIPO today is factionalism and division amongst staff. There is limited teamwork and team spirit in the organiation. Lastly, WIPO’s fading role as a global leader in the IP norm setting debate is a cause of concern.

The way to tackle these obstacles is through frequent and transparent dialogue and teamwork amongst staff and all stakeholders. Measures to restore team spirit, staff enthusiasm, morale and confidence will be undertaken. Diplomatic approach to ensure that a mutually satisfactory solution among Member States as regards treaty making and norm setting will be a key strategy. As the Director General, I intend to play a catalytic role in providing leadership to address the obstacles identified above.

IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates and work with other global institutions?

OTIENO-ODEK: WIPO is a specialised agency dealing with intellectual property issues. Its global role and place in IP discourse has taken a nosedive and other global institutions are now actively involved in norm setting debates on IP. The WTO and WHO easily come to mind.

WIPO needs to reclaim its position as the specialised agency dealing with IP issues. How to keep WIPO relevant is by taking a lead role in discussing topical issues of concern to Member States. WIPO should not shy away in discussing controversial issues. For example, WIPO should embrace debates on issues of IP and access to medicine; the role of IP in development particularly as relates to concerns raised by developing countries in the Development Agenda debates. Debate on IP flexibilities and technical assistance to developing countries and countries in transition should be made more concrete with measurable outputs. Concrete measures for transfer of technology should be put in place rather than rhetoric.

As regards working with other global institutions, collaboration will be strengthened and deepened. Prospects of developing a joint programme of action taking into account recipient country needs and levels of economic development will be explored.

Philippe Petit (France), WIPO deputy director general responsible for general affairs and administration (2001-present), former ambassador to the UN in Geneva (1998-2001)

Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the international IP systems, such as those that govern patents, trademarks and copyrights?

PHILIPPE PETIT: WIPO is one among many actors and stakeholders which play a role in the international IP systems. WIPO has to act according to its mandate and the decisions of its Member States. But its action should not be isolated. It is part of the worldwide debate and management of IP and IP systems.

IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have changed in WIPO’s management, staffing and procedures?

PETIT: One year after taking office, the internal atmosphere should be appeased and confidence restored with the Member States and WIPO stakeholders.

Repartition of responsibilities and accountability, team spirit, internal communication, as well as Human Resources regulations, and results of new procedures already worked upon should contribute to achieving this result.

IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?

PETIT: The WIPO Development Agenda has been adopted by consensus. Once confidence has been restored and the budget adopted, its implementation should not be a matter of conflict.

IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals and potential, and how will you engage with members and other stakeholders?

PETIT: Facing the three biggest obstacles which are:

deficit of communication
deficit of trust
lack of consensus,

I would engage with Member States and other stakeholders in every possible way.

IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates and work with other global institutions?

PETIT: WIPO has the advantage of excellent experts and unchallenged knowledge in all fields of intellectual property. It should bring expertise to international policy debates and cooperate with other global institutions interested or concerned by IP issues.

Bojan Pretnar (Slovenia), deputy director for policy development, WIPO Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Development (2000-present); oversaw creation of Slovenian IP Office (1992); contributed to Slovenia’s agreement with the European Patent Office (1994); led Slovenia’s immediate implementation of the World Trade Organization TRIPS agreement, waiving transition (1995), former technology industry executive

Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the international IP systems, such as those that govern patents, trademarks and copyrights?

BOJAN PRETNAR: The actions are, basically, twofold. First, WIPO’s Standing Committees and other similar bodies need to continue their work in an established manner, though there is some space for injecting new initiatives. Second, primarily as a response to Development Agenda, but not limited to it, WIPO should undertake an elaboration of a number of different policies on how to utilise intellectual property for promoting growth and development in widely different social, economic, legal and cultural environments in various parts of the world. This would be then the second, and to some extent novel, line of activities. Studies of this nature should subsequently pave the way towards new and more efficient approaches in rendering technical assistance to developing countries.

I believe that the internationally harmonised legal system can be beneficial in serving desired economic and social objectives, provided it is applied in a number of different ways, each of these ways being tailored to specific and vastly different needs in various parts of the world. If so, then we must of course know all these available ways. But currently we do not know them, or at least we do not know all of them. Identification and elaboration of these ways seems to me a natural next step after a successful policy of demystification of intellectual property.

IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have changed in WIPO’s management, staffing and procedures?

