Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 251287 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
AEMR ASEC AMGT AE AS AMED AVIAN AU AF AORC AGENDA AO AR AM APER AFIN ATRN AJ ABUD ARABL AL AG AODE ALOW ADANA AADP AND APECO ACABQ ASEAN AA AFFAIRS AID AGR AY AGS AFSI AGOA AMB ARF ANET ASCH ACOA AFLU AFSN AMEX AFDB ABLD AESC AFGHANISTAN AINF AVIATION ARR ARSO ANDREW ASSEMBLY AIDS APRC ASSK ADCO ASIG AC AZ APEC AFINM ADB AP ACOTA ASEX ACKM ASUP ANTITERRORISM ADPM AINR ARABLEAGUE AGAO AORG AMTC AIN ACCOUNT ASECAFINGMGRIZOREPTU AIDAC AINT ARCH AMGTKSUP ALAMI AMCHAMS ALJAZEERA AVIANFLU AORD AOREC ALIREZA AOMS AMGMT ABDALLAH AORCAE AHMED ACCELERATED AUC ALZUGUREN ANGEL AORL ASECIR AMG AMBASSADOR AEMRASECCASCKFLOMARRPRELPINRAMGTJMXL ADM ASES ABMC AER AMER ASE AMGTHA ARNOLDFREDERICK AOPC ACS AFL AEGR ASED AFPREL AGRI AMCHAM ARNOLD AN ANATO AME APERTH ASECSI AT ACDA ASEDC AIT AMERICA AMLB AMGE ACTION AGMT AFINIZ ASECVE ADRC ABER AGIT APCS AEMED ARABBL ARC ASO AIAG ACEC ASR ASECM ARG AEC ABT ADIP ADCP ANARCHISTS AORCUN AOWC ASJA AALC AX AROC ARM AGENCIES ALBE AK AZE AOPR AREP AMIA ASCE ALANAZI ABDULRAHMEN ABDULHADI AINFCY ARMS ASECEFINKCRMKPAOPTERKHLSAEMRNS AGRICULTURE AFPK AOCR ALEXANDER ATRD ATFN ABLG AORCD AFGHAN ARAS AORCYM AVERY ALVAREZ ACBAQ ALOWAR ANTOINE ABLDG ALAB AMERICAS AFAF ASECAFIN ASEK ASCC AMCT AMGTATK AMT APDC AEMRS ASECE AFSA ATRA ARTICLE ARENA AISG AEMRBC AFR AEIR ASECAF AFARI AMPR ASPA ASOC ANTONIO AORCL ASECARP APRM AUSTRALIAGROUP ASEG AFOR AEAID AMEDI ASECTH ASIC AFDIN AGUIRRE AUNR ASFC AOIC ANTXON ASA ASECCASC ALI AORCEUNPREFPRELSMIGBN ASECKHLS ASSSEMBLY ASECVZ AI ASECPGOV ASIR ASCEC ASAC ARAB AIEA ADMIRAL AUSGR AQ AMTG ARRMZY ANC APR AMAT AIHRC AFU ADEL AECL ACAO AMEMR ADEP AV AW AOR ALL ALOUNI AORCUNGA ALNEA ASC AORCO ARMITAGE AGENGA AGRIC AEM ACOAAMGT AGUILAR AFPHUM AMEDCASCKFLO AFZAL AAA ATPDEA ASECPHUM ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
ETRD ETTC EU ECON EFIN EAGR EAID ELAB EINV ENIV ENRG EPET EZ ELTN ELECTIONS ECPS ET ER EG EUN EIND ECONOMICS EMIN ECIN EINT EWWT EAIR EN ENGR ES EI ETMIN EL EPA EARG EFIS ECONOMY EC EK ELAM ECONOMIC EAR ESDP ECCP ELN EUM EUMEM ECA EAP ELEC ECOWAS EFTA EXIM ETTD EDRC ECOSOC ECPSN ENVIRONMENT ECO EMAIL ECTRD EREL EDU ENERG ENERGY ENVR ETRAD EAC EXTERNAL EFIC ECIP ERTD EUC ENRGMO EINZ ESTH ECCT EAGER ECPN ELNT ERD EGEN ETRN EIVN ETDR EXEC EIAD EIAR EVN EPRT ETTF ENGY EAIDCIN EXPORT ETRC ESA EIB EAPC EPIT ESOCI ETRB EINDQTRD ENRC EGOV ECLAC EUR ELF ETEL ENRGUA EVIN EARI ESCAP EID ERIN ELAN ENVT EDEV EWWY EXBS ECOM EV ELNTECON ECE ETRDGK EPETEIND ESCI ETRDAORC EAIDETRD ETTR EMS EAGRECONEINVPGOVBN EBRD EUREM ERGR EAGRBN EAUD EFI ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS EPEC ETRO ENRGY EGAR ESSO EGAD ENV ENER EAIDXMXAXBXFFR ELA EET EINVETRD EETC EIDN ERGY ETRDPGOV EING EMINCG EINVECON EURM EEC EICN EINO EPSC ELAP ELABPGOVBN EE ESPS ETRA ECONETRDBESPAR ERICKSON EEOC EVENTS EPIN EB ECUN EPWR ENG EX EH EAIDAR EAIS ELBA EPETUN ETRDEIQ EENV ECPC ETRP ECONENRG EUEAID EWT EEB EAIDNI ESENV EADM ECN ENRGKNNP ETAD ETR ECONETRDEAGRJA ETRG ETER EDUC EITC EBUD EAIF EBEXP EAIDS EITI EGOVSY EFQ ECOQKPKO ETRGY ESF EUE EAIC EPGOV ENFR EAGRE ENRD EINTECPS EAVI ETC ETCC EIAID EAIDAF EAGREAIDPGOVPRELBN EAOD ETRDA EURN EASS EINVA EAIDRW EON ECOR EPREL EGPHUM ELTM ECOS EINN ENNP EUPGOV EAGRTR ECONCS ETIO ETRDGR EAIDB EISNAR EIFN ESPINOSA EAIDASEC ELIN EWTR EMED ETFN ETT EADI EPTER ELDIN EINVEFIN ESS ENRGIZ EQRD ESOC ETRDECD ECINECONCS EAIT ECONEAIR ECONEFIN EUNJ ENRGKNNPMNUCPARMPRELNPTIAEAJMXL ELAD EFIM ETIC EFND EFN ETLN ENGRD EWRG ETA EIN EAIRECONRP EXIMOPIC ERA ENRGJM ECONEGE ENVI ECHEVARRIA