 I'm delighted to have you here and welcome you to our discussion with Director-General Guri. The Director-General will offer a few opening remarks and then we would like to open the floor for comments and questions from you. So thank you very much. Thank you very much, Anna. Ladies and gentlemen, a very good afternoon to you all and really let me express our gratitude to you for having come this afternoon and for having come in such large numbers. We're really very grateful. A sign of the importance that we attach to NGOs is the fact that we have appointed, since we last met, a new head of the NGO sector and that is Anna Moravitz Mansfield who seated next to me and who just spoke to you. And it's, as I said, a sign of the importance that we attach to it and of our intention to intensify the channels of communication that we have with you and our engagement with you and we hope that it will be reciprocal, that you'll find ways to intensify your engagement with us. I sought that I'd speak for about 20 minutes if you agree and then we can have an interactive dialogue which will probably be much more interesting I think than the monologue that you'll receive for the first 20 minutes. And I'd like to try to give you a brief overview of what happened in 2012, basically. And what we think may happen in 2013 or what we're planning should happen in 2013. And let me start with our global systems, global IP systems. I know many of you represent users of these systems. They represent the basis of revenue generation of the organization. 94% of the revenue of the organization come from these systems. So they're obviously very help, very essential to the organization and they enable us to do all of the other things that we do and about which I'll speak, the normative program and our capacity building programs and so on. We had a very good year in all of those systems last year in 2012 in the Patent and Cooperation Treaty. It saw 194,000 international patent applications filed. That was an increase of about 6.3%, which when you consider the fragility of the economic, the world economy throughout 2012, that was a very positive result, a very good result. In the Madrid system, we had about 42,000 international applications. It was a rise of about 3.1%, and in the Hague system, it was a small rise of about 3.3%, but it's a small number of applications as yet. So what is happening in these systems, I think first of all from a global point of view, we see the continuation of the shift from west to east in the use of these systems. This is very pronounced. If you take the PCT, it's around about 39% of the international patent applications filed under the PCT come from Asia and principally of course from Japan, from China, and from the Republic of Korea. And that compares with about 30% of international applications coming from Europe, the extended Europe of the European Patent Convention, and about 28% coming from the United States of America, 27%, 28% from the United States of America. So this shift that we've seen has been rather rapid. It's occurred over the last 10 years only, and every sign is that it's here to stay. You may also have noticed that we publish each year in December a World Intellectual Property Indicators report, and the report that we published in December indicated that China had become, for the first time, the biggest patent office in the world. And that is measured in terms of the number of applications received. It received more applications than the United States Patent and Trademark Office in third places, Japan. So it's another indicator of the shift, if you like. What else is happening in the PCT this year for the users of that system? And I know some of you represent users. We have a very important IT system, which we call EPCT, which will make life for users and for officers all part of the network of the PCT much easier because it's really an interactive secure dossier access that is provided by this. But its significance is primarily in terms of functionality and in terms of productivity both for the officers or for the officers, the users, and for ourselves. For Madrid system for trademarks, let me say that the major thing happening is seeing this system expand geographically. So we've just gone to 90 members. If you compare that to the PCT, it's 145 members in the PCT. But what's happening in Madrid last year, we saw New Zealand, the Philippines, Colombia, and Mexico all enter the system. Colombia and Mexico extremely important because Latin America has been traditionally outside the system. And we expect that trend to continue in 2013. We expect India to be coming into the system in the first six months. And we know that all of the ASEAN countries are committed to coming into the system by 2015. So we hope that rather that Malaysia and Thailand may do it in 2013. Similar things happening for the Hague system for industrial designs, which has always been the poor cousin in the family of intellectual property global systems. But the United States Congress passed legislation in December to facilitate which will enable the accession of the United States to the Hague system. We hope that occurs by the end of this year, 2013. We also hope that China will join the system in 2013. So this will be a massive transformation of that system, massive transformation. And we expect that in 2014, 2015, both Japan and Korea will come into the system. They're both committed to doing so. So overall, I think quite good results in those systems. And as I say, the major macro picture is this shifting geography that we all know about and that we see occurring in the economy more generally. Can I move to the normative agenda of the organization? And of course, the big event for 2012 was the conclusion of the Beijing Treaty on the protection of audio-visual performances. And this we were very proud of as an organization because it's really the first substantive law treaty to be concluded in the field of intellectual property since 1996. In 1999, if I'm not mistaken, Francois will remember, we concluded a revised act of the Hague Agreement, but it's of course a procedural treaty and in 2000 we concluded the Patent Law Treaty, 2005 or 2006, the Singapore Treaty, but they were procedural formalities treaties. So it was quite interesting that we were able to get a substantive law treaty concluded for the first time for a significant number of years. Why did that happen? And I think that's something that we have been trying to analyze as an organization. And by organization, I mean both the member states have been discussing this and saying, you know, how did this happen and what's the formula for success? And we've been trying to do it as a secretariat because you know it happens, of course, or it happened against the backdrop of a severely diminished capacity, international capacity to agree. You know, whatever the area is, trade, intellectual property, wherever, we know that the international organizations are all challenged in their capacity to agree. So we think that there were several probably ingredients which we will try, of course, to replicate in the coming years and central to those, I think, is the fact that it was a specific and technical treaty. You know, you have much more possibility, I think, or capacity to agree where the issue is specific and technical and you can see the landscape of interested parties more easily than if it's a large thing like