 Ladies and gentlemen, very good afternoon to you all. Thank you all for coming to this exchange. I'm going to talk for about 15 or 30 minutes, 15 or 20 minutes. But I hope there'll be an opportunity to really engage after that, and that might be a little more interesting. Well, look, let me start with the general situation of the organization and intellectual property. And I would say, look, of course, as you all know very well in your various different capacities, there's a lot happening in this world. And amongst those things, those developments that I think are having a direct impact on the organization and its environment are, first of all, I'd say the intensification and acceleration of technological development. So we just see that. You're all familiar with that. I don't really have to go into much detail on that, although I could give you some horrifying statistics in this regard. For example, the amount of data that will be produced this year is the same as the amount of data that has previously been produced in the whole of the history of humanity. So there are extraordinary developments occurring technologically right across the world in all sectors, let's say, but in particular in the sectors of the advanced sectors of the life sciences, gene editing, some extraordinary advances with CRISPR, for example, technology, which are going to have massive impact. The extraordinary advances we're seeing in the combination of interconnection of big data, artificial intelligence, robotics, the internet of things. So really quite extraordinary pace and intensity of technological development I think is one feature of the environment that we face. Secondly, how does that all affect intellectual property? Well, we see it affect intellectual property in terms of a much increased demand for intellectual property rights. That's nothing new. We've seen that across the world in the course of the last at least 10 years, but the figures get higher simply each year. So in our survey, worldwide survey, of intellectual property activity, we see that, for example, the last year, full year that we have is 2015. Patent applications, the number of patent applications worldwide grew by 7.8% to about nearly 3 million, about 2.9 million patent applications. Trademark applications grew by 15% worldwide to, well, it depends on how you calculate a trademark application if you calculate it on a class count, as we call it. It's about 6 million now. And design applications arose by a lesser number, about 2.3%, but still about 830,000. Now, compare those figures to the figures that emerge from, for example, the IMF on the performance of the world economy. And they're two different things, two very different things. And throughout this whole period of the last five years or so, when the world economy has been performing to use the terminology of the IMF in a disappointing manner, in, you know, with very sluggish growth, you have in the intellectual property field these growth rates, which are 7%, 8%, 15%, and that tells us something already about the first point that I made about the intensification activity of, intensification of activity in technological development. It tells us also that intellectual property is rather intimately connected with that intensification of activity in knowledge production, let us say. And it's quite intimately connected because, of course, one of the functions of intellectual property is to secure the competitive advantage that is conferred by innovation. And so we do see, and you see that on a daily basis in newspapers, that increasingly competition is played out in respect of intellectual property. It is the means of securing that competitive advantage. So that is, I think, another feature. Then I would say a third feature that I should refer to as the general environment is very much changing geographies. If you have an idea of the world as it was in the 1970s, well, look at the figures. It's just not the same. And this is the case right across the intellectual property spectrum. If you take the cultural and creative industries, for example, on one World Wide Survey, 34% of the production is coming out of Asia, compared to 33% in Europe and 32% in the United States of America. If you look at the patent world, well, the major source of patent applications is Asia now. And that's certainly the case for the international patent system, the PCT. So I think one does need to look at the figures from time to time in order to understand what is happening and see that while there is a certain stability in the top filing countries in the technology area and the patent area, that stability is challenged in certain respects. And the world is changing geographically. Then I would say a fourth feature of the general environment to which I would refer you is the asymmetries that exist in knowledge capacity or technological capacity throughout the world. And this is really striking. And I'll give you just a couple of examples of statistics. And I'm comparing here. I'm aware apples and oranges. But last year, the United States spent $514 billion on research and development, $514 billion. That's bigger than the GDP of 167 countries. So you have one country investing more in the production of new knowledge than 167 countries, total production and total capacity to use for all of the various needs. China invested $400 billion. That's more than the GDP of 163 countries. So these asymmetries in capacity are, if anything, exacerbated by the intensification of the activity that is occurring in the knowledge and technology area. And then the final general feature of the environment to which I would refer is that, as you are all aware, multilateralism is very much under challenge. So this is a feature that we must confront. It has no immediate impact on this organization. Nobody's rolled up at the door and served a read on us and said, that's it for you. But we see all of the developments that you see and read about in the newspapers throughout the world where there is a challenge, I think, to the multilateral institutions and the multilateralism. Now coming to WIPO, down from that, because we're, of course, only a very small feature in that general environment, we see the same trends to which I have just referred. So in our global systems, we see extremely good performances. So we see all of those trends reflected in the services of this organization. And we can look at that in more detail, if you'd like, during our interaction. In the normative area, well, that's where the challenges to multilateralism are most apparent and where we have the greatest difficulty as an organization and as member states in moving forward. But those things that are on the agenda this year, where we, at any rate, are very much hoping we will see some movement are, in our name, three, the Design Law Treaty. It's almost there. It's not a world-shattering treaty. It's one that deals with the simplification of procedures and standardization of procedures