[ga] Re: [A2k] TWN INFO: WCO secretariat for disbanding SECURE Working Group

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sangeeta and all,

  I am glad to be reading this.  Thanks for sendin it along.  However
I am sure that the IP community in many respects are a bit disappointed
as I am sure ICANN's IPC will be very disappointed as well.

Sangeeta wrote:

> Below is a news report on latest developments taking place in the World
> Customs Organisation in relation to IP enforcement standard setting.
>
> Sangeeta Shashikant
> Third World Network.
> email: ssangeeta@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues
> 2 December 2008
> Third World Network
> www.twnside.org.sg <http://www.twnside.org.sg/>
>
> Trade: WCO secretariat for disbanding SECURE Working Group
> Published in SUNS #6602 dated 2 December 2008
>
> Geneva, 1 Dec (Sangeeta Shashikant) -- The Secretariat of the World Customs
> Organisation has proposed disbanding the WCO's SECURE Working Group (WG) and
> setting aside its efforts to develop the Provisional SECURE Standards.
>
> In its stead, the WCO secretariat, in a paper (SP0284E1a) dated 26 November
> 2008, prepared for the upcoming meeting of the Policy Commission, suggests
> the setting up of another body to develop best practice IPR guidelines for
> Customs administrations.
>
> This proposal is a change of tactic by the WCO Secretariat, to move away
> from setting standards on IP enforcement matters and instead to focus on
> developing tools for capacity building of Customs administrations on IP
> enforcement.
>
> The setting of standards in SECURE WG has become controversial and the
> subject of scrutiny by developing countries and NGOs since the WG, through
> the SECURE provisional standards, embarked on broadening the IP enforcement
> powers of the customs authorities - beyond those required by the TRIPS
> Agreement. There are also issues of transparency and accountability with
> regard to the WG that have been raised repeatedly by developing countries.
>
> The SECURE Working Group was established by the WCO in June 2007, and has
> met four times - in October 2007, February, April and October 2008.
>
> The Secretariat's paper titled "Combating of Counterfeiting and Piracy: WCO
> IPR activities, A Way Forward" is intended to guide the upcoming Policy
> Commission meeting in Argentina (9-11 December), on that agenda item.
>
> The Secretariat's paper invites the Policy commission to note that the
> progress by the SECURE Working Group has been limited and asks the Policy
> Commission to consider making recommendations to the Council that (1) set
> aside efforts to further develop the Provisional SECURE Standards, by
> considering the possible cancellation of the February and April 2009 SECURE
> Working Group Meetings and (2) invite the Council, at its June 2009
> Sessions, to instruct an appropriate body to develop best practice IPR
> guidelines for Customs administrations. That body could possibly be a
> Working Group under the Permanent Technical Committee (PTC) that reports to
> the Council through the PTC and the Policy Commission, the paper adds.
>
> The Council is the highest body in WCO and meets once a year. It is assisted
> by the Policy Commission (24 Members) and some of the current members
> include France, Japan, Nigeria, Norway, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi
> Arabia, Slovenia, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, China, Germany,
> Malaysia, Mexico, Spain and Thailand.
>
> According to a diplomatic source, the setting up of a separate Working Group
> on IP and terminating the SECURE Working Group was first proposed by the US
> at the 4th Session of the WG, which met in Brussels from 30-31 October. This
> proposal of the US appears to now have been picked up by the WCO
> Secretariat.
>
> Diplomatic sources also say that the Secretariat's proposal is "totally
> inconsistent" with what had been agreed at the 4th session of SECURE WG, i.
> e that the Secretariat would present a factual report to the Policy
> Commission, and that the WG would continue discussions when it meets again
> in February next year. The WG ended its meeting without any agreement on the
> way forward (See SUNS #6588 Wednesday 12 November 2008).
>
> During the WG, the US wanted to refer the matter of "Way Forward" to the
> Policy Commission meeting in December but there was concern among some
> developing countries that given the domination of the Commission by
> developed countries, any guidance that emerges from the Commission is likely
> to be biased against the interests of developing countries.
>
> Sources among developing country delegations involved in the WCO's SECURE WG
> work, speculated that the Secretariat is pushing for best practise IPR
> guidelines in the hope that it will not face resistance as has been seen
> recently in the SECURE WG and on the Provisional SECURE standards.
>
> The SECURE WG has become controversial and the subject of scrutiny by
> developing countries since it has embarked on broadening the IP enforcement
> powers of the customs authorities to beyond what is required by the TRIPS
> Agreement through the SECURE provisional standards. There are also issues of
> transparency and accountability that have been raised with regard to the WG
> by developing countries (see SUNS #6535 dated 11 August 2008).
>
> At the 4th session of the WG, proposals were made by several developing
> countries led by Brazil and Argentina's proposals to limit the purpose and
> scope of the WG to parameters of the TRIPS Agreement, to increase
> transparency in WCO's activities, ensure that the WG is member-driven and