climate change or the environment or disarmament or world peace or whatever it might be, where it's just the world's alignment of interests are just too complex. So we think this is extremely important and going forward, we have that very much in mind and going forward looking at this year, the big event in the normative area will be the Marrakesh Diplomatic Conference to be held in the month of June to conclude a treaty to improve access to published works on the part of visually impaired and print disabled persons. Now the status of that one, let me say a few words and I'll be very guarded because I see there are a number of interested parties on both sides here for this. The status of that one is the member states took a decision in December in an extraordinary General Assembly to hold this Diplomatic Conference, which is, if you like, a sign of confidence that agreement is entirely possible. They wouldn't take that decision unless they were and it's secondly, a sign of the political will of the member states to actually do this treaty and I think that that is there now. But that said, we have not reached full agreement and there will be an important meeting starting the week after next of our Standing Committee on Copyright in which we will endeavour to get agreement on some of the outstanding issues. And if I may, let me say one word and I'll put my neck out here about this because I think it's very important. We can as an international community make a big contribution here by concluding this treaty and we can actually render a good service to visually impaired persons. But it's only going to succeed if that is our target and that is our focus. So if anyone wants to revise the international copyright system in this treaty, we're not going to get the treaty. Our focus has to be to solve the problem of diminished access on the part of visually impaired persons. Now, of course, the method of solution is looking at the existing principles of the international copyright system and applying them. But the aim has to be to conclude this treaty for the visually impaired. For as far as the aim is to rewrite the international copyright system, it's just not going to happen. So I think this is, if I may pass that message to you, it's extremely important because I think the visually impaired community is looking to us for some leadership in solving this issue. There are three other, I would say, issues on our normative agenda that I would like to mention for this year. And they are without any order of priority, or let me give you them in the order, perhaps, from apparently easiest to apparently hardest. And they are designs, broadcasting, and genetic resources, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions. So in the area of designs, we are a long way advanced towards the conclusion of a design law formalities treaty, which would do for designs what the Singapore treaty on the law of trademarks and the patent law treaty did for trademarks and patents, respectively. It's not a substantive law treaty, but it's never the best-important thing because if you look around the world, I think there are several features of the design landscape that suggest that this would be a good thing to do. One of those is the diversity, the great diversity of procedures that apply that make life difficult for designers seeking protection. A second reason is that if you want an example of local innovation, and we all talk about that a lot, I think designs are it because if you look at the statistics, the majority of design applications filed in developing countries are filed by residents, and the minority are filed by non-residents. If you look at the patent area, of course, the majority of patent applications filed in a developing country, but actually in most countries, are filed by non-residents and the minority by residents. So there is a very strong participation of developing countries in the design system, and you don't have access problems that you might have or might be perceived to exist in the case of patents, and you don't have any transfer of technology problem. Designs are something that human beings have been doing since they started to make objects. So we think that this is an area that can make a contribution to business simplification. It's like the trade facilitation of intellectual property, if you like, and we hope very much that this will go forward with a positive decision in September of this year. Then broadcasting is a little bit more difficult, I think, the array of interests is more difficult, and of course the technologies are changing very rapidly, but we see the process being led in particular by South Africa and Mexico to move forward the broadcasting agenda, and in principle the member states have decided, or they've decided that there will be a consultation on this in the month of April, and in principle they've decided that we should be looking towards a diplomatic conference in 2014. But I think we've yet to see the broadcasting negotiation unfold, and so we need to see how this goes, but I think there is a gathering political will to do it, and the last area that I would mention then is the area that is subject to the meeting this week, genetic resources, traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions. I think some excellent progress has been made this week in the meeting, but we are still a long way out. It's a very delicate process, as you all know. It's of fundamental importance, you know, it's of fundamental importance. The developing countries have been asking for this for a long time now. It's been under discussion for, since the year 2000, but I think that what we see is that there is, you know, genuine good faith engagement now, which is a change, which we've seen emerge over the last two years, genuine good faith engagement, and a narrowing of options, and so we are getting a real negotiation going in this area, but that's not to underestimate the difficulty of this area, where the positions remain rather divided. Okay, that's all I'm going to say on the normative area. We have other projects there, but I won't mention them, but perhaps a word, if I may, on the whole area of development assistance and capacity building, and we can develop it in discussion, if you like, but obviously this organization spends a lot of time and resources on trying to deliver effective capacity building services and technical assistance, and we are constantly asking ourselves whether we are doing that actually, whether we're succeeding in that, and I think we've seen some areas in which there has been real progress. For example, let me mention our activities for automating industrial property offices around the world, and there we have projects in over 80 countries. This is our so-called IPAS system, intellectual property automation system. We have projects in over 80 countries, and amongst other things it's delivering digitized collections of patents, which are going into our patent scope, search engine, and digitized collections of trademark data, but it's obviously helping the offices of developing countries to be much more connected. Now this year we will ramp up our activities in what might be considered loosely to be the equivalent of that in the copyright area. So I think that I would suggest to you that if you look at the copyright area, one of the features is that the developing countries, or many developing countries, are