PRETNAR: As far as management and related procedures are concerned, I would immediately establish what I call Management Board, members of which would be top WIPO officials. The Board would obligatorily meet weekly, keeping all the relevant records on decisions made; if desired for transparency reasons, these records would be made available to Member States. In addition, I would introduce the so-called matrix organisational structure of the International Bureau, ensuring efficient coordination among various units through simultaneous vertical and horizontal communication and coordination within a more simplified organisational structure. For staffing, I would seek to put right people to right posts, according to their expertise and skills.

IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?

PRETNAR: The WIPO Development Agenda is an important project, which I personally strongly support; after all, I wrote extensively about development-related issues of IP over several decades, the most recent contribution being my book Public Policy and Intellectual Property, published by Chambers of Commerce and Industry of South Africa in 2004. I am apparently the only candidate who is not coming from a developing country, but who has nonetheless relevant professional background, as well as relevant practical experience in this respect (I lived four years in Africa). Being also familiar with IP issues in Europe and other developed countries, I may be able – through a constant dialogue with all members – to reduce, at least to a reasonable minimum, unnecessary tensions between developed and developing countries, which otherwise could jeopardise the road towards striking the right balance in achieving a consensus, by which WIPO was so well known in the past.

As a first step, however, I would favour elaboration of a few studies on the economic impact of IP on development, which I already mentioned. Economics of IP is an area currently much debated but far from being well understood, despite its obvious importance. Due to my professional background, I would be happy personally to contribute to such studies which, by the way, are explicitly within WIPO mandate (Article 4(vi) of the WIPO Convention). Without having novel insights and fresh suggestions for new initiatives, we may not be able to achieve the desired objectives of the Development Agenda.

IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals and potential, and how will you engage with members and other stakeholders?

PRETNAR: I shall touch upon one single obstacle that I indirectly already addressed in the previous question. Given the immense economic importance of intellectual property on a global scale, it is no wonder that it has become a controversial topic. From an exotic subject matter for legal scholars in the past, intellectual property has recently evolved into a hot topic vigorously debated by economists, sociologists, ecologists, politicians, and numerous non-governmental organisations, stretched in all geopolitical directions – North-South, North-North, East-West… While such a broad debate is obviously welcome, we should be aware that intellectual property as such is a highly demanding area in law, economics, and management, with daily growing complexity.

And here we come to a major obstacle of a global scope: many arguments either in favour, or against the intellectual property regime are heavily plagued by lack of sufficient professional understanding. This problem extends well beyond the discussions about Development Agenda, and often leads to contradicting outcomes. The rejection of the EU Directive on patentability of computer-implemented inventions in 2005 may serve as an example: its basic purpose was to exclude software as such from patent protection (in line with Art. 52 of the European Patent Convention) – exactly what was the main objective of all those who (successfully) lobbied against its adoption in the European Parliament.

I believe that bringing professionally correct explanations and sound arguments into all the controversial discussions about intellectual property is a major task for WIPO in general and for the next Director General in particular. The Director General is the chief executive of WIPO (see Art. 9(4) of WIPO Convention), and with such an authority she/he must personally make every effort in relaxing tensions in controversial discussions, by clarifying possible misconceptions or misinterpretations in a convincing manner, that is, from a purely professional point of view. In carrying out these efforts, the Director General should, I believe, heavily rely on a working method, which I would label as informal professional diplomacy – a self-explanatory notion. If so, then it would be of an enormous advantage if the next Director General be a person who, along with diplomatic skills, would personally command legal, economic, and social aspects of intellectual property, preferably in both developed and developing countries.

IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates and work with other global institutions?

PRETNAR: By respecting sovereignty and equality of members; by maintaining a WIPO capable of responding to discussed issues in a professionally correct manner, which may include some new initiatives; and by promoting cooperation with other involved global institutions, paying attention not to interfere with their own mandates.

Boris Simonov (Russia), director general of the Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Patents and Trademarks (Rospatent) (2004-present); lead delegate to WIPO General Assembly (2004-present), chairman of WIPO Substantive Patent Law Treaty Committee (2005); chairman, Executive Committee of the Bern Union (2005-present); director, Innovation Development Department, Ministry of Industry, Science and Technologies (2003-2004), lead Russian delegate on IP to many international groups and meetings, such as the Group of Eight, the Russia-US negotiations for Russia’s accession to the WTO, Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy, EuroAsian Patent Organization, and the Commonwealth of Independent States

Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the international IP systems, such as those that govern patents, trademarks and copyrights?

BORIS SIMONOV: We see WIPO as an important development mechanism and strongly believe that it can – in its core areas of comparative advantage and expertise – make a significant contribution to the international efforts in supporting countries, so that they achieve their development objectives. In order to strengthen its own development impact WIPO should participate actively in the system-wide coherence processes as well as management reforms. WIPO shall be some sort of a booster for more wide use of such a powerful instrument of economic development as intellectual property through existing mechanisms, including the PCT [Patent Cooperation Treaty].