EMINETRD EAD ECONIZ EENG ELBR EWWC ELTD EAIDMG ETRK EIPR EISNLN ETEX EPTED EFINECONCS EPCS EAG ETRDKIPR ED EAIO ETRDEC ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ ERNG EFINU EURFOR EWWI ELTNSNAR ETD EAIRASECCASCID EOXC ESTN EAIDAORC EAGRRP ETRDEMIN ELABPHUMSMIGKCRMBN ETRDEINVTINTCS EGHG EAIDPHUMPRELUG EAGRBTIOBEXPETRDBN EDA EPETPGOV ELAINE EUCOM EMW EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM ELB EINDETRD EMI ETRDECONWTOCS EINR ESTRADA EHUM EFNI ELABV ENR EMN EXO EWWTPRELPGOVMASSMARRBN EATO END EP EINVETC ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID ELTRN EIQ ETTW EAI ENGRG ETRED ENDURING ETTRD EAIDEGZ EOCN EINF EUPREL ENRL ECPO ENLT EEFIN EPPD ECOIN EUEAGR EISL EIDE ENRGSD EINVECONSENVCSJA EAIG ENTG EEPET EUNCH EPECO ETZ EPAT EPTE EAIRGM ETRDPREL EUNGRSISAFPKSYLESO ETTN EINVKSCA ESLCO EBMGT ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ EFLU ELND EFINOECD EAIDHO EDUARDO ENEG ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC EFINTS ECONQH ENRGPREL EUNPHUM EINDIR EPE EMINECINECONSENVTBIONS EFINM ECRM EQ EWWTSP ECONPGOVBN
KFLO KPKO KDEM KFLU KTEX KMDR KPAO KCRM KIDE KN KNNP KG KMCA KZ KJUS KWBG KU KDMR KAWC KCOR KPAL KOMC KTDB KTIA KISL KHIV KHUM KTER KCFE KTFN KS KIRF KTIP KIRC KSCA KICA KIPR KPWR KWMN KE KGIC KGIT KSTC KACT KSEP KFRD KUNR KHLS KCRS KRVC KUWAIT KVPR KSRE KMPI KMRS KNRV KNEI KCIP KSEO KITA KDRG KV KSUM KCUL KPET KBCT KO KSEC KOLY KNAR KGHG KSAF KWNM KNUC KMNP KVIR KPOL KOCI KPIR KLIG KSAC KSTH KNPT KINL KPRP KRIM KICC KIFR KPRV KAWK KFIN KT KVRC KR KHDP KGOV KPOW KTBT KPMI KPOA KRIF KEDEM KFSC KY KGCC KATRINA KWAC KSPR KTBD KBIO KSCI KRCM KNNB KBNC KIMT KCSY KINR KRAD KMFO KCORR KW KDEMSOCI KNEP KFPC KEMPI KBTR KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KNPP KTTB KTFIN KBTS KCOM KFTN KMOC KOR KDP KPOP KGHA KSLG KMCR KJUST KUM KMSG KHPD KREC KIPRTRD KPREL KEN KCSA KCRIM KGLB KAKA KWWT KUNP KCRN KISLPINR KLFU KUNC KEDU KCMA KREF KPAS KRKO KNNC KLHS KWAK KOC KAPO KTDD KOGL KLAP KECF KCRCM KNDP KSEAO KCIS KISM KREL KISR KISC KKPO KWCR KPFO KUS KX KWCI KRFD KWPG KTRD KH KLSO KEVIN KEANE KACW KWRF KNAO KETTC KTAO KWIR KVCORR KDEMGT KPLS KICT KWGB KIDS KSCS KIRP KSTCPL KDEN KLAB KFLOA KIND KMIG KPPAO KPRO KLEG KGKG KCUM KTTP KWPA KIIP KPEO KICR KNNA KMGT KCROM KMCC KLPM KNNPGM KSIA KSI KWWW KOMS KESS KMCAJO KWN KTDM KDCM KCM KVPRKHLS KENV KCCP KGCN KCEM KEMR KWMNKDEM KNNPPARM KDRM KWIM KJRE KAID KWMM KPAONZ KUAE KTFR KIF KNAP KPSC KSOCI KCWI KAUST KPIN KCHG KLBO KIRCOEXC KI KIRCHOFF KSTT KNPR KDRL KCFC KLTN KPAOKMDRKE KPALAOIS KESO KKOR KSMT KFTFN KTFM KDEMK KPKP KOCM KNN KISLSCUL KFRDSOCIRO KINT KRG KWMNSMIG KSTCC KPAOY KFOR KWPR KSEPCVIS KGIV KSEI KIL KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW KQ KEMS KHSL KTNF KPDD KANSOU KKIV KFCE KTTC KGH KNNNP KK KSCT KWNN KAWX KOMCSG KEIM KTSD KFIU KDTB KFGM KACP KWWMN KWAWC KSPA KGICKS KNUP KNNO KISLAO KTPN KSTS KPRM KPALPREL KPO KTLA KCRP KNMP KAWCK KCERS KDUM KEDM KTIALG KWUN KPTS KPEM KMEPI KAWL KHMN KCRO KCMR KPTD KCROR KMPT KTRF KSKN KMAC KUK KIRL KEM KSOC KBTC KOM KINP KDEMAF KTNBT KISK KRM KWBW KBWG KNNPMNUC KNOP KSUP KCOG KNET KWBC KESP KMRD KEBG KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KPWG KOMCCO KRGY KNNF KPROG KJAN KFRED KPOKO KM KWMNCS KMPF KJWC KJU KSMIG KALR KRAL KDGOV KPA KCRMJA KCRI KAYLA KPGOV KRD KNNPCH KFEM KPRD KFAM KALM KIPRETRDKCRM KMPP KADM KRFR KMWN KWRG KTIAPARM KTIAEUN KRDP KLIP KDDEM KTIAIC KWKN KPAD KDM KRCS KWBGSY KEAI KIVP KPAOPREL KUNH KTSC KIPT KNP KJUSTH KGOR KEPREL KHSA KGHGHIV KNNR KOMH KRCIM KWPB KWIC KINF KPER KILS KA KNRG KCSI KFRP KLFLO KFE KNPPIS KQM KQRDQ KERG KPAOPHUM KSUMPHUM KVBL KARIM KOSOVO KNSD KUIR KWHG KWBGXF KWMNU KPBT KKNP KERF KCRT KVIS KWRC KVIP KTFS KMARR KDGR KPAI KDE KTCRE KMPIO KUNRAORC KHOURY KAWS KPAK KOEM KCGC KID KVRP KCPS KIVR KBDS KWOMN KIIC KTFNJA KARZAI KMVP KHJUS KPKOUNSC KMAR KIBL KUNA KSA KIS KJUSAF KDEV KPMO KHIB KIRD KOUYATE KIPRZ KBEM KPAM KDET KPPD KOSCE KJUSKUNR KICCPUR KRMS KWMNPREL KWMJN KREISLER KWM KDHS KRV KPOV KWMNCI KMPL KFLD KWWN KCVM KIMMITT KCASC KOMO KNATO KDDG KHGH KRF KSCAECON KWMEN KRIC