for designers around the world. It's nevertheless the sort of thing that a technical agency should be able to do in its sleep. But we haven't been able to do that. So we hope that we will see the final step taken this year in that regard. And I can explain, if you like, what are the barriers in our discussion. Secondly, broadcasting. So another longstanding, the longest standing item on our agenda. And again there, we are rather hoping that the narrow scope of the proposed treaty, which focuses on the unauthorized reproduction of the broadcast signal on any media, basically, focuses on that, might be able to unite the delegations. And interestingly there, this is not, at least in the negotiations, a north-south issue. There is as much support for this from developing countries as there is from developed countries. Indeed, some of the barriers might be coming from the developed countries rather than developing countries. But there is interest in seeing this going forward. And then there is what is happening in the other room right now in the Governmental Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions. That is operating under a two-year mandate at the moment, which ends with our annual meeting of member states, our assemblies in October this year, where that committee reports back. And as things stand at the moment, quite significant progress has been made in the area of intellectual property and genetic resources. In fact, there is a very large majority of countries that are comfortable with the contours of the text that is available at the moment. There's a small minority of countries that are not happiness that the small minority includes some important countries. So that is one of the difficulties. However, it's in quite good shape. It's in shape where I think it's a question of whether delegations are prepared to do the deal or not. Traditional knowledge is less well advanced. It's more complicated, much more complex as an area. And Traditional Cultural Expressions, which is being discussed at this stage right now, is also less well advanced and also quite a complex area. So as we come up to October, I think we will see a text in one area, which is quite mature, and text in other areas, which are not quite as mature. And let's see how it goes. Now, of course, there are other items on our normative agenda. There are the exceptions and limitations in our Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, in particular, those relating to libraries and archives and those relating to educational institutions and disabilities other than visual disabilities or print disabilities. And they have received good discussion. The education went less airtime than the libraries and archives. And it's a question now seeing how the member states want to go forward on these particular issues. There's another issue that's, if you'll excuse the Argo, the slang hanging around the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is the resale right, the right of an artist to share in the remuneration from every subsequent sale of the artistic work, which is put forward by a number of African countries and which may receive more airtime in the committee as the committee meets in May, I think, if I'm not mistaken. So normative area is a little bit like the weather outside at the moment. It's not really inviting, but it's there. And we all struggle to move forward in this quite difficult environment. And if you ask me, the two greatest difficulties that we face in the normative area go back to those initial points that I made at the outset. Namely, first of all, intellectual property is a matter of competitive interests. States have different competitive positions and interests in relation to it. It's not like Ebola, where everyone wants it suppressed. It's much more difficult to get a common position in relation to something where competing interests or states are involved than one where you can... Everyone's got a common interest. So that's one difficulty. And the other difficulty is the asymmetries, of course, to which I refer it. So those two things, of course, make this very difficult and the normative area. Now, I did want to say, and I always talk too much, and then find that I can't say anything about some good work that's going on. But you see, I think any international organisation in this current environment has to think carefully about how it can advance international cooperation. So how can we advance international cooperation given all of these challenges in the surrounding environment about which I've been talking? And I think, and I'm often criticised for this, but I'll nevertheless say it again and try to explain why I shouldn't be criticised for it. But I think that there is a lot of good international cooperation that can go on without the need for a treaty. Now, when I say that, people say, oh, look, he's suppressing the normative agenda and so on. He's got someone else's agenda. I'm not suppressing the normative agenda. I'm facing reality that we've been talking about broadcasting for 20 years. So, and I'd very much like to see broadcasting go forward. But in the interim, can we find ways to cooperate internationally that advances the international agenda? And I think we have been doing that. One example is the Accessible Books Consortium. OK, so there are about 26 countries that are party to the Marrakech Treaty now. So there's 26 countries where you don't need rights clearances to have a book exchange. But what the Marrakech Treaty does is to set up the framework in which you legally can have an international book exchange or exchange of books in accessible formats. Doesn't do it. How do you do it? Well, you do it through a partnership. And that's what we do with the Accessible Books Consortium. WIPO research. Our platforms for looking at for automation systems which are used by 80 officers in the developing world. We have a similar platform starting for collective management societies in developing countries. WIPO Connect. We are in discussions with the International Publishers Association, as I see present. And I thank you, Jose, for being here, about how we can improve publishing capacity in developing countries. Why would we do that? Well, here's why, because a persistent complaint, if you like, mentioned by developing countries in our Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, is the high cost of textbooks. And this is often mentioned in the context of the exception for educational institutions, rightly or wrongly. The high cost textbooks. Can we do something about that? Practically. That's the question. Well, the long-term answer is the sustainable development of a publishing industry, a local publishing industry, and local content. That's the long-term answer to the high cost of textbooks. You don't have to import them. You make them yourself. So here is, you know, there are a series of things that we're doing in this area, which I would like to signal. We can go into details as