> not secretariat-driven, and to ensure better participation of public
> interest NGOs in the WG (See SUNS #6588 Wednesday 12 November 2008, also
> available at http://www.twnside.org.sg/ipr.archives.htm)
>
> Over 50 NGOs also sent an open letter to Mr. Kunio Mikuriya, Secretary
> General-elect of the WCO, before the 4th session of the WG meeting, raising
> many similar concerns about the WG's activities (See SUNS #6588 Wednesday 12
> November 2008). Also available at http://www.twnside.org.sg/ipr.archives.htm
>
> However, the 4th session of the WG ended without any agreement on future
> work as well as on the Terms of Reference of the WG and discussions were
> expected to continue at the next meeting, in February 2009.
>
> In the paper (SP0284E1a), the Secretariat has argued in support of its
> proposal to the Policy Commission by stating that "The WCO and its Members
> have been actively engaged in IPR enforcement activities for over 25 years"
> and that the SECURE Working Group was established in 2007 in "an effort to
> rationalize the then existing WCO groups dealing with IPR issues".
>
> It said that after 4 sessions, the SECURE working group has been unable to
> reach consensus on the SECURE standards because of the "issue of the scope
> of the proposed standards", adding that there was also "no consensus" on the
> Terms of Reference of the WG.
>
> The secretariat paper further states that a "sizeable number of WCO Member
> countries" expressed concern that the SECURE WG "could be used as a vehicle
> to works towards a "TRIPS plus" regime, fearing the possible repercussions
> on their future bilateral and multilateral negotiations". At the same time,
> it added that "an equally large number of other WCO Member countries are
> pushing for the voluntary further development and enhancement of Customs
> prerogatives for IPR protection under national law". It also added that some
> WCO members "were questioning their future participation in the WG due to
> the lack of progress and private sector participation in the SECURE WG has
> been declining".
>
> The paper anticipates that under the "current circumstances, it seems
> unlikely that the SECURE Working Group will reach a consensus".
>
> It further states that "many WCO members are requesting IPR training and
> capacity building" and there are "increasing requests for assistance with
> national and regional IPR enforcement operations" and that "it is possible
> that a new IPR initiative that focuses on the development of technical
> Customs issues directly linked to an IPR capacity building programme might
> succeed".
>
> It also states that "The WCO should use its existing IPR enforcement tools
> and continue to upgrade them based on best practice and develop IPR
> enforcement tools and continue to upgrade them based on best practice, and
> develop IPR training material for WCO Members and ensure that its capacity
> building programme reflects the role that individual Customs administrations
> undertake at the border in relation to IPR issues". It further states that
> "The WCO should assist national and regional IPR enforcement operations on
> an "as requested" basis and in accordance with other operational
> priorities".
>
> In conclusion, the Secretariat's paper states "In order to ease the
> transition to a new WCO IPR focus, the Policy Commission is invited to note
> that progress by the SECURE Working Group has been limited".
>
> It adds that the Policy Commission "may also wish to make recommendations
> along the following lines to the Council as there is clearly a need for
> Customs administrations to have best practise IPR guidelines".
>
> The recommendations are: (1) "To set aside efforts to further develop the
> Provisional SECURE Standards, by considering the possible cancellation of
> the February and April 2009 SECURE Working Group Meetings", (2) "To invite
> the Council, at its June 2009 Sessions, to instruct an appropriate body to
> develop best practice IPR guidelines for Customs administrations. That body
> could possibly be a Working Group under the Permanent Technical Committee
> (PTC) that reports to the Council through the PTC and the Policy Commission.
>
> Concerns over scope of the best practise IPR guidelines and the process
> through which the guidelines are developed (for example, the stakeholders
> involved in the process) are likely to continue to be sticking points even
> if another body is set up.
>
> [The WCO secretariat's efforts to move forward with speed an issue in which
> the US is interested, is in sharp contrast with the way the World Customs
> Organisation and its secretariat have been making progress on an issue
> referred to them by the World Trade Organisation in 1995.
>
> [Under the Marrakesh Treaty and its Rules of Origin Agreement, the WTO was
> mandated to set up a work programme, soon after the WTO came into being
> (1995), for harmonisation of the non-preferential rules of origin, and
> complete it in three years (that is by 1998). Part of this technical work
> was entrusted to the WCO, which has been making periodical reports. The work
> is deadlocked on some of the remedial measures (including ROR and the
> Anti-dumping treaty).
>
> [While the WCO referred what it saw as political, rather than technical
> issues of harmonization to a decision by the WTO Committee on ROR and the
> General Council, and in effect washed its hands off in finding solutions in
> an important area of trade of concern to developing countries, it is now
> pushing hard to find solutions in areas indirectly related to trade on
> issues of concern to the United States and other dominant developed
> countries.-- SUNS] +
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827