Both the PCT and Madrid systems are attractive options for businesses as they make it easier to obtain patent or trademark rights in multiple countries and they should be promoted in this direction further. But there is an obvious misbalance among the users thereof.

Speaking about the PCT and taking into account the above mentioned I would like to point out some aspects. The PCT system should be more flexible, granting more advantages to the users from the developing world. One of the disadvantages of the patent system is its high cost and overload of national patent offices, which caused the lengthy patenting procedures.

The five year period of the PCT revision is finished in 2008 and now it’s time to begin studying the experience of practical implementation by the PCT authorities. Presumably such a step-by-step revision of the PCT was not the best mode for introducing amendments and made the system more complicated for users. Bearing in mind the triangle of interests of the main PCT players (patent offices, patent attorneys and users), the further development of [the] system shall be aimed at simplification of the international procedure in the favor of the applicants.

The legal development of the Madrid system needs to be continued for further simplification of the system. The amendments adopted by the Assembly of the Madrid Union in 2007 will basically change the structure of the Madrid system by approving the repeal of the “safeguard clause,” resulting in a clear benefit for users, keeping in mind the goal that the system be governed by only one treaty, namely by the Madrid protocol. Furthermore, we shall strengthen trademark protection against acts of unfair competition in the spirit of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention.

The tools of the international IP systems to stimulate commercial activity and economic growth in today’s knowledge-driven economy shall be used.

When we are talking about copyright and related rights, it is necessary to point out that some amendments have been made within the WIPO Digital Agenda declared at the WIPO International Conference on Electronic Commerce and Intellectual Property. Two WIPO Treaties on Copyright and on Performances and Phonograms have been concluded. It is not a secret for anybody relating to the area of copyright and related rights that both these treaties are already out of date and the international community obviously needs new documents to regulate this complex area. In this regard, WIPO General Assembly shall continue to pursue its efforts towards the conclusion of an international instrument on the protection of broadcasting organisations, updating international intellectual property standards for broadcasting.

IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have changed in WIPO’s management, staffing and procedures?

SIMONOV: The international community cannot wait a year to restore the trust in WIPO. The changes shall be made as soon as possible.

The staff should be highly professional, knowing the problems faced by Member States. With respect to the staff of the WIPO Secretariat, it should strictly follow the UN Ethics Code.

The structure of the Secretariat should be flexible and allow reacting promptly to new challenges.

The most important task is to change the internal organisation of work. The new structure should be transparent to Member States in order to ensure full understanding of how it works. All staff members should have clearly defined functions and responsibilities. The whole structure should work as a single mechanism. All the divisions shall be mutually supportive and ensure fulfilling any task from different perspectives if necessary for Member Countries.

It is necessary to make the decision-making process easy and clear. In order to achieve that goal it is necessary to share the responsibilities among Division’s Directors, Deputies of the DG and the DG. Each Division when having a clearly defined mandate could take decisions within this mandate and be justified by the Programme this Division is responsible for. In cases when two or more Divisions are involved in the realisation of the Programme, the decisions are to be taken by the curator – respective DDG or DG.

It is absolutely clear that internal procedures should be changed drastically.

IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?

SIMONOV: The WIPO is a strong international body aimed not only at administration of basic IP treaties and conventions but also the forum for negotiations on matters of priority of its Member States.

The UN community forwarded a difficult task to its agencies, I mean the Millennium Development Goals to be met by 2015. We cannot ignore that fact and we should realise that to achieve the Millennium Development Goals will first require intelligent, well-managed approaches by both national governments and respective international organisations.

The Development Agenda is in the focus of many respective international organisations. The WIPO shouldn’t be aside of those processes.

The main thing is that the benefits of modern science and technology should reach all countries and people. I have already mentioned the Millennium Development Goals. In order to achieve these goals all international community should unite its efforts to promote all the various forms of progress referred to under the blanket term of “development”.

The previous work of PCDA [Permanent Committee on Proposals for a Development Agenda] and now the activity of CDIP [Committee on Development and IP] showed that Member States could find a consensus on any issue, including development-related. In this respect, Member States should define the main direction of this work and then start to discuss the substantive issues.

As we have already stated, WIPO itself is a strong development mechanism and shall realise this capacity.

IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals and potential, and how will you engage with members and other stakeholders?