good examples of practical international cooperation, where states come together and they say, yeah, let's do that. And not just states, but let's remember, we have the sustainable development goals instructing us that we should be doing partnerships, that we should be looking for partnering with the enterprise sector in advancing the sustainable development goals. And so with that instruction also, we are looking for ways to build multi-stakeholder partnerships that can constitute good examples of international cooperation in our area, and particularly capacity building. I didn't mention all of them, but happy to go into details. But I should stop talking because I've spoken too much, and I hope we can have some interaction. Thank you, Dr. Mellon. At this point, we'd like to open it up to take any questions from you all, which is why we're here, to have the exchange. And so if you could just please identify yourself and the organization you're representing when you ask your question. Thank you. Thank you, Bruno Machado. I'm representing INTA, the International Trademark Association. Now, Director General, you aroused our interest on the reasons for the current deadlock of the DLT and on how it could be overcome. Can you say a little more about that? Sure. So there have been two principal issues. One has been the formulation of how technical assistance may be provided. And that was a sort of an in-principle difference with certain delegations saying that they were not prepared to go to a diplomatic conference to conclude the treaty unless that treaty contained an article which foresaw technical assistance to developing countries. Then on the other side, you had certain delegations, or one at any rate, that said we're not prepared to agree in advance of the diplomatic conference that there will be an article on this question. We're not against technical assistance, but we don't want as a matter of principle that the convening be subjected to the existence of an article which it is for the diplomatic conference to decide. So this was a fine point of difference. And I think we're coming to an understanding on that where it can be some words can be found which will give comfort to both sides. The other one is the so-called disclosure requirement. And now that's very much discussed, of course, in the IGC, in the context of a desire on the part of many countries to have a compulsory obligation internationally to disclose the origin or source of genetic resources that are used in the invention for which the patent is applied. And certain countries have said that this should feature as part of the requirements in a design application. And that you disclose the source or origin of any traditional knowledge or traditional cultural expressions that are used in the design. That is not yet resolved, but various formulations have been proposed which have met a large degree of support for allowing the facility for a country to be able to impose such a disclosure requirement, without it being an obligation in any way. And the formulations include, for example, that the treaty deals with formalities and procedural requirements, and that is a substantive requirement. And words similar to those found in the patent law treaty that says this doesn't affect substantive requirements would give the necessary comfort for those who want to have a disclosure requirement. It's one formulation. Please. Thank you. Please. Thank you. I'm Yuan from Medicines on Sumters. Nice to have the opportunity to engage with you again. Thank you for the time. So I have two specific questions related to why post-work relates to public health, because we observed the very difficult discussion in SCP this year when the member states, again, didn't manage to reach agreement on the future work on this area. So I want to know what's in pipeline in terms of the facilitation and coordination in the future, because we still think it's a very important agenda item to be taking forward that has a global impact in the future. And second relates to that one. One of the backlog this year was regards to the Union Secretary General's high-level report on access medicines. So we want to have some specific question on that as well, because we notice YPO has served in the expert advisory group to formulate that report. So we think YPO's expertise has actually very important in that discussion going forward. And we also observed a very divisive view from member states on that report alone without going through the actual problem identified the report and especially the recommendations to YPO to take forward, especially there's two specific recommendations, one on transparency patent data. Another one is capacity building. We think those work are already being conducted by YPO, but reports require recommended improvement and refinement. So I want to know as an institution, as YPO, like institutionally what to you, what's YPO's comments and kind of opinion on this report and how do you think, as a UN agency, that could be taking forward? Thank you very much. Look, I've got a lot of comments, but I'll try and limit myself. And so first of all, look, I think when you say what's YPO's view, you know, do you mean the secretariat or you mean the member states? Because when you mean the member states, I don't know what it is. Secretary. Yeah, well, we have the view of the member states, you know. So look, so that's the number one problem, you know. And I would say, however, a couple of comments. First, there's no more important area, obviously. This is really immensely important and immensely complex. And the more dialogue that can be encouraged on this area, the better. You have on the one hand, you know, and all that I said about asymmetries, you know, risk being reproduced, as you well know, in extraordinary manner in the health field when you see some of the advanced techniques being involved in, for example, with gene editing. And the availability of some of these technologies will be extremely limited, and not necessarily because of intellectual property rights, but because of capacity. So it's an incredibly important area. And I think it's an area where we have to find balance, because on the one hand, we do need research and development. So WHO, as you know, has just published a list of the 10 superbugs most resistant to antibiotics. How is that going to be solved? We do need research and development. So you have to have economic settings that are going to permit the possibility of research and development. On the other hand, if you've got cures or treatments, then they're not much good unless they can be used. So it's a balance. And now that to say that we need to talk and talk and talk about this area, I think, and there are no easy answers. We have to find the balances consistently. Now the second thing I would say is that the high level panel report poses for the system a governance question. And we have to be aware of that. It's a report of, it's not an intergovernmental