PREL PINR PGOV PHUM PTER PE PREF PARM PBTS PINS PHSA PK PL PM PNAT PHAS PO PROP PGOVE PA PU POLITICAL PPTER POL PALESTINIAN PHUN PIN PAMQ PPA PSEC POLM PBIO PSOE PDEM PAK PF PKAO PGOVPRELMARRMOPS PMIL PV POLITICS PRELS POLICY PRELHA PIRN PINT PGOG PERSONS PRC PEACE PROCESS PRELPGOV PROV PFOV PKK PRE PT PIRF PSI PRL PRELAF PROG PARMP PERL PUNE PREFA PP PGOB PUM PROTECTION PARTIES PRIL PEL PAGE PS PGO PCUL PLUM PIF PGOVENRGCVISMASSEAIDOPRCEWWTBN PMUC PCOR PAS PB PKO PY PKST PTR PRM POUS PRELIZ PGIC PHUMS PAL PNUC PLO PMOPS PHM PGOVBL PBK PELOSI PTE PGOVAU PNR PINSO PRO PLAB PREM PNIR PSOCI PBS PD PHUML PERURENA PKPA PVOV PMAR PHUMCF PUHM PHUH PRELPGOVETTCIRAE PRT PROPERTY PEPFAR PREI POLUN PAR PINSF PREFL PH PREC PPD PING PQL PINSCE PGV PREO PRELUN POV PGOVPHUM PINRES PRES PGOC PINO POTUS PTERE PRELKPAO PRGOV PETR PGOVEAGRKMCAKNARBN PPKO PARLIAMENT PEPR PMIG PTBS PACE PETER PMDL PVIP PKPO POLMIL PTEL PJUS PHUMNI PRELKPAOIZ PGOVPREL POGV PEREZ POWELL PMASS PDOV PARN PG PPOL PGIV PAIGH PBOV PETROL PGPV PGOVL POSTS PSO PRELEU PRELECON PHUMPINS PGOVKCMABN PQM PRELSP PRGO PATTY PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO PGVO PROTESTS PRELPLS PKFK PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ PARAGRAPH PRELGOV POG PTRD PTERM PBTSAG PHUMKPAL PRELPK PTERPGOV PAO PRIVATIZATION PSCE PPAO PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN PARALYMPIC PRUM PKPRP PETERS PAHO PARMS PGREL PINV POINS PHUMPREL POREL PRELNL PHUMPGOV PGOVQL PLAN PRELL PARP PROVE PSOC PDD PRELNP PRELBR PKMN PGKV PUAS PRELTBIOBA PBTSEWWT PTERIS PGOVU PRELGG PHUMPRELPGOV PFOR PEPGOV PRELUNSC PRAM PICES PTERIZ PREK PRELEAGR PRELEUN PHUME PHU PHUMKCRS PRESL PRTER PGOF PARK PGOVSOCI PTERPREL PGOVEAID PGOVPHUMKPAO PINSKISL PREZ PGOVAF PARMEUN PECON PINL POGOV PGOVLO PIERRE PRELPHUM PGOVPZ PGOVKCRM PBST PKPAO PHUMHUPPS PGOVPOL PASS PPGOV PROGV PAGR PHALANAGE PARTY PRELID PGOVID PHUMR PHSAQ PINRAMGT PSA PRELM PRELMU PIA PINRPE PBTSRU PARMIR PEDRO PNUK PVPR PINOCHET PAARM PRFE PRELEIN PINF PCI PSEPC PGOVSU PRLE PDIP PHEM PRELB PORG PGGOC POLG POPDC PGOVPM PWMN PDRG PHUMK PINB PRELAL PRER PFIN PNRG PRED POLI PHUMBO PHYTRP PROLIFERATION PHARM PUOS PRHUM PUNR PENA PGOVREL PETRAEUS PGOVKDEM PGOVENRG PHUS PRESIDENT PTERKU PRELKSUMXABN PGOVSI PHUMQHA PKISL PIR PGOVZI PHUMIZNL PKNP PRELEVU PMIN PHIM PHUMBA PUBLIC PHAM PRELKPKO PMR PARTM PPREL PN PROL PDA PGOVECON PKBL PKEAID PERM PRELEZ PRELC PER PHJM PGOVPRELPINRBN PRFL PLN PWBG PNG PHUMA PGOR PHUMPTER POLINT PPEF PKPAL PNNL PMARR PAC PTIA PKDEM PAUL PREG PTERR PTERPRELPARMPGOVPBTSETTCEAIRELTNTC PRELJA POLS PI PNS PAREL PENV PTEROREP PGOVM PINER PBGT PHSAUNSC PTERDJ PRELEAID PARMIN PKIR PLEC PCRM PNET PARR PRELETRD PRELBN PINRTH PREJ PEACEKEEPINGFORCES PEMEX PRELZ PFLP PBPTS PTGOV PREVAL PRELSW PAUM PRF PHUMKDEM PATRICK PGOVKMCAPHUMBN PRELA PNUM PGGV PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA PBT PIND PTEP PTERKS PGOVJM PGOT PRELMARR PGOVCU PREV PREFF PRWL PET PROB PRELPHUMP PHUMAF PVTS PRELAFDB PSNR PGOVECONPRELBU PGOVZL PREP PHUMPRELBN PHSAPREL PARCA PGREV PGOVDO PGON PCON PODC PRELOV PHSAK PSHA PGOVGM PRELP POSCE PGOVPTER PHUMRU PINRHU PARMR PGOVTI PPEL PMAT PAN PANAM PGOVBO PRELHRC