culturally very rich, but distribution poor, or if you like, in our new terminology, content rich and distribution poor, and why, you know, so there is a difficulty, if you like, of translating these cultural assets and this cultural richness into commercial assets, and why is that so? And at least part of the explanation, we believe, is that many of their collective management organizations, you know, are not wired, if you like, you know, in shorthand in the old terminology, they're not, they are not connected into a digital marketplace, the emerging global digital marketplace. So we think that ramping up our activities in helping, collecting societies in developing countries to have efficient, we call it wiper costs, but it'll be rebranded to have efficient digital management systems that can be of great service. So those are just two examples I would give you of where we are trying to make our technical assistance and capacity building activities, you know, relevant to the effective use of intellectual property in the economy, but there are obviously many other elements to our capacity building program, about which I won't speak, but we can develop them, if you like, in the discussion. I'm going to not make any further remarks there, and I'll stop for the discussion, but I know a number of you have been extremely kind in submitting questions and topics for discussion, and either I can go through them, but I think much more interesting would be to hear from you, if I may call on you, to explain, you know, the question. So I would start with the IPA, the International Publishers Association, who I think want to make some comments about NGO's participation in WIPO's committee work and training and information for WIPO staff on IP industry developments. So Jens, I hand over to you. Thank you very much for this opportunity and for allowing me to open up our part of this discussion. It was a very interesting expose you made there, and a lot of interesting data that you've given us. I would like to highlight, we were asked about suggestions for change, and we were not asked to give praise for what's happening, so I, whatever I say as a suggestion, therefore, was not a criticism, and I am not here to say what's good or bad. I'm also not going to comment on ongoing negotiations between member states because I don't think this is the appropriate forum for that, but focus on issues that we can, and what I think you actually and WIPO can make a difference. I put down two suggestions. The first one was actually the issue of how do NGOs collaborate with the various or in the various committees of WIPO. The observation that I would make is that despite the many days that some committees go on, it's always hard for the chairs to find time for the NGOs. Now that the numbers of the NGOs have increased in all committees that we attend, significantly the time that we can actually contribute to the plenary debate has become more and more limited, and the question is, is this an effective way of integrating the voice of the NGO community in the debate, in particular given the express will of member states actually to hear more from various stakeholders, and we've heard that in various committees, and my suggestion, I don't have a specific suggestion except that now that we have an NGO Liaison Officer here, I think it would be useful for that Liaison Officer to speak with the chair, to the extent that he's available before the meetings, and to discuss with them how best to organize the effective communication of the NGO voices. That was my first suggestion. Do you want to give them one by one? May I make, because I think others might want to chip in on the same topic, but look, I think if I may say it's a very important point you raise, and I would put it in a broader context than just the WIPO committees, I think this is, if we want to take it in its broadest context, I would suggest that what is happening in the world is that, you know, of what we've seen in the last 10 or so years is the diffusion of power. You know, it's no longer the case that governments exclusively possess all the power. We know this, there is a range of other actors, non-state actors, that have acquired a much more powerful position in society and in the economy. And what does that mean? I mean, I think one of the things that it means for international organizations is that we have to become better at multi-stakeholder engagement. And so what we call NGOs, and their participation, we have to think about how we're doing that because we have to respond to the developments that are occurring outside. And that's the context in which I would put your, if I may, your question. And I think that there are three ways in which we, principle ways in which we interact with non-state actors, if you like, and one is through public-private partnerships. So we have one of those in WIPO research. We will unveil another one this year in something called WIPO Green. And we are working on this in the connection, in connection with the stakeholders platform. And these are examples of trying to achieve results through vehicles, which are not classical, you know, old-style secretariat of international organization approaches, but engaging in a multi-sectoral or multi-stakeholder vehicle. And I think a second way is that a lot of you in various ways, whether you are representing industry or professional organizations or think tanks or other NGOs, are involved in our technical assistance programs, you know. So that's another way in which we see, and in the last way, which is the most difficult, is the normative agenda. And so if I go back to Beijing, why did it happen? Well, one of the reasons why it happened is because there was an alignment between the actors and the producers, you know. And if you don't get that alignment of the interested parties, then it's not going to happen again. And why will Marrakesh happen, it will happen in part because there's an alignment between the World Blind Union and the publishers that is, you know, been worked on for a number of years, as you know, and I thank you for all of your engagement in that. So I think it's very important that we think about this, but I'm not sure what the answer is. And one of the things that we're trying to do this year, which is new, is to have a half a day in our assemblies devoted to an enterprise forum, which will be more open. It's only a small start, but it will see a wider engagement in our assemblies than has been the case previously. I am Indian Tuparaj movement representative. Thank you very much for your invitation to the meeting for change this idea, the wake and general director, in my opinion, in opinion indigenous people, today the white, the intellectual property right, the funded plus the interest in economic, political interest in of the western account of the rich country. Of course, I am, I am Bolivia in our country. Our country is rich in resource, genetic resource, traditional knowledge. A western account, rich country requested to the developing country to transfer it all the, all the rich, the resource to the pharmaceutical agribusiness country, enterprise. He, in my opinion, the white poll is accepted only, only registered the patent of, of the solicitant of the, of the country, of rich country. Of course, which is the result? The result is the indigenous people have, have not the access to the resource, genetic resource, natural resource. Today, today, of course, today, the committee, not the wake of committee, not progress, any progress, any progress during 12 years. Because it is, today is existed the true obstruction, obstruction from western country to developing country, impose it, impose their political, economical, political, decision political. Today, during this, this week, not plenary, only this private meeting. Why it is not for the indigenous people not acceptably? Because we, we hear the poor people, you having the, the resource to coming in Geneva, whereas the too much cost of the life. You request the general director in this power to take the measure for the committee advance it, the progress it in this, in this week. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Perry. Well, yes, as you know, the, the, the meeting, you're participating in it, the meeting is going on this week. It's extremely complex. I do think we are making progress and yes, it has been a long time, but we're making progress particularly if you take a question like, let's be realistic, if you take a question like genetic resources. This has in the Nagoya protocol there was no, not a disclosure provision. It was not there. It hasn't succeeded in WTO. So now, you know, this is not a banal issue. This is a fundamental issue that it's going to take, I think, a bit more discussion, but we're making progress. So thank you very much. Ahmed and Jens for the continuation of yours. Sorry. So I'm Ahmed Abdel Latif from the International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development. Thank you, Mr. Director Daryl, for this overview. It's a welcome tradition that you have established in Waipo and I think that is something very welcome and we appreciate very much this opportunity to dialogue with you. Now on this issue in particular, that in your response on the enterprise forum, I wonder if you could elaborate a bit on this. This is an interesting proposal. I think nobody can deny that the private sector has an important role, contribution to make. Us, we try to involve it even in our activities, but there is a risk maybe that you are elevating one stakeholder at a higher position than others and I mentioned specifically public interest NGOs. So maybe the year after, maybe there's a half day for maybe civil society or you have the model of the WTO forum that brings together everyone. So that is a bit if you can elaborate a bit. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Look, I mean I think that I can't give you definitive answers on this because it's under discussion or under consultation with Member States as we develop the nature of it. But the way I would look at it is that it is one step and a first step only towards increased multi-stakeholder engagement in our principal meeting. So our principal meeting, of course, the Assemblies has always been just state state discussion with, of course, the NGO participation that we have had as observers. Now I think that as a result of the suggestion and proposals of a number of Member States, we're moving one step closer towards having more significant multi-stakeholder engagement. But at the moment, of course, it's not complete multi- stakeholder engagement. And so I would be a little bit patient, if I may ask you, while we develop this. We don't want it to get rolled over before it actually occurs. And but I think that that's the way in which I would consider it. Please. Thank you. And thank you very much for the invitation. My name is Konstantinos Komaitis and I am with the Internet Society. First of all, it is very refreshing to hear in international organization like the World Intellectual Property Organization talking about multi-stakeholder processes as you must know the Internet Society as a true believer of multi-stakeholder processes. And we have worked with WIPO during the Internet Governance Forum to and we have had workshops based on multi-stakeholder processes. I would like to echo what I've heard before. It is very important that there is a clear balance as much as feasible. And I know we understand, I think, everybody in here that it is a learning process for each and every organization and it takes time. And to this effect, the Internet Society is here to assist you and offer its experience. Also, there are other organizations like the OECD that have started opening up to multi-stakeholder processes that you might want to consider. And going back to potential solutions, last year it was the Standing Committee on Trademarks that was discussing the issue of intermediate reliability and that Member States requested more information. And during that Standing Committee, a multi-stakeholder panel was actually organized and we participated and we thank WIPO for the invitation. And my understanding, at least, was that they felt, the Member States felt that this was a very useful information in order for them to reach decisions. So potentially this is one way that you might want to look at fully realizing, of course, that all Standing Committees, their schedules are very busy. Thank you. Thank you very much and we'll note it. And as I said, just if we could be a little bit patient with this because we need to take first steps and develop it. But you do point to another way in which this is occurring and you're quite right, the intermediary liability panel that was held, which was very successful, I think, and which enriched the discussion, actually. And we've also done that in the area of VIPs. Actually our Member States, two of the Member States, United States and Mexico did that for ambassadors. There was an evening in which the publishers put forward their concerns about the process and the blind associations put forward their concerns about it. And so I think that was very useful. And I think that's going to happen more and more, I would say. Please, this gentleman, yeah. Thanks. I am Aziz from MSF and you just mentioned one of your responses about VIP research. What we understand that perhaps the VIP research is expanding and there are new collaborations and new members of the consortium now. So in MSF, we wonder that if you at any stage and point, if you would consider putting all existing agreements between different kind of collaborators in a public domain, so we can really see that which kind of future access approaches would be there through this very important initiative. And my second question is about, you didn't mention today, but the other day you were mentioning about WIPoEssential. We just wonder that why it's taking so long that this project, we have been discussing and talking about this, but it is still not there. Yeah, well on the first, look, I think again, we are in relatively early days of this. It's going very well, as you said, we've gone last year from 31 to 62 members of the WIPo research. There are, I can't give you the exact number, I forget the figure, but I think eight collaborations that have been organized or 10 collaborations that have been organized, you know, which go from anything from taking a scientist from Ghana to West Coast University in the United States to spend time in a research laboratory to actual licenses of compounds for research purposes and discovery purposes. We can certainly consider your suggestion of the extent to which these collaborations can be made more transparent so that you can see exactly what's happening. And we, I think it's a good suggestion, you