E wipo/grtkf/IC/15/7 Original: English date: May 14, 2010 Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore Fifteenth Session Geneva, December 7 to 11, 2009 report

[Note from the Secretariat: the following interventions were made on Tuesday, December 8, 2009.]

126. 
     The Chair opened Agenda Item 10 to hear the positions of regional groups as regards the arrangements for the intersessional working groups.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Ecuador on behalf of GRULAC stressed the importance of the work of the intersessional working groups. GRULAC considered that membership of those groups should be open and comprise experts appointed by Member States so as to ensure balanced geographical representation. It also underlined the importance of the participation of Member States’ observers, indigenous community representatives and NGOs. In that way, the process could clearly and legitimately pursue the common objective of protecting traditional knowledge, associated genetic resources and cultural expressions. The Working Group should issue recommendations for review by the Committee. Its discussions should be based on documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/5 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/11/8(a). As a subsidiary of the Committee, GRULAC considered it necessary for the Secretariat to provide assistance and maintain the same funding for the participation of representatives of developing countries and of indigenous communities such as in the Committee. Lastly, GRULAC proposed that the Chair of the Intersessional Working Group be held by one of the Committee’s officers.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Switzerland on behalf of Group B proposed that the Committee find a way of organizing the three intersessional working groups, stressing that questions of substance could be refined as the Committee’s work progressed, and that the Committee could review procedural arrangements before the following Assemblies. The Delegation noted that the Committee would establish the mandate of the Intersessional Groups and that that Working Group would carry out specific tasks as delegated by the Committee, that it would undertake relevant technical and legal work and that the outcome of that work, or recommendations it might have, would then be referred to the Committee. Taking into account Recommendation 44 of the Development Agenda, the Delegation was of the opinion that the Intersessional Working Group should be open and that meetings should be held in Geneva. In order to make the Intersessional Working Group’s work more efficient, and in as much as discussions would be informal, flexible rules of procedure should be established, and should be clearly set out in order to establish how discussions should proceed. As regards participation, the Delegation proposed that experts be appointed by Member States according to the required knowledge of the topics to be covered. It also proposed that the work be undertaken in a small group by limiting the number of participants per delegation. It recommended that the Chair fix a very clear timetable so that work would progress and limit interventions by Delegations to statements related to the topic covered. The Delegation proposed that the Secretariat support the work of the intersessional groups by providing documents and assistance as well as, if required, by carrying out studies when so requested. On the topics to be covered in the context of the intersessional work and given the different proposals, the Delegation of Switzerland underlined that Group B was still at the deliberation stage and wished to know the views of the other groups. Group B wished that the three topics would receive equal treatment.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Senegal, on behalf of the African Group, noted the interest of the Director General in the deliberations of the Committee. The Delegation thanked the Indonesian Government for having organized two important meetings in Montreux and Bali to make progress on the process of the Committee’s work. The Delegation highlighted the cooperation which had allowed participants in the discussions to agree on the terms of the new mandate of the Committee at the previous Assemblies and that that mandate provided for intersessional working groups to facilitate and accelerate the work of the Committee. The proposal put forward by the African Group was to set up intersessional working groups comprising a limited number of independent experts. Those working groups would not take decisions and expert comments, information, suggestions and recommendations would enlighten the decisions taken by members of the Committee in formal sessions. The objective of the African Group was to have three different working groups so as to deepen and further the content of ideas relating to the three topics covered, but also to put forward proposals, and to draft international instruments. The contribution of representatives of indigenous and local communities, at all stages of the process, should be duly taken into account. The Delegation concluded by recalling that norm-setting as indicated in recommendations received from the groups working on the Development Agenda should be an exhaustive effort and that that would only be guaranteed by using experts upstream of the deliberations of the Committee by avoiding downplaying the contribution in favor of political considerations.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Kyrgyzstan thanked the Secretariat for preparing working document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/15/4. The Delegation raised questions in regard to the funding of the IWG, namely how these meetings would be funded and how the participation of Committee members would be funded. Taking into account the budget of the Organization, the Delegation hoped that participation would be financed by the regular WIPO budget. The Delegation looked forward to discuss how the Voluntary Fund could be used to finance the participation of indigenous and local communities in the IWG. It was also interested to know in which languages the IWG would work and whether there will be simultaneous interpretation made available. The Delegation requested that working documents in Russian be made available as early as possible. This could help the Russian-speaking experts to contribute extensively to the work of the IWG. The Delegation shared the following conclusions reached within its Group: i) the IWG should each examine a particular theme; ii) the agenda of the IWG should be decided upon in the preceding session of the Committee. This agenda should contain priority issues, these would be issues where there still existed divergences; iii) the length of each IWG should be two or three days; iv) the IWG should be an open session; and v) the Committee should decide on the status of the outcomes of the IWG and on the form of the report to be presented.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Yemen, on behalf of the Asian Group, reaffirmed the Group’s commitment to realizing the new mandate of the Committee. The Asian Group attached high importance to the organization of the Intersessional Working Group sessions as these sessions would be key in the development of a consensual text or texts of an international legal instrument or instruments to be submitted to the 2011 General Assembly, which may decide on convening a diplomatic conference. To ensure the success of the IWG sessions, the majority of Asian Group countries was of the view that these sessions should be limited to a group of experts selected by the regional groups. The Asian Group was looking forward to working constructively with all regional groups on this item.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Serbia, on behalf of the Group of Central European and Baltic States, was of the view that the IWG’s work should be documented. Each intersessional meeting should be dedicated to one of the three main issues. The Group was also of the view that, with reference to the Rules of Procedure, the intersessional meetings should be chaired by the Chair of the Committee.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of China asserted its readiness to work with other Member States and to constructively participate in the discussions of the Committee. There was a need to define the work program and working methods of the intersessional working group, including the Rules of Procedure, timelines and objectives of the discussions. The Delegation believed that equitable geographic representation should be ensured to take into account the different views and thereby achieve concrete results. It supported the Delegation of Kyrgyzstan in regard to the making available of the working documents in the six official languages so that the experts could participate in the intersessionals in an effective manner.
     