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 09GENEVA597, WIPO on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #09GENEVA597.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
09GENEVA597 2009-07-20 09:33 2011-08-30 01:44 UNCLASSIFIED Mission Geneva
VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0597/01 2010933
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 200933Z JUL 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8873
INFO RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC
UNCLAS GENEVA 000597 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SECSTATE FOR EB 
COMMERCE FOR USPTO 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON KIPR WIPO
SUBJECT:  WIPO on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and 
Folklore 
 
1.  SUMMARY:  Member States at the 14th session of the WIPO 
Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) on Intellectual Property and 
Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (GRTKF), which 
was held in Geneva from June 29 to July 3, 2009, failed to reach an 
agreement on a recommendation to the 2009 WIPO General Assembly (GA) 
to renew the mandate of the IGC.  The week-long, contentious 
deliberations were based on a proposal submitted by the African 
Group, which called for "text-based negotiations" in the period 
2009/11, leading to the submission of a text of an "internationally 
legally binding instrument(s)" for the protection of GRTKF to the 
2011 GA.  The African Group proposal also set forth demands for 
convening six "intersessional working groups" in the next two-year 
period, which according to the WIPO Secretariat would nearly triple 
the proposed 2010/11 budget for the IGC.  The United States, along 
with the European Union and the Group B nations, supported the 
renewal of the IGC mandate and offered a number of amendments to the 
African Group proposal.  However, the negotiations collapsed late in 
the week when it became clear that the key elements of the African 
Group proposal were non-negotiable.  The failure of IGC 14 follows a 
procedural impasse at IGC 13.  As a result, the IGC has made no 
progress on its substantive agenda in 2009.  Although some 
delegations (including the United States) expressed a willingness to 
continue the negotiations in informal consultations in the period 
leading up to the 2009 GA, in all likelihood the question of the 
renewal of the IGC's mandate will be left to the September 2009 WIPO 
General Assembly.  End Summary. 
 