know, because it can only help the process. As far as WIPo is essentially concerned, for those who may not be aware of this, this is an idea to develop a database which would give you information about the property rights or patent rights that exist in relation to any of the medicines that are on the WHO list of essential medicines. As you may know, most of those are off-patent, but not all of them, but developing a database which can give you a landscape of the patent rights that exist would be very helpful. Why is it taking so much time? Well, it's essentially a question of funding and prioritization. And we've been working on research and green in that area. And we are trying to get further engagement from external partners to ramp up this because we think it would be a very good service actually. So we have certainly not lost sight of it. We think it would be good to develop. Can I go to Dominique from FIA, the International Federation of Actors? And we have to come back to you again, Zio. Thank you very much for this opportunity to meet with you again. And of course the last time we met it was a very exciting moment for us. We were very galvanized by the successful conclusion of the Beijing treaty that we've been lobbying for for decades. So it was a glorious moment for our members. But now, of course, we know both of us know what's our next go. And of course treaties are very important, but they need to be ratified and ratified by a certain number of countries in order to enter into force. And so, you know, this is now what is facing us and of course we can mobilize our members. There will be a certain degree of expertise that will offer our members in order for them to understand exactly what's in this treaty for them. But there's also the issue of financial needs and resources in order to be able to encourage countries to ratify this important convention as quickly as possible. And so, the question I wanted to ask you was, you know, to what extent Waipo has worked out a plan to move us towards a quick ratification and entry into force of this treaty, what kind of resources have been set aside for this. And to what extent we as representatives of performers organizations whether it's unions, guilds, collecting societies can be a part of this process because we have a lot of expertise that I'm sure you may want to use so as not to reinvent the wheel and be able to use people that actually already have knowledge that they can share with governments in guiding them towards a quick ratification. Okay, thank you very much. Well, two pieces of information, if I may. One way of assessing the activity in member states in relation to a treaty is the number of times states request certified copies of the treaty. And the reason they request certified copies of the treaty is because that's what they put before their parliaments or their governments, the official copy. And so I can tell you that that's happening a lot for the Beijing Treaty. So there is definitely activity out there in terms of ratification processes that are going on. And then the second thing is, yes, look, we are developing this plan for bringing the treaty into force and bringing its merits to the attention of a wider audience. And we do have some things planned for this year and we would very much appreciate the participation of fear because I think as you say, you have the expertise and you can present a very forceful and persuasive case to audiences. So we would look forward, we will follow up with you, Dominique, and look forward to collaborating on that. Please. My name is Barbara Stratton. I'm representing IFLA. We asked for libraries and archives to be put on the agenda because the next proper SCCR 26 will be devoting two days to libraries and archives in July. And we wondered whether the secretariat would be working to develop knowledge amongst member states about libraries and archives by running regional seminars. We believe this was done in the run-up to discussions about broadcasting and how IFLA and its sister associations could assist with this. I understand that there has been a request from some countries for a regional seminar in the Middle East but I don't know if there have been any other requests. Could you elaborate on what we might do between now and July? Yeah, sure. Look, I'm going to give you an answer that may not be entirely satisfactory to you. And I don't want to be insulting but member states can't do many things at a time. It's just, if you look at the agenda for member states in Geneva and all of the agencies, it's not just WIPO of course. They have trade, they have human rights, they have telecommunications, they have health policy, they have meteorological policy. They have so many things that are on their agenda that for us to focus their attention on our things is an effort. We're not necessarily the top of the priority. So until Marrakesh is concluded, that will be our priority. So you mentioned July and I know we have an important discussion in the Standing Committee coming up in July, but I think what we have to do is to land these balls one by one. And the first one is the VIPs. And then we will certainly be coming to libraries and archives. And I think that you will agree that good progress has been made in the Standing Committee up until now. And we're very open to collaborating in terms of regional seminars about raising awareness of what the issues are and what the solutions are. Yeah, I'd rather thought you'd say that be all hands on deck for the VIP Treaty. But in that case, then would we be looking for doing something basically in the wake of the next SCCR in the months following that? You mean in the wake of the February? No, no, the SCCR 26 July. Yes, I think that we ramp up after July. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, so until July, I think the focus, at least, I believe the focus is Marrakech and VIPs. And then in the second half of the year, we can be more active in the area of libraries and archives. Would you welcome some suggestions from IFLA? Of course. Sort of how we might do this. Absolutely. Yeah, by all means, please. I have a question about privilege. Privilege for patent attorneys have been on the agenda for a long time. Do you plan to do something about it in the coming year? Well, yes. I mean, it depends on who you are is, because it's really the member states that are going to decide this. Personally, I believe that that's an issue which has a great deal of merit because it's a truly international issue. It's one that requires an international solution as opposed to being one that can be dealt with at a national level. And it's a technical specific thing that should be able to proceed. But I think it's a question of there being enough confidence on the part of the membership that this is not going to do any harm. And first, and secondly, enough, it's a question of priorities and time. But the Standing Committee will be considering this on Standing Committee on Patents will be considering it as you well know. And I hope that they start to advance this question. That's the best answer I can give you, I'm afraid. Catherine, I think you want it, yeah. Thank you. And I'm Catherine Hagen with the Global Social Observatory today. We are looking very much at nutrition issues. And I was intrigued by your remark about wiper green that you elaborate a little more on that. And if it's more focused on the environment