126. 
     The representative of the Saami Council trusted that the Chair would accommodate the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples’ representatives in the work of the Committee, including in informal meetings. The Saami Council had participated in the Committee from its first session. During its first seven sessions, the Committee had benefitted from general discussions and exchanges of national experiences, which contributed to the drafting of the draft provisions on TCEs and TK. The discussions, however, had stagnated in the last five sessions. The Saami Council therefore welcomed the decision taken by the WIPO General Assembly on the new mandate of the Committee and agreed that it was time to commence text-based negotiations based on the three documents listed in the mandate, which could result in a legally binding instrument or instruments to be adopted by a diplomatic conference in 2011. The Saami Council pointed out that working documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/5 were sufficient to serve as a basis for text based negotiations, although these were in need of significant and important amendments. The Saami Council agreed with the African Group on the importance to agree on the rules of engagement, including on the exact role and mandate of the IWG. In this context, the Saami Council submitted the following: i) indigenous peoples’ representatives should be included in all informal discussions on the terms of references of the IWG; ii) in regard to the format of the IWG, this should be closed with a limited number of participants. The Saami Council thereby supported the African Group proposal that the IWG should be limited to 27 experts appointed by States, 10 experts appointed by the accredited observers, which included 7 representatives appointed by indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples’ representatives to the IWGs must be appointed by indigenous peoples themselves. The IWG’s should focus on text-based negotiations and be scheduled in a way that these would not clash with the CBD meetings on the ABS-regime.
     

126. 
     The Chair stated that it would be important to consider the participation of indigenous representatives in the Intersessional Working Group. The Committee had listened to the positions of the regional groups which included many areas of convergence. He stressed that there was a great deal of material to define the characteristics, procedures and objectives of the intersessional meetings.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Algeria, on behalf of the Arab Group, supported the proposal on the Intersessional Working Groups, put forward by the African Group.
     

126. 
     The Chairman recalled that on Tuesday there had been an initial airing of the initial positions of the regional groupings on Agenda 10. It had been agreed to initiate a parallel informal process on this matter. Regional coordinators would have reported to their groups on these informal discussions. These had been productive discussions. They had identified possible areas of convergence and possible obstacles, as well as possible solutions. The Chairman proposed that he report, in the interest of transparency, on the state of play, after which he would suspend the plenary to continue to informals. There was clear agreement as to the nature the work of the IWGs, which would not be negotiating groups. The IWGs would be technical groups, as mandated by the ICG. The output of the IWGs would be submitted for consideration by the ICG. It was quite clear that the profile of the members of the IWGs should be experts not diplomats nor political representatives or negotiators. The experts should have real technical ability in the substantive fields. It was necessary to exchange views to see how issues were resolved in other regions and countries. For example, Norway, Brazil and Australia had presented very interesting case studies. This was for the IWG to do. Another question was how limited or open-ended participation in the IWG would be and this would depend upon the precise definition of the substantive mandate of the IWG. There were legitimate concerns on these questions. The Chair stated that he was extremely grateful for the African Group’s written proposal which was an excellent basis on which to initiate the discussion. Proposals had also been made by Group B and GRULAC. The discussion in the CBD was affecting the discussions of the IGC. There was a group of countries which would prefer that GRs be discussed in the IGC rather than the CBD. There was another group which believed the contrary. But this was not really a problem because the IWGs were technical in nature. The Chair then proposed to resume discussions in informal session.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Switzerland, on behalf of Group B, asked to postpone the resumption of informal consultations for an hour or two in order to allow Group B to finalize its own thoughts.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Algeria supported the request made by the Delegation of Switzerland and requested that consultations took place in a larger-capacity room.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Zimbabwe insisted that discussions on Agenda Item 10 take place in plenary for the sake of transparency.
     