The Gathering Storm:  The African Group Proposal 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
2.  Under the chairmanship of Ambassador Rigoberto Gauto Vielman 
(Paraguay), the Committee agreed to change the order of the agenda 
for the session, moving up "Future Work" (agenda item 7) for early 
discussion, thus setting the stage for the week-long deliberations 
on the future of the IGC.  The Committee also early agreed to use 
the proposal of the African Group on renewing the mandate of the IGC 
as the basis for the IGC's deliberations.  Many countries in the 
Asian Group and GRULAC supported the proposal from the outset and 
were characterized as "partners."  The African Group proposal 
(styled as "The Elements for the New Mandate") was tabled shortly 
before the meeting and consists of three core elements.  First, the 
proposal calls for "text-based negotiations" on GRTKF during the 
next biennium. Second, the proposal calls for the submission of a 
text of an "internationally legally binding instrument/instruments" 
on GRTKF to the 2011 GA, with a request for convening a Diplomatic 
Conference in 2012.  Third, the proposal calls for convening six 
"intersessional working groups" in the period 2010-2011, with a 
detailed work program and timetable set forth in an annex to the 
proposal.  Taking into account the high sensitivity assigned by the 
African Group to ownership of its proposal, and in deference to the 
decision of the Chair, Group B and the EU initially refrained from 
introducing competing proposals as potentially counterproductive. 
Nor did any other delegation table an alternative proposal. 
 