and not on agriculture, could you also talk a little bit about what's going on in the field of outreach to the agricultural sector with regard to platforms and so forth? Okay. Well, look, wiper green has not yet been launched. So I didn't want to say too much about that. But it's essentially a marketplace for green technologies. Okay. So it's to support the transfer of green technologies as a marketplace. So it's not focused on agriculture. As far as the agriculture field is concerned, there are two things perhaps that I could mention. One is there's something called the World Seed Project. And the World Seed Project is a collaboration between our sister organization, UPOF, the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Seed Federation, and the OECD. And that collaboration seeks to provide to countries that wish a complete package about how to have an effective seed industry. Because each of us does something different. So at UPOF, we're concerned with new plant varieties. OECD is concerned with seed certification. FAO is concerned with capacity building. And so on. And the International Seed Federation has a lot of expertise. A seed federation has a lot of expertise amongst seed companies. So I think it's a very good idea. And we have pilot projects in two African countries. But we're looking for more funding to advance this vehicle. And the second one is that we have, and I can't remember exactly the status of this, but we have an event planned for assisting in the amelioration of the improvement of seed and plant varieties in Tanzania, which is underway. But that's the extent. I mean, there has been some discussions with some interested companies about the possibility of creating some form of platform that might be something similar to WIPO research or WIPO green. But it hasn't got off the ground yet. And we are resource limited, frankly. Yeah, Karen. Karen Donald from the Quake United Nations Office in Geneva. And we've been working around intellectual property use, both the policy angle for quite some years now. And we're very interested in this question of agriculture and therefore our focus has been on WIPO primarily. So my question to you, and I don't know if you're able to take it in this meeting because I'm aware we're invited to this meeting with you, is that it for WIPO? And my question is actually to you as the director of WIPO. And we're very much welcome to know the initiatives you've taken for a strategic realignment of WIPO initiatives such as these. And we noticed the striking contrast really in our ability to have this kind of discussion within WIPO. And I was just wondering, in particular, because we're all faced with this increasing challenge of needs to have broader multi-stakeholder involvement, there's a huge amount of expertise amongst all sorts of groups that have great difficulty in accessing WIPO. And so I was just wondering if you do have any thought that you're able to respond on any ideas for kind of a similar strategic realignment for WIPO? Yeah, thank you. Look, it's funny how two organizations can exist in the same building and have completely different cultures but that happens. And the WIPO culture has been very different, as you know. But it is changing in certain respects. I mean, what are the respects in which it's changing? Well, one is that its membership is broadening. There is an increased participation on the part of developing countries. That's something that we have, you know, that is very definitely happening. A second thing is that there has been a liberation of some of the resources of WIPOF into the public domain. So there was a system once in WIPOF in which the website had differential access and you couldn't exceed to the documents of what's called the Consultative Committee and the Council in WIPOF. And now that has been loosened and those documents have been allowed into the public domain as it is by the membership, by the way, and it's very much a member-driven organization, WIPOF, by them. There has been an increased participation of NGOs in WIPOF and we have seen some new NGOs join in the last two or so years as you're aware. So I think that, you know, change is underway, but it's an organization, again, without wishing to insult anyone. It's an organization whose representatives come from ministries of agriculture and from the registration side of ministries of agriculture. So they're not necessarily confronted with, you know, the full panoply of public debate that those who delegates in WIPOF are, but I think that you will see it, and we are very open as the Secretariat of WIPOF to seeing this expansion and opening of WIPOF. I'm Stefan Freisham from ARPPI, the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property, and my, well, intervention actually refers to earlier intervention. It's a pity that the second speaker isn't here anymore from Bolivia. I'm very grateful to WIPO for this very open and balanced approach to intellectual property in the different committees. The inclusion, very intense inclusion of traditional knowledge in the Standing Committee on Patent Law has moved an association like ours, and I think that's not natural for mainly IP lawyers, IP professionals to apply their two-year international comparative law study process to the question of importance of traditional knowledge in the world of IP. And I think it's a start for us. We haven't solved all of the questions, but we have identified some of the questions, and I think it's a very good approach and move towards the balanced system. With respect to the intervention of my colleague from EPI, the confidentiality of IP lawyers' advices for us at AIPPI are also a very important topic, and again, it was very helpful for us to see this open, very controversial, but very constructive discussions in the Standing Committee of Patents. One information that prevailed there was that it seems to be, for a number of countries, a national issue, an issue that is probably not to be solved by an international association, but rather by the governments in the individual countries. So we picked up the message out of these discussions together with a number of sister IP associations like FICP and the U.S. Association ARPLA, and we'll be holding a colloquium on the confidentiality of IP lawyers' advice in June in Paris. It'll be announced on the websites of these associations, and we hope to be able to make use of the discussions and the findings in the SCP over the past five years. But that brings me to the SCP with some of the issues of interest to the industrialized countries going at a very slow pace. How do you envision the future working program of the SCP, or do you have a plan for a balanced work program there? Look, the member states that 2 a.m. on Saturday morning were unable to envisage the future of the SCP, so when they last met, so I'm not sure that I can. You know, I think it's just a couple of comments around it because I can't give you a direct answer. I don't know what the answer is, and it's the member states who will decide this, obviously. But a couple of things. We have the greatest difficulty in moving forward in the area of patents. You know, if you look at our agenda, copyright is moving, if you like, because the creative industries are moving. Trademarks generally don't present such great difficulty and designs are moving. So why is that? And one of the obvious reasons is that the extent of