report. It's a report of a group of experts, admittedly commissioned by the Secretary General of the United Nations. Nevertheless, it's a report of a group of experts. And that means that unlike the SDGs, which are adopted by the General Assembly unanimously of the United Nations, where we can say, okay, we can embrace the SDGs because that is a direction coming from all of the member states of the UN. This is not the case. It's a group of experts. And that is why we have seen in many organizations around town, bitter discussions about whether to incorporate that expert report into the intergovernmental machinery. And I think it's been successful in UNAIDs only as far as I'm informed. And it's been resisted everywhere else. The third thing is, I hope, and I can't say too much at this stage, but I hope you will see a major advance from us this year, which will appeal to you because I recall our previous conversations in which you said that you use our patent scope database very much, but that there are certain defects and deficiencies in it. For your practical work, I hope we'll address that this year in a major way. Good afternoon, Ida Puzone from Origin, the World One Network of Geographical Indications. I have to use this word because, thank you very much, Director-General, for this meeting and also for your deep analysis of, I mean, providing us with this overview on why activities, also to put them in the context, of a fast-changing world with many challenges. And actually, the question is, because you didn't mention what's happening on geographical indications, what we know from our experience, as you know, Origin represent more than 500 organizations from almost 40 countries, and so we are constantly in contact with producers, institutions that work with GIs in different regions of the world. And also what we notice from a practical experience is the increase of interest in GIs and also in terms of registrations, but also new laws that are being adopted. Also, the Southeast Asia is growing a lot in terms of recognition, cooperation, project to develop GIs. So what we see there is a potential and also referring to your comment on the difficulties of multilateral agreements and the challenge of multilateralism, here in our field, we experienced in 2015 the conclusion of the diplomatic conference for the reform of the Lisbon Agreement and so the adoption of the Gini Act, that for us was a major achievement because finally we have a very strong protection for GIs. So the question is, is happening on that and almost for us from our point of view, promotion is important in the sense to make countries aware about the assistance of this system, almost we believe for developing countries, is a very powerful tool, could help many of them to get international registration. So what you are doing to promote the agreement and if you have already, I don't know, initiatives that you want to share with us, just to understand. And briefly a comment just to tell that also inside Waipo, one of our priorities is also the discussion that is ongoing in the SCT on protection of geographical indication in domain names because as you mentioned, technology advance and also the infringement and becoming more technological and so for producers is a big concern also to improve the protection in domain names. We know that there will be the committee soon and information session is going on. So this is an interesting initiative but if you can give me a feedback on that. Thank you very much. So thank you very much. And look, as you know, the Lisbon Agreement is still going through institutional discussions amongst member states which have not quite stabilized. We're very much hoping that they might stabilize in the course of this year. But as you know, and for the benefit of others who may not be so familiar with the area, there are certain countries who were not permitted to participate in the revision diplomatic conference with the right to a vote because they were not members of the party to the Lisbon Agreement have not let that issue go yet. And they are now anxious to see that the money that they contribute indirectly, let's say, to the organization that is through their users, use of our Patent Cooperation Treaty, mainly but also the Madrid Agreement, is not used to support a system that they were not party to. I'm explaining. I'm not endorsing anything either way here. I'm explaining the background. We're not through that issue yet. And we hope that we will get through it this year. Now, there are two sides to it. One is, how do you finance the existing operations of the existing Lisbon Agreement? And there the governments of France and Italy in particular, but not alone, have very generously made contributions, voluntary contributions, which are solving that problem or contributing a long way to solving that problem. Then there is a longer term problem of the financial sustainability of the Lisbon system. And there the Lisbon members have to come up to our assemblies meeting in October this year with a, we hope, sustainable financial solution to the Lisbon operations. So probably contributions of some nature. We hope that that will get settled in the course of this year, which will give us more stability in this area. Now, we do promote the Lisbon Agreement. We are obliged by a decision of our member states to promote it in a way that draws attention to the possibility of using the trademark system, mainly through certification marks, as an alternative way of branding agricultural produce. In other words, we are instructed to have a balanced approach. But a balanced approach does not exclude us from talking about Lisbon, on the contrary. And then I'd say as another comment, there's great interest in the area of geographical indications, and particularly in developing countries. So I can name two meetings that I've had in the course of this morning. So unbeknownst to me, as a by-gen, is the third largest exporter of nuts in the world. And that's probably unknown to everyone, and why is it unknown? Because they don't brand it. And how do you brand it? Well, you can use geographical indications in one way and other ways. Or Nepal has a lot of specific biodiversity for a start in traditional medicines. It also has, and that's one of the complications of the GI system. Pashmina and other shared, let's say, GIs. So there's a lot of interest, and I think that branding has an important role in a world in which people are looking for diversity in their purchasing, in their tourism, and in everything else, to find ways to be able to brand the specificities of diversity. More geographical indication is a very good system for this. So we haven't forgotten Lisbon by any means. But we do need to get this question stabilized. The first one was largely up to the member states to do that. And then of course the Lisbon Agreement has to come into force. The new, the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement. And we very much hope