3.  The African Group (supported by India and Brazil) expressed its 
strong preference to "negotiate" the text of its proposal in the 
plenary session, rather than in small working groups (the customary 
WIPO practice). Again bowing to the demands of the African Group, 
the Chair decided on a process of compiling amendments to the 
African Group text in the plenary session.  (Proposed amendments 
were projected onto a screen in the main WIPO hall.)  The Chair's 
process for recording edits to the African Group proposal departed 
from well-established UN procedures.  For example, instead of 
showing brackets or strikeouts to text that other delegations 
proposed to delete, the Chair decided to footnote the text, with a 
comment that a delegation proposed to delete the text.  In addition, 
while some changes were shown by one or two word inserts, in many 
cases the Chair insisted on the submission of alternative paragraphs 
to show suggested revisions to the African Group's text.  In the 
end, this unusual process resulted in a "text" that left the 
original African Group proposal completely intact while showing 
various (often overlapping) objections and alternatives. 
 
Distant Thunder:  Text-Based Negotiations 
----------------------------------------- 
4.  The United States coordinated with the delegations of Japan, 
Canada, New Zealand, and Australia (the JUSCANZ group) in an effort 
to reach consensus on alternative language for key elements of the 
African Group proposal, which had mixed results.  The United States, 
for example, proposed the deletion of the phrase "text-based 
negotiations," which would be replaced by "outcome-oriented 
deliberations, without prejudice to any outcome and on the basis of 
the Committee's prior work."  As the U.S. delegation later 
explained, the substitute language was broad enough to allow the 
Committee to reach consensus on an international statement on the 
protection of GRTKF based on the Committee's prior work on "policy 
principles and objectives."  The EU supported the U.S. proposal, 
while the Mexican delegation simply sought deletion of "text-based 
negotiations."  Senegal and South Africa opposed the U.S. language, 
which they complained was unfamiliar in the UN context, and Brazil 
 
criticized the U.S. amendment as "too non-committal." 
 
5.  The real enemy of consensus, however, may have been the apparent 
calculated vagueness of the phrase "text-based negotiations."  In 
particular, a number of delegations privately expressed concern that 
the phrase "text-based" negotiations referred to the annexes to WIPO 
documents WIPO/TKGRF/IC/9/4 and 9/5, which contain certain 
"substantive provisions" organized into treaty-like format.  Over 
the last seven sessions of the IGC, the United States and other 
developed countries have taken a firm position opposing the further 
development of these texts.  In an effort to clarify this vague 
phrase, the delegation of New Zealand tabled its own proposal 
calling for the deletion of the phrase "text-based negotiations" and 
replacing it with "the development of text, without prejudice to any 
outcomes."  New Zealand stated that it was not authorized to 
negotiate based upon specific IGC documents.  Nonetheless, Senegal, 
on behalf of the African Group, while refusing to clarify the 
precise meaning of the phrase "text-based negotiations," rejected 
the New Zealand proposal.  New Zealand later backed away from its 
proposed amendment, apparently persuaded that "text-based 
negotiations" referred to negotiations on the basis of all existing 
IGC texts. 
 