participation in the patent system is relatively small on the part of developing countries compared to those other areas. I mean, developing countries, as I said earlier, are very rich in the creative industries and in creative content. And they all use trademarks, any market in the world, no matter what size, has a need for signalling. And they, as I said earlier, also use designs. So patents is our area of where the greatest difficulty occurs in moving and where the greatest differences, frankly, occur around the world. So I think it's our approach as a secretariat, and we are only at best facilitators in this process. It's member states who are going to be deciding. Our approach is trying to create an atmosphere of confidence and trust by moving forward in the things that are doable. And AV or the visual was doable. VIPs is doable. We think designs are doable and so on. And in that way, get a greater level of trust, which will enable us to tackle larger questions. And there are lots of larger questions out there that are not on our agenda. So we have been, if you look at our agenda, it's actually quite an old agenda. IGC has been around for 12 years. Audiovisual was around since 1996. Broadcasting has been around since 1996. Designs is not so long. And so it's not, you can't accuse us of having a new agenda. And if you want to look at the issues after these ones, what are they? And I think that's a question that we need assistance on. We do need assistance on this. There are lots of questions out there. Often works is one possibility. I just throw it out. And I'm not necessarily suggesting it. I think there are a lot of questions that you might consider. But increasingly, I think one of the tasks is to decide what should be done internationally, because not everything has to be done or can be done internationally. But some things are needed to be done internationally. Now, arguably, you could say that the making national exceptions and licensing schemes for visually impaired talk to each other is an international question that requires, can only be solved by an international instrument for the visually impaired. And arguably, you can say that the confidentiality of legal advice is an international question. Can only be, you know, the problem arises there and please correct me, Stefan, if I'm wrong, is that, you know, you have now multi-jurisdictional litigation as a commonplace. It's occurring all the time, litigation over the same subject matter occurring in different jurisdictions. So if you have differential legal rights of protection of the privileged information or confidential information possessed by a lawyer, then you can exploit that and get in one jurisdiction information that is useful but not able to be obtained in the other jurisdiction. So this is the essence of the problem. What's an international problem? You can't, you know, you can't solve that by one country's legislation. So I think we have to perhaps get a bit better at identifying what are the international issues that are needed to support the globalized use of technologies, which is a fact, and the, you know, global economic behavior that, which is also a fact. So I didn't really answer your question, but there we are. Eric, yeah. How the NGOs could contribute to making this better work. I know you've been organizing in connection with some standing committees meetings, preparatory meetings or many seminars, or things like that with the member states and whether NGOs could be involved in such workshops or seminars in order maybe to develop awareness of such or such problems with the member states could have the process maybe. Yes, absolutely. And another suggestion is that I think that you have to talk to governments. And I don't know whether Dominic is still here. Dominic Luker is still here behind the pillar, yeah. Well, you can ask Dominic, you know, how many governments they, the actors spoke to in order to get the audiovisual treaty. And I, you know, it was an endless process for years, wasn't it? So I think if you're not getting governments to understand that this is an issue which has, which has an international dimension that needs to be addressed, that it's not going to happen, you know. And so I think you need to, that would be the thing that I would suggest is that we have to, you have to put forward an interest that the international community can say, oh yes, we can see the problem and we can see the solution and the solution is not going to cost anything, but it's not going to damage anyone. But it's going to produce a benefit, yeah. Please. Yes, Rick Vera from Lighthouse IP. I want to refer back to, you talked about the poor cousin of intellectual property, the industrial designs, the hate, the hate treaty. You discussed the advances in the normative agenda and so on. My question actually to the first is, is there a vision for the production of a platform akin to what patent scope does for patents? Is there a vision for the production of our international platform for designs? And the second aspect of the same question is, what do you envisage the participation of NGOs, specifically to ameliorate the poor cousin that you decide? Yes, well thank you very much. Look, there is, we have patent scope, which we believe will become this year the largest free public database of technology disclosures in the patent system with 30 million full text documents available in it that will happen in the course of this year. And there is, as you know, a global brands database that we believe will become similarly the largest public free database of brands information. You'll see that happen by October. And then the plan is to have the same thing in the area of designs. Yes, so the only thing that's constraining us is resources. We'd do it tomorrow if we had the resources, but on our planning we won't get to it until later this year. So that's that, and what can you do? Well look, I suggest that again, if you can make known to governments that, and to extent this has been done through the questionnaire that we sent out last year, but if you can make known to governments that, that differences in national procedure, which do not have any radical policy implication for the government. You know, they're just the product of accidental historical development that they require for photographs instead of three or whatever it might be, that these differences actually constitute an impediment for getting designs into the productive sector, which has obviously economic advantages, but also aesthetic advantages for our enjoyment of life. Then they'll see an interest in saying, if not saying, let's support this going forward, at least not blocking it. So I think it's very important to make that voice heard. I just wanted to make a brief comment on the fact, the laudable fact that we now have an NGO liaison officer and how we can maybe jointly brainstorm how we can bring this role into the most productive fruition. And I have two thoughts. One is what I mentioned earlier that I actually think it would be great if the NGO liaison officer could help us all ensure that the NGOs, whatever color and flavor we might have and whatever perspective we might have, but that voice has its place in the various debates. And I'm thinking in particular of the Marrakesh Diplomatic Conference, and it'd be great if she had a role there to ensure that all sides are part of the actual debate. That's the one side, but