that that will happen. There are countries that are actively considering it, of course, not the least, the European Union, but it has not yet covered, as you know better than I, the non-agricultural GI area, and that has to happen before it can go forward. Sure. Please. Thank you, Mr. Director General. My name is Leonardo de Terlitzi and I speak on behalf of CISAC, and in particular on behalf of the visual artists we represent across the world. We would like to express our sincere appreciation for the progress made with the topic of the research right at the SCCR. As you may know, the campaign for the global implementation of the research right is at the core of CISAC activities. And we are encouraged by the big interest that the delegations have shown around this topic in the last two sessions of the SCCR. In particular, at the last session, Professor Ricketson presented at the plenary defining of his study, providing precious information on the research right and clarifying why this writing is so important for visual artists. This presentation generated a big debate among the delegates. And in particular, a long session of question and answer between the offer and delegates. It shows that the committee is sensitive to the needs of visual artists and that many member states understand the vital importance of this right. As a result, the committee, as you know, agreed to hold an international conference on the issue raised by the implementation of the research right, including its potential effects on the art market. CISAC is now working closely with the WIPO secretariat in the organization of this event by sharing information on the research right and especially by ensuring the participation of visual artists. Let me add that our priority is to ensure the representation of indigenous artists, disadvantaged category that in many countries do not benefit from the research right but that represents people's cultural and spiritual identity. We are confident that this event will promote a better understanding of the right and that member states will agree on including the research right in the future working plan of the SCCR. And finally, as a general remark, we observe that the SCCR is experimenting some difficulties with norm-setting activities and creators, of course, are suffering from these difficulties. For this reason, we in CISAC would like to bring creators back to the heart of the norm-setting activity agenda in copyright. In particular, we are open to explore legal mechanism for addressing the topic of the transfer of value, namely the imbalance that exists today in the digital market between the weak position of creators and the strong power of those who exploit their works and commercially benefit from this exploitation. Thanks for your attention. Well, thank you very much and let me take the opportunity to thank CISAC also for all of the well, our good cooperation in the first place. But in particular for all the work you've done to promote the resale right internationally, you've really driven this issue and it's very dear to the hearts, as you know, of many artists in developing countries that may sell initially in reasonably adverse circumstances but who may later find that the value of their work has increased significantly and they have no way of sharing in that subsequent benefit except through the resale right. And the resale right in experience has not caused tumult in any art markets around the world. It's been able to be absorbed without any difficulty and the experience of the United Kingdom, I think, testifies to this, which came in, as you know, rather late. So look, we're hoping and I would say that I made that comment about design more treaty before and I'd say the resale right fits into that category. It's something that this organization should be able to do easily. Easily, it's a facility in the Byrne Convention already. It's a question of whether you make it mandatory. It's something that should be quite easy. Now, why is it not easy? I think we have to ask that question. We do know that one major country does not have the resale right, excuse me, and they would have to obviously be comfortable with it. But if you think of the design of the architecture of the treaty system in WIPO, you have Paris and Byrne and then you have optional treaties really. So why can't people do an option? Why can't those who want to do it just do it? Well, we've seen the recent experience of Lisbon, which was not particularly the smoothest experience we've had with options. So why is that? Well, globalization I think is the explanation. That globalization has an impact so that even if you do a treaty amongst a limited number of parties, it has effects elsewhere beyond those parties. And that's what makes it more difficult to go with the traditional architecture of, here's a menu, choose what plate you would like. So anyway, all this to say we, from the point of view of the secretariat, obviously it's a member states to decide, but this seems like a good one. Thank you, please. Yeah, thank you very much. Now I just wanted to say I agree with my colleague from CISAC has just said, on the difficulties that we are noticing or noticing at the standing committee concerning the norm setting activities. And I would add more, it's not just the norm setting activities, but also some difficulties in opening real debates on how to balance or to find adequate solutions for creators most notably in the digital field. And I'm referring to the Grulak paper where as I could see most of the member states were willing to at least open a debate. Maybe not to adopt a position, but open a debate. And a limited number of member states may be encouraged by certain trade associations stopped it or prevented it from happening. And so I just wanted to raise this issue and also to note that most of the solutions in the Grulak paper at least in relation with the position of performers in the digital field are linked to the eventual implementation of the Beijing Treaty. Article 12, sorry, Article 10 the Beijing Treaty provides for this making a verbal right. And if you go to Article 12, you see that there is a chance of providing for a revision right. So why is there such a fear between member states to openly discuss something that all performers and most authors have been claiming for the last five or 10 years? Well, thank you very much. And look, all I could say as a general comment is that we see the difficulties that occur, all of us, all of us, not just the secretariat, obviously. But we all see the difficulties that occur in moving forward in a normative area. And that those difficulties in moving forward in a normative area are having perhaps an adverse impact on the capacity of the organization to have a dialogue about certain issues such as the digital environment or health and intellectual property. So maybe one thing that we could all give some thought to and certainly I hope the member states is, well, can we make a