6.  In the view of a number of delegations, however, not all the 
IGC's work was sufficiently mature to warrant text-based 
negotiations, or even to justify the equal attention of the 
Committee.  In particular, a number of members of the African Group 
and their partners (with Brazil leading the charge) expressed the 
view that the Committee's work on GR, which they characterized as 
not as far along as its consideration of TK and folklore, could 
proceed at a slower pace or be handled in a different way.  Driving 
the point home, the delegation of Brazil (supported by India and 
Mexico) proposed qualifying the phrase "text-based negotiations" 
with the phrase "taking into account the different levels of 
development of the texts."  Noting the lack of symmetry in the IGC's 
substantive work to date, but flipping Brazil's point, the United 
States and the EU tabled language instructing the Committee to 
continue its work in all three substantive areas on an "equal" 
(later revised to "impartial" (EU) or "non-discriminatory" (US)) 
basis. 
 
The Lightning Bolt:  Internationally Legally Binding Instrument 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
7.  The centerpiece of the African Group proposal was a demand to 
submit to the 2011 WIPO GA a text for an "internationally legally 
binding instrument/instruments" on GRTKF, along with a 
recommendation of a date for the Diplomatic Conference.  The demand 
to start negotiating a legally binding instrument drew high praise 
from the delegations of Brazil, Egypt, India, South Africa, 
Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, and many Caribbean nations.  However, the 
United States, the EU (with France playing a leadership role), and 
other Group B members (including those who were willing to accept 
most other African Group proposals) were not persuaded that the case 
had been made for the negotiation of a legally binding instrument. 
As an alternative, the United States proposed that the IGC submit to 
the 2011 GA "recommendations on the content for an outcome or 
outcomes, including the nature, format and status and how the 
Committee should finalize its recommendations" on GRTKF, while the 
EU suggested that the IGC's work program "should lead to an 
internationally legally binding or non-legally binding instrument/s 
on GRTKF."  Neither the U.S. nor EU proposals were acceptable to the 
African Group. 
 
Leaving the Ground Behind:  The Ballooning IGC Budget 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
8.  Closely related to the African Group's demand for text-based 
negotiations leading to an internationally legally binding 
instrument was the request for "a defined work program and 
timeframe," including convening six "intersessional working groups" 
in the period 2010-2011.  Group B countries and the EU, along with 
the United States, Mexico, and Switzerland, expressed their serious 
concerns regarding the financial and administrative implications of 
this aspect of the African Group proposal, especially during a 
period of constrained organizational resources.  A number of 
delegations and NGOs also expressed concerns about the exclusive 
nature of intersessional work.  The United States, Mexico and 
Switzerland requested additional budget information from the 
Secretariat to evaluate the proposal.  Based on the information 
provided, the estimated IGC budget in the next two-year period would 
balloon to 2 million Swiss Francs, nearly tripling the proposed 
2010/11 budget for the IGC and far in excess of the budgets of other 
WIPO committees.  In part to conserve resources, but also to align 
the IGC work program with other WIPO committees, the United States 
proposed the deletion of the phrase "intersessional work" (to be 
replaced by the phrase "extraordinary sessions of the IGC in a 
format to be agreed"). The EU also opposed intersessional work for 
budgetary and policy reasons, but (as an apparent compromise) 
proposed two additional meetings of the IGC during the next 
biennium.  The EU proposal did not attract support from other 
 
delegations. 
 
The Rainstorm:  Getting Soaked on Process 
----------------------------------------- 
9.  In a surprising mid-week ruling, rather than continuing the 
negotiations in the plenary session, Chairman Gauto invited the 
African Group to revise its own proposal, taking into account the 
amendments and comments of other groups and delegations.  Quickly 
reversing their position on the value of the openness and 
transparency of deliberations in plenary sessions, the African Group 
accepted the Chair's invitation.  The African Group promised to set 
aside the next morning for consultations with its "partners" but 
remained non-committal on whether they would deliver a "new 
proposal" to the plenary session.  Looking for the silver lining in 
this dark cloud, the U.S. delegation renewed its earlier request for 
a meeting with the African Group, which was delayed until shortly 
before the plenary session on Thursday afternoon.  At the request of 
the African Group, Australia, New Zealand and Canada joined the 
meeting.  In casual disregard of the week-long effort to coordinate 
positions within the JUSCANZ group, and to the disappointment of the 
United States, the delegations of Australia, New Zealand and Canada 
used the meeting to advance their narrower national positions. 
 