SIMONOV: As we see the problem, there are some obstacles in achieving WIPO goals and in realising the great potential of the Organization. Firstly, the WIPO has suffered from the absence of trust. Secondly, the international debate on intellectual property is polarised, the deep differences in Members’ positions caused the situation when the negotiating process within WIPO has become fruitless. Thirdly, we face the growing criticism of the IP system and diminishing societal trust.

It would be our goal, first of all, to restore the trust in WIPO among international community and Member States. WIPO shall act more closely with its Members to contribute to better understanding and co-operation among them, assist its Members to resolve problems they faced, including building modern national IP systems, use of IP, counteracting production and trade of counterfeit goods and piracy, etc.

WIPO needs to enable its members to understand the real economic and social consequences of excessive intellectual property protections, and the importance of striking a balance between the public domain and competition on the one hand, and the realm of property rights on the other.

IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates and work with other global institutions?

SIMONOV: As I have already said, we consider the WIPO as a key element of the international IP system. Intellectual property is being considered by all the nations as an instrument of economic development and sustainable growth. That is why many international organisations include IP topics in their mandates. These topics are being discussed from different points of view.

Intellectual property is a highly complex area, involving elements of economics, law, international relations, politics and ethics.

Since other respective international organisations have their own competence, we should find such a way of cooperation as not to duplicate the functions of each other.

The cooperation should cover all UN agencies, such as WHO, UNCTAD, UN regional economic commissions, WTO, OECD, WCO, Interpol, etc.

Yoshiyuki Takagi (Japan), executive director of WIPO Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Development and the Worldwide Academy (2003-present), numerous other senior posts with WIPO, including internal operations and international classifications (1994-2003); first secretary, Japanese mission, responsible for WIPO and WTO (1991-1994); deputy director, international affairs, Japan Patent Office (1988-1991)

Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What actions are needed in the international IP systems, such as those that govern patents, trademarks and copyrights?

YOSHIYUKI TAKAGI: The international IP systems must respond to diversified and evolving needs for providing an environment facilitating further innovation and creative activities which are crucial in meeting global challenges such as poverty reduction, the improvement of public health and action on climate change. WIPO needs to take initiatives to ensure a better understanding by world leaders about how IP systems can be best used to contribute to an improvement in the living standards and quality of life of their people, and to this end, WIPO needs to promote open and fact‑based international debate on such issues as the role of IP systems in the improvement of public health, the management for granting good quality patents, intellectual property protection of traditional knowledge and genetic resources for sustainable development, and well-balanced and well-functioning systems for copyright and related rights in cyber space. WIPO needs to reinforce its research functions to provide more useful data and evidence for such debate in search of better international IP systems. WIPO also needs to organise regular open meetings in which various interested groups could contribute to the international debate. While coherent worldwide policies are desirable in a borderless world, WIPO needs to consider a more pragmatic phased development of international IP systems by using various approaches including recommendations, guidelines, good practices, practical tools, administrative agreements and international framework agreements.

As concerns the existing international systems for filing applications for patents and trademark registrations, WIPO will need to reinforce international collaboration with WIPO Member States and to make further investment in the networked systems of PCT [Patent Cooperation Treaty] and Madrid Operations to enhance the quality, timeliness and the cost effectiveness of WIPO’s services. WIPO needs to enhance the capacity in developing countries to enable nationals to properly protect their innovation results so as to fully benefit from the PCT system. WIPO needs to redouble its efforts to expand membership of the Madrid system. Finally, WIPO needs to further promote the establishment of the collective management systems in developing countries.

IPW: One year after you take office, what do you expect to have changed in WIPO’s management, staffing and procedures?

TAKAGI: I expect to see WIPO starting to use a variety of benchmarks and parameters for the evaluation of programs, as a basis for regular discussions on how best to improve the responsiveness and effectiveness of WIPO’s result-based management (RBM). As concerns staffing, I expect to see the integration of human resources management strategy and policies (including recruitment, career development and personnel appraisal system) into the RBM. I expect to see initial changes in WIPO’s decision making processes, procedures and communications systems which should enhance the transparency, accountability and fairness of the human and financial resources management as a follow-up to the desk-to-desk report on the management of human and financial resources that WIPO Member States discussed last year.

IPW: How do you see the future of the WIPO Development Agenda?