distinction between normative activities and pre-normative activities, discussions, where we can actually start to talk about some of these major issues without it being a threat of a norm emerging at the end of the discussion. If everyone agrees that there is an area where there's a substantial amount of agreement, you can take it out of this pre-normative area and put it in the normative area and then have a discussion to try to conclude a norm. That's another thing. But I think maybe that with practice and time, what's happened in our standing committees, which are normative committees, is that they're wanting to discuss some interesting issues that are not yet ready for normative. That's causing anxiety and fear on the part of some that don't yet want normative activity there. And so maybe we have to think a little bit more carefully about how we structure conversations internationally so as to give us more liberty to be able to discuss without it being necessarily a normative discussion yet. Sangeeta. Sangeeta from Third World Network. Thank you very much for this opportunity for the dialogue. My question, as you mentioned, actually, that often in committees is difficult to get common positions, agreement on certain issues. So I just wanted to highlight that in the Committee on Development and IP, an area which has kind of not really moved forward in any important way is the agenda item on technical assistance. And there there was an external review that was commissioned some years ago. And I think it was a very significant step in the sense that it was first time actually the technical assistance of WIPO has ever been reviewed in a very in-depth manner. And there are quite a few good recommendations that came out of it. Some of it the Secretary has said it's been implemented. But I think a lot of the important recommendations that would perhaps make very important, very positive changes to the technical assistance have not really been taken forward. There was a joint proposal that has been submitted by the African Group with the Development Agenda Group and that built on the external review recommendations. So I guess a lot of the proposals are really intended to put in place transparent, more accountable systems for the delivery of technical assistance. And technical assistance is a huge part of what really WIPO does. A lot of money is being spent. And over the years, and I think a lot of the concerns remain around the kind of technical assistance that WIPO is delivering. So I guess my question is how can we move some of the proposals which were in the joint proposal, as you mentioned, that okay, even if there's not agreement, there's certain things even the Secretariat can already do. And I guess we can acknowledge that some of the, there's a little bit more transparency. There's a technical assistance database established. Although I think it does not go as far as what we would want to see. I think there's still a lack of a little bit of clear guidelines, how technical assistance should be delivered, independent mechanisms. So the accountability of it is still for us a big issue. So I think this is an area which, if we can make movement, because I think it's important for everybody to have confidence that the technical assistance that's delivered is credible. It's appropriate for the level of development. And I think it's very important for the credibility of the IP system itself because if you're going to be pushing the strongest IP protection in all countries, as if all countries are United States or Japan or China, it's not going to really work for the developing countries. So that's my first question. My second question is on plant variety protection. How does Waipo actually approach plant variety protection if there is technical assistance that needs to be given? Thank you very much. So thank you very much. Well, on the first, we are to some extent in the hands of our member states, to some extent, and because it's the CDIP that has to give the direction. We can take on board what we can take on board, you know, but if you're looking at the sort of full monopoly of things in the so-called dear report, then I think it's more than we can necessarily just do ourselves without some guidance or instructions from the member states. I think it's one of the hardest questions that we have as an organisation. So we spend, as you have suggested, 21% of our budget on technical assistance and it's extremely important that that 21%, you know, has an impact. And, you know, just how you can do that is, I think, a terribly important question. I can tell you that there is hardly a day goes by without a member state from the developing world coming and wanting and pressing for developing assistance, technical assistance. I'm not complaining about that. On the contrary, I'm just saying the demand is huge. And what's the most effective things we can be doing, I think, is a constant question we have to, and is our performance good enough, you know, and I think there's a lot of room for reflection there. So I'm in general line that you are suggesting there. On plant varieties, well, it's mainly on plant varieties, UPOF, the sister organisation of WIPO, that takes care of the question of technical assistance in the area of plant varieties. We, the question does arise. It does arise in capacity building in the area or advice in the area of legislative assistance from the WIPO point of view because, of course, it's regulated also by Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement and we have to take that on board. And so we do touch on it in specific requests for legislative assistance in the patent and technology area, let's say, but the bulk of it is done through UPOF on plant varieties, on the traditional system of selection and of breeding of plant varieties as opposed to biotechnology. Yes, please. Thank you. My name is Karol Ayselmerden. I'm with Coret, the Council on Health Research for Development. It's the first time that we are here and really appreciate the opportunity. So my question is more to try and understand complementarity between large multilateral institutions like WIPO and small NGOs like ours. In short, our focus is really on helping low-middle-income countries build substantial research and innovation capacity, so we focus on systems of research and innovation, not on individual studies or study designs. In that the way we operate is focusing on potential bottlenecks that can be addressed very practically. And one of them deals with the capability of actually using the products of, for example, WIPO. So in a corollary to access to medicines, this would be access to IP, so it's great to have the treaties, it's great to have the voluntary treaties. But if there are no lawyers in countries to enforce them, then what's the purpose? And so if I just give you an example from the field of health sciences or biotech sciences, the field of research for health, we find that once you leave South Africa and