I also think this is not a one-sided thing. I think we as NGOs can also help WIPO. It's not just that WIPO can help us. And here I would like to offer something, and I'm sure I'm speaking, even though I haven't asked anybody, but speaking everybody out of other people's voices as well. Geneva is a place which is often very far away from the place where the rubber hits the road or the grindstone or the coal face or whatever you want to call it, from the realities of life. And I think everybody would benefit if we knew that not only member states, but also the staff here at WIPO understands and perhaps even feels more motivated when they know actually more about the industries and the users and all the people who are working there. And I would like to offer, and as a suggestion that perhaps the NGO Liaison Officer could also think about how to bring in experts from the various perspectives, from the various sides to actually explain to member states who are interested, delegates, but also to staff here how intellectual property actually works in practice and how it impacts. So I'm thinking, again, we heard about libraries and I would fully echo that. I think that's a fantastic debate and there are some seminars going on that IFLA, the libraries and we, the publishers and the collecting societies are doing together with WIPO as a training and education exercise and we'd love to do the same kind of thing in the areas that are now up for debate, such as education, archiving, et cetera. Do you want to answer? Look, thank you, Jens. I couldn't, can any, you know, warmly welcome this. I think it would be great and we have started something within the secretary called an inspiring speakers program. So we'll put you on the list for addressing the staff on this and I think it's great if we can have that assistance from you in helping us to understand the issues that are out there, yeah. It would be excellent. So Anna will take it up, and then the lady here. Could I add to that? Possibly look into arranging industry placements for staff which is something that the IP office in the UK has started doing. Great idea, thank you. Yes, please. Hello, I'm Diana Versteeg, representing MARX, the European Association of Representing Brand Owners, so trademarks. Thank you for the invitation and thank you, Anna, for organizing this. It goes without saying that MARX is extremely pleased with the progress that has been made last year with regards to the Madrid system, the increase of new countries in South America and also the future possible accession of the Asian countries. I actually didn't want to make, I didn't have any question. I want to fully support the remark made by Jens. In the past there have been very successful seminars where MARX speakers have participated and collaborated with WIPO on industrial design seminars on geographical indications and there will be another one on geographical indications, I think. Well, somewhere this year, I think in March or June. So I fully support your idea and I think it works very well. With regards to the Madrid system, one question that comes up now. Although we find it a very successful system and I work for a company who intensively uses it, there is still a lot of improvement to be done and I think about, for example, excuse me, the statement of grant of protection. It's not so much a question, more a comment. What can we do as an organization to assist WIPO in convincing the importance of having the statement of grant of protection? Yes, well, indeed it's very important and I think one of the things that we're doing is the projects that I mentioned earlier about automating industrial property officers because that gives them a much easier capacity to be able to provide the statements of grant of protection. And I think from your side in insisting on its importance and that without that you are not really clear about the landscape of legal rights is a very important thing to keep transmitting as a message to governments. And let me just say that, yes, I agree with you, there are lots of improvements in the Madrid system and it's going, that are needed and it is going to be a big focus for us over the next two years because we believe that the Madrid system has a lot more potential to be realized. Okay, well, I think that's it, sorry. Yep, okay. Yes, Barbara, go ahead. It's on this time. Last year in April you said that you were going to roll out things like online registration, stream texting, captioning as well as the video recording for all the meetings. And you saw the video recording seems to be there although half the time it doesn't work. But for those of us who can't be there every day, the stream texting is incredibly useful. We'll start, you don't have to sit and watch it. You can capture it afterwards and then deal with it. And obviously as a UN organization which believing in disability rights and so forth, there will be people coming to meetings who will be disabled one way or the other but they won't be there necessarily to represent a disabled voice. So I wonder what's the progress on this? Because I was looking at the IGC page today and they had online registration but there was no evidence of any stream texting as I could see. And I looked at the SCCR page for in two weeks time and there was no online registration. So I wonder where things got to with all that? Yeah, well okay, well I can't give you an informed answer but we will follow up and look at it. But in principle, yes, we want to move to online registration. In principle, yes, we are providing not just webcasting but also captioning and stream text. So that should be there for all meetings. We are also expanding the language coverage and that has been a rather major financial burden because all of our committees have gone to seven, six languages, six UN languages now and all of the documents as well. And there was a bit of a budget blowout on that which may account for the absence of resources for stream texting but I'll look into it and we'll see what we can do to see if we can get evenness here. Yeah, okay. Yes, please. Good afternoon, Diego Vergani from the Dupont Company. There is a lot of going on, at least at the EU level on trade secrets and confidential business information. So there is an effort going on right now. Is the WIPO planning or doing something or if not intend to do something in this regard? Look, as you know, it's covered in principle, it's covered by the Paris Convention. It's also, there is an article in the TRIPS Agreement on it but these are reasonably un-elaborated provisions. I think that it's an area that is exceptionally important and whose importance is underestimated and that it would be good to see advanced. However, I think that it's going to be extremely difficult to get buy-in on a process relating to secrecy in an age of transparency. I mean, I think that's our essential problem. So if we can change the terminology and it's not trade secrets but confidential information perhaps or know-how, I think that would help us being able to tackle this issue, which is obviously of fundamental importance. Fundamental importance but it's just not on the agenda but we have to get over that initial gut reaction to secrecy must be bad, I think. Okay, well, thank you all so much for coming and for your participation and please don't hesitate to follow up with Anna with suggestions as to how we can improve this process. Thanks.