TAKAGI: The future of the WIPO Development Agenda is a critical test for WIPO to prove that IP is a universal tool that does not discriminate against any country. WIPO needs to integrate IP into national and global efforts to meet challenges such as poverty reduction, improvement of public health and sustainable environment. To make the implementation of recommended activities more effective, WIPO needs to enhance its inter-agency cooperation, undertake more activities on the field in partnerships with various players, increase human and financial resources through new channels for voluntary contributions from donors and to strengthen business-oriented programs for promoting the transfer of knowledge and skills about management of intellectual property. Common understanding and wider support for national and global partnerships at different levels are key elements in seeking mutually agreeable sharing of benefits in business for a win-win situation.

IPW: What are the three biggest obstacles to WIPO achieving its goals and potential, and how will you engage with members and other stakeholders?

TAKAGI: The three biggest obstacles are needless politicisation of intellectual property issues, isolation of WIPO from the reality of IP management in national and global business, and the diminishing opportunities in which WIPO Secretariat’s expertise of intellectual property could be used for advancing international debate on IP issues.

They will have to be removed by engaging Member States and stakeholders to make constructive and creative proposals for improving IP systems, to promote partnerships with various stakeholders for testing and evaluating different options to balance different interests, and to strengthen professionalism for restoring the credibility and trust in the Secretariat to be accorded by members and other stakeholders.

IPW: How will you keep WIPO relevant to international policy debates and work with other global institutions?

TAKAGI: As discussed above, WIPO needs to organise more public meetings which should promote open and fact-based debate on various policy issues. To provide more data and evidence for the debate, WIPO needs to enhance research activities and its function of disseminating information about IP to the public through a more vibrant and dynamic web site. WIPO needs to undertake joint projects with other UN and global institutions in partnerships to share knowledge, resources and responsibilities.

José Delmer Urbizo (Honduras), Ambassador to the UN (2006-present); president Group of 77 and China (2007); head of delegation, WIPO General Assembly (2006); held several cabinet level positions in Honduran government

Did not answer.

For the full biographies of the candidates please click here.

Acronyms Used By The Candidates:

[CDIP] WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property
[IFIA] International Federation of Inventors’ Associations
[Interpol] International Criminal Police Organization {ICPO}
[LDCs] Least Developed Countries
[Madrid System] WIPO Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks
[OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
[PCDA] WIPO Permanent Committee on Proposals for a Development Agenda
[PCT] WIPO Patent Cooperation Treaty
[TRIPS] World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
[UNCTAD] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
[UNDP] United Nations Development Programme
[UNESCO] United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
[WCO] World Customs Organization
[WHO] World Health Organization
[WTO] World Trade Organization

6 Comments

Combaldieu Jean-Claude

31/03/2008 / 8:05 am Reply

Je suis un ancien Président de l’Assemblée générale de l’OMPI(93-94)
Arpad Bogsch était le modèle du bon DG. OMPI est une organisation spécialisée; le DG doit avant tout bien connaitre à fond la propriété intellectuelle, avoir une longue expérience dans ce domaine, savoir en parler avec autorité et savoir négocier.
Il faut aussi avoir le sens des relations humaines, avoir un bon “feeling” des situations tant bilatérales que multilatérales. La connaissances de plusieurs langues est indispensable.
Il faut avoir le sens de l’intérêt général, du bon sens dans la gestion budgétaire et avoir de bons collaborateurs dans ce domaine.
L’autorité du DG dépend avant tout de ses compétences dans le domaine de la PI.
Cordialement
Olszak Norbert

02/04/2008 / 2:29 pm Reply

Les commentaires de J.C. Combaldieu, nourris par sa longue expérience, sont excellents.
IQsensato

04/04/2008 / 10:37 am Reply

WIPO Leadership Race – Part IV: The North-South Question
The North-South Question**
Political processes, such as the election of DGs of specialised agencies in the United Nations (UN) and other international organisations, as well as substantive negotiations in these organisations, continue to be heavily col…
Cheftema, del 3: kandidater till EPO-chef « Stenskott

06/07/2009 / 7:26 pm Reply

[…] läsa hennes och de andra kandidaternas svar på ett antal frågor om internationell IPRs framtiden på IP-Watch. Adamczak säger bland annat The most immediate action to take is to get back the correct balance […]
Interview with Jorge Amigo, Director of IMPI about #ACTA

14/11/2009 / 2:17 am Reply

[…] Jorge Amigo has been director of the IMPI for 14 years, he led the negotiatons of the NAFTA treaty for México and was one of the candidates to direct the WIPO. […]
Webcast of Civil Society Meeting with WIPO DG Candidates Â« A2K Brasil

30/07/2010 / 11:03 pm Reply

[…] Responses to 5 IP Watch Questions […]

6 Comments

Leave a Reply to Combaldieu Jean-ClaudeCancel Reply