before you end up in Cairo, there are approximately two lawyers that we know that are capable to do contract law in terms of those fields. And within that IP is of course a part and there are other parts. And so my question is really to try and understand what the technical assistance or potentially even normative actions of WIPO could be to help increase the capability, i.e. the utility of treaties that would work for low-medal income countries if there were more capacity to actually use them. Well, welcome and thank you for coming. We, look, it's a great question and I think one of the things it illustrates is that the needs are so great that it would be, you know, a terrible pretension on the part of WIPO to think that it can in any way fulfil them. And the only way in which they can be addressed is through cumulative action of a large number of parties such as your organisation. So the more that we can talk about what everyone is doing the better. And specifically, we do have a number of programs for human capacity building. Through our academy, distance learning programs which are used every year by about 50,000 students around the world. And we have many other, you know, physical training programs. And so there's a lot of scope for seeing how we can improve that and they do cover the field of health as well. It's, you know, building the whole, as you say, infrastructure that can support being able to use intellectual property in various ways. And so, yes, we do have a lot of programs. Happy to share those with you and to talk about them with you. But the needs are vast, you know. Look, there are, as you know, 54 countries on the African continent and we have about eight people in our African Bureau. It's just the needs are so huge that we can't possibly do anything other than a modest contribution and we have, we rely on all of you for, and we're looking for ways to partner. And we have partnerships with many of you and the more we can do the better. And we did have one such partnership that got off the ground last year called Inventor's Assistance Program where for an inventor in a developing country, we try, we get pro bono legal assistance to enable them to take their invention and get it protected and to do the requisite legal work that enables them to be able to commercialize it. And that got off the ground in Colombia and one other country, South Africa, was it? The Philippines, yeah, last year. But there's a fair amount of interest in that. But it's again one contribution. Hi, I'm Thiru Balasarimaniam with Knowledge Ecology International. Thank you, Director General. As a question or request in relation to some of the norm-setting exercises that the organization is engaged in, as you described, such as the negotiation of a treaty for the protection of broadcasting organizations or the DLT, we would make a request that perhaps there'd be a more robust use of the office of the chief economist to conduct impact assessment studies on the, you know, the entry into force of these treaties. For example, if I recall correctly, I think cluster D of the development agenda, you know, discussed these type of impact assessment studies. And then just as a comment, I just recall that, I think about eight, nine years ago when you first held an NGO dialogue, I think it was in 2008, at the time we described to you a project we were doing with the World Blind Union of a possible treaty of the blind. And, you know, just eight years later, you know, we saw the entry into force when Canada ratified the treaty. So thank you for your stewardship on that. Thank you, Thiru. Well, look, I think the whole reason we have established the office of the chief economist is to provide some empirical basis and support for all of the activities in the organization and in particular the normative activities. We, there was, as you know, a study done in the area of design law treaty which led to the question about technical assistance that I described earlier, actually, because while it found that all countries felt that they would benefit from this, some felt that they didn't have the capacity to be able to use it. So it led to the demand for technical assistance. We're, you know, and I think the chief economist is ready to do this as much as possible. The fact remains that some states don't really want that to happen. Why not? Well, because they do their own impact assessments, obviously, which are not necessarily published, but they do their own impact assessments and that's what they will rely on rather than, as it were, an outside impact assessment. But you can be sure that we think that, you know, the work of the chief economist's office, which I think has gained a lot of credibility worldwide, supports high integrity policymaking processes. Thank you very much, Dwight Booth, for having this opportunity to discuss with director general. I'm Filaya representative. Filaya is the organization that represents performers in Latin America, in Spain and Portugal, and performers are worried about the situation as regards the digital environment. Some of my colleagues have already pointed out in CISAC and other organizations, and the question is that the situation is quite worrying. They are losing the possibility of the rights in the digital environment due to the legislation that we have now at present, how the treaties have been implemented, treaties that were formed a long time ago, to considering how fast the internet grows and spreads. And also, it's a question that's now being considered in the European Union with this value gap, this value gap for authors, for performers, for the right holders. It's something on the discussion. We appreciate so much the GRULOC proposal in this sense because it was an open opportunity to have this discussion and that is still in the agenda by now. But perhaps this would take a very long time. Now we have to undertake several technical studies to progress on, and I know that stakeholders have very different views in this question. So how can we improve the situation? How could WIPO support to a better extent, a bigger stance, this kind of initiative? I don't know exactly why. Last year some conferences were undertaken by WIPO precisely for this question. I think it was a very good initiative. But time goes on and the situation is still very worrying for right holders in this sense. So perhaps some suggestions could be from WIPO and WIPO will also be interesting in that sense. Thank you. Well, thank you very much. We are all, I think, vitally interested in this question, which is essentially how does the new digital environment affect the value chains in creation? And there's a lot of folklore about this. There are a lot of heated emotions about it, of course. Many performance, let's say, feel that the environment does not favour them, that they are not getting the returns that they were getting in the analogue world. I think the first thing that we need is more information, more data here, to really