126. 
     The Chairman stated that the work of the Committee had been going on for nine years. What was being asked for had been done on Tuesday morning. The Chairman assumed that regional coordinators were informing the members of their groups as to the content of the informal discussions. The proposals made by Algeria and Switzerland were constructive and reasonable.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) said that it should be established that there would only be working groups at intersessional meetings and that the final decision would be left to the Committee.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Senegal, taking the floor on behalf of the African Group, recalled that the African Group had been willing to discuss the issue of the intersessional working groups on the basis of its proposal and by showing flexibility. It underscored, however, the urgency of the issue and recalled that it had proposed covering that item at the top of the Agenda. It recalled, in support of the Delegation of Zimbabwe, that it had been agreed to exchange in plenary viewpoints so as to set out the markers for the discussion. It made clear that it was puzzled by the statement made by the Delegation of Switzerland which brought the plenary to a deadlock and moreover requested a postponement of informal consultations. It underscored that it was a priority to find a solution to the issue of intersessional working groups before the end of the current session of the Committee.
     

126. 
     The Chairman stated that he wished to be efficient and effective and to achieve results. If the African Group felt it indispensable to have a plenary discussion on Agenda Item 10, this could be done. The Chairman had no intention of imposing solutions, but was only trying to move forward.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Angola expressed its concern at the procedure. It stated that it understood the concern expressed by the Delegation of Zimbabwe. It considered it was important to see in plenary the statements of each delegation on whether the Intersessional Working Groups should be open or closed, among other points. That would facilitate coordinators’ discussions in informal meetings.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Senegal, on behalf of the African Group, stated that there were two fundamental problems which arose from the informal consultations organized by the Chair. It continued by stating that solving those problems would perhaps lead to solutions to other related problems, such as participation, language, working documents, the length of sessions, the Chair, etc. The first issue concerned the limiting or not of the size of the working group. From the consensus on the technical nature of the working group, it followed that the working group should be limited in number. The Delegation maintained that it was impossible to form a technical working group unlimited in size. The second issue touched on whether the three topics should be dealt with separately or simultaneously. The Delegation underlined that the proposal put forward by the African Group mentioned simultaneous treatment and that it provided a response to each of the questions raised by document 15/4. The Delegation stated that there was no other proposal that was so well structured and that that was the difficulty. In sum, the Delegation recalled that there was consensus on the technical nature of the working group. That agreed position implicitly led to another point on which there might also be consensus: the limited nature of the working group. If those two points could be solved it would leave the question of dealing separately with the topics to be resolved. The Delegation repeated the reason for dealing with the topics separately: it ran the risk of inextricable confusion.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Angola supported the proposal put forward by the African Group, and stated that it was clear and that there should be three intersessional working groups. It added that the question was therefore to ascertain whether each intersessional working group should work on each of the three topics separately or whether to work on all the topics at the same time. It also touched on the issue of the number of experts, with the African Group proposing five experts. It stated that the African Group was open to increasing the number of experts, possibly to as many as 14 or 15 members. The Delegation agreed that Member States’ fears of not being represented were unfounded, as at the following session of the Committee, it was still possible to accept or not, or even to make reservations on the recommendations made by the group of experts, and that that was recognized by the Vienna Convention. The Delegation underscored that it was not only the African Group which supported the reduced size of the working groups. The Delegation urged members to be constructive and open, and to leave to the regions the task of appointing their experts.
     

126. 
     The Chairman proposed that three principles guide discussions on the degree of openness or restrictiveness of the IWGs, namely transparency, effectiveness and representativeness. There were many options in order to achieve the convergence of these three principles.
     

126. 
     The representative of the IPCB, on behalf of the Indigenous Consultative Forum, expressed its appreciation for the proposal of the African Group recommending the inclusion of a minimum of seven experts from indigenous and local communities to be nominated by the Indigenous Consultative Forum to participate in the upcoming Intersessional Working Groups. The Indigenous Caucus was of the view that the regional experts should come from Africa, the Arctic, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, North America, the Pacific and the Russian Federation and former Eastern Europe, and there should also be three additional indigenous semantic experts. She said that each indigenous region would nominate its own representative and all regions had well working mechanisms for and extensive experience with appointing representatives to various international meetings. Selecting competent and indigenous representatives to the intersessionals would constitute no problem. She believed the ability to select their own representatives was integral to the right of self determination of indigenous communities. The Indigenous Caucus understood that the use of the Voluntary Fund to support the participation of indigenous communities had been well received by the parties in informal consultations and the Caucus was appreciative of this support as well. The African proposal stated that the rules of procedure of the Committee would generally apply to the Intersessionals. The Caucus strongly underlined, however, that the rules of procedure of the Intersessionals had to be amended and/or applied in a flexible manner so as to provide for effective indigenous peoples participation. The working methods needed to be adopted to give the opportunity to State delegations to seriously consider, in a timely manner, text proposals by indigenous representatives. She recalled that since the Intersessional Working Groups had not existed when the Voluntary Fund was established this had created some uncertainty regarding the timing and selection process for indigenous experts to the Intersessionals. To deal with that unforeseen situation, the representative proposed that the parties request the Advisory Board to the Voluntary Fund to set aside funds that would be used to support indigenous participation in the Intersessional Working Groups until a time specified in the future. This would allow members of the indigenous caucus to undertake consultations so that they could decide upon their regional nominees to the first Intersessional Working Group. In the interim, the Indigenous Caucus would like an opportunity to meet with key interested