10.  When the plenary session reconvened on Thursday afternoon, it 
became clear that the African Group consulted primarily with 
like-minded delegations (Brazil, Egypt, India, South Africa, 
Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, many Caribbean nations) and had not 
attempted to work out compromise text with other delegations.  With 
strong support from Pakistan, India, Brazil and the Philippines, the 
African Group insisted on retaining the key elements of its original 
proposal, characterizing the amendments offered by other delegations 
as violations of the spirit of and unhelpful efforts to dilute the 
original African Group proposal, or entirely new proposals.  More 
broadly, Brazil and India argued that it was unfair to protect 
holders of patents, copyrights and trademarks but to deny similar 
protection to indigenous and traditional holders of GRTKF.  On 
behalf of Group B, the delegation of Germany repeatedly called on 
the African Group to provide IGC members with information on the 
consultation process and to explain how it discharged the Chair's 
mandate to accommodate the plenary amendments to the African Group 
proposal.  The questions drew evasive and hostile responses from the 
delegate from Senegal and other African Group representatives. 
 
11.  On the last day of the plenary session, the EU tabled its own 
two-track proposal, calling for the renewal of the IGC mandate 
coupled with a recommendation for a GA resolution on the protection 
of GRTKF.  The African Group rejected the concept of a two-track 
process as unworkable.  Drawing on well-established national 
positions expressed throughout the meeting, both Australia (with the 
support of New Zealand) and Canada made proposals during the 
final-day plenary sessions.  Although the African Group was 
dissatisfied with the new proposals, some members of the group 
thanked Australia and New Zealand for their efforts to find 
compromise language.  According to some African Group members, the 
new proposals were not only unwelcome but also procedurally 
defective and thus inappropriate to be forwarded to the GA for 
further consideration.  In particular, the delegate from Egypt 
argued that the last-day proposals were defective under the IGC's 
rules of procedure because they were not submitted in writing and 
translated in advance of the session.  It followed, according to 
Egypt, that only the African Group proposal (which also failed to 
comply with certain IGC notice requirements) remained standing at 
the end of the week.  The Legal Advisor, however, respectfully 
disagreed, advising the Committee that the African Group proposal, 
the amendments thereto, and the free-standing proposals tabled at 
the 14th session were all properly before the IGC.  The Legal 
Advisor also stated that the mandate of the IGC continued through 
the end of 2009, correcting the misunderstanding of the delegate 
from Egypt that the mandate expired in September 2009. 
 
Searching for the Rainbow 
------------------------- 
12.  Despite persistent rumors that the African Group would call for 
a vote on its proposal for renewal of the IGC mandate, no delegation 
called for such a vote.  Absent adoption of any proposal for the 
renewal of the IGC mandate (either by consensus or vote), it was 
agreed that the report of the committee on future work would simply 
state that IGC members "did not reach agreement on this agenda 
item."  A consensus also seemed to emerge that all proposals on 
future work-the African Group proposal, the amendments thereto, and 
the other proposals-would be discussed and/or appended to a factual 
committee report of the 14th session, which would be available for 
further discussion and action at the September 2009 WIPO GA. 
However, the precise mechanism to reach consensus on the future of 
the IGC at the GA, which typically responds to recommendations from 
WIPO committees, remained unclear at the end of the 14th session.  A 
number of delegations, including the United States, expressed a 
willingness to continue the negotiations in informal consultations 
in the period leading up to the 2009 GA, but the way forward 
 
remained uncertain.  Almost all delegations expressed regret at the 
failure of the IGC to reach agreement on a recommendation to the GA 
on the future of the Committee.  What Brazil trumpeted as a 
"breakthrough" session of the IGC earlier in the week, turned into 
the IGC's "breakdown" session by week's end.  Like an intense, 
summer rainstorm in Geneva, the 14th session of the IGC left the 
participants soaked, somewhat chilled by the experience, and still 
searching for a rainbow at the end of the storm. 
 
13.  The United States delegation consisted of Michael Shapiro 
(USPTO), Debbie Lashley-Johnson (State), Karin Ferriter (USPTO), 
Sezaneh Seymour (State), Peggy Bulger (LOC), and Michele Woods 
(LOC). 
 
GRIFFITHS #