understand this question. Because do you take music as an example? And if you take Spotify, look, I don't think any of these music platforms make much money. They're worth a lot, billions. But they're not making much money. Now, Spotify will tell you that they pay out 70% of their receipts in royalties. So where's that going? So I think we do need to have better data here and understand how the value chain is operating in this new age with this high concentration of value in the distribution function, a little less concentration of value in the creation function, the creators and the performers. So we are going to look at this as we can. We're trying to build capacity, as you may know, most of the work done in our chief economist's office has been in the technology area up until now, technology or branding. We would like to build the capacity to do this equally in the creative industries. And we will require partners for that because there are not necessarily perfect data sets out there. So we need to start to get the data and be able to understand the operation of these value chains in the digital environment much better. But I appreciate your concern, and of course it's a concern that's been voiced by many artists who have left platforms ostentatiously or who don't use platforms. So I think let's try to understand it as the first step. Good afternoon, I'm Stephen Wyb from the International Federation of Library Associations Institutions. So thank you again for the invitation to all of us to participate in dialogue with you. I had three short points. I wanted first to echo what Tira was saying on Marrakesh. I think that's a major achievement. We've got it through. The EU is moving things along. I think that your point about how a complete set of exceptions has to work with cooperation. You need a mixture of decent exceptions, good law and good cooperation to make things work. This is something we'd utterly support. I would of course encourage WIPO to continue in working with its member states and working with signatures in order to make sure that the original values of the treaty, the original objectives were really put into place. I can bore you with the talks of registries in Europe if you so care. Secondly, I wanted to congratulate you on implementing the open access policy. Bring WIPO in line with the CC International Licence. This is really... It's an important signal of how access to information can boost the impact of research benefiting both the producer and the user. We hope this is a model that you will be able to promote more broadly amongst the intergovernmental organization community, more broadly, as a means of achieving innovation and the rest of the SDGs. Finally, because our beef is in SCCR, in general, I have to talk about exceptions and limitations. I'd like to ask... Clearly, Live has wasn't on your list of things to achieve this year. In our wildest dreams, we'd love to think it was. Anyway, what do you think that WIPO can do to help developing countries move towards the sorts of flexible copyright systems that already work well in the U.S. and have just been recommended very heavily by the Australian Productivity Commission? What can we do to actually help countries bring these into place when arguably actually in contradiction to what you're saying, the most successful economies tend to be the ones with the flexible exceptions? Thank you. Well, look, I think on your first two comments and understood and thank you also, on the last one, you know, as you point out, there are healthy exceptions in laws of most industrialized countries. So what's the difficulty internationally? And I think that's an interesting question. And I think part of the difficulty is the disruptive nature of the digital environment and a desire on the part of those who are active in the creative industries to see some stability before they can measure the impact of taking some of these exceptions to the international level. So I'm thinking against it. I'm just trying to explain why we're confronting the situation. So you're coming from the Library Associations. Are libraries in the future going to compete with each other directly in the world? It's a question. I don't know whether you've got the answer, but it's a question. So can the British Library lend to someone in Australia directly, digitally? And it's very easy, you know, simple. But is the audience of the British Library in the future the world, or whatever it might be? It's a question. I'm just pointing to the instabilities that are created by this new digital environment that we confront, which causes anxiety on the part of some. If that is the case, what will be its impact on local libraries? Will local libraries continue to exist? Will the neighbourhood library continue to exist? Will the library in developing countries continue to exist, which can never compete with the resources of Harvard or whatever the library might be? So I think, you know, we all tend to get frustrated with the lack of progress in the normative area, but we have to recognise at the same time that this digital environment is immensely disruptive, and we have to look at the things in a holistic manner. And I'm not speaking against libraries here at all. On the contrary, you know, I think they're wonderful institutions and I spend half my life in them, unfortunately. So, you know, they're great. But this is an enormously disruptive environment with what's happened with digital technology, the internet, the global marketplace, you know, new players coming in all the time, new distributors competing, is Google a library by the way? You know, it's organising all the world's knowledge. So, you know, what is a library now? These are very profound questions and I think that's what causes some, you know, anxiety on the part of some of the players when they confront moving something that's functioning on a national level and they have relative control, relative control to an international level. And we, I think, have to have some understanding of that. Yeah. Which is, you know, not either for or against anything you've said. Thank you. I'm Barbara Callender from Adalpi, which is in French, and she is a sociocentrational pour le développement de l'approvision intellectuelle. I'm picking up what the gentleman from Boric is talking about lack of experts, you know, the tiny numbers in relation to the huge number of countries and large numbers, and what you also said, Mr. Gurry, about, you know, partnerships. One of our activities as Adalpi is exploring the creation of a platform which will exchange an alhant practical expertise across borders. So, the aim is to equip people, those working in the IP field with the necessary tools by circulating information and exchanging experience between peers across borders. I don't want to go into any more detail, but we are a network of experts. We have accumulated a lot of IP knowledge and expertise, which we are delighted to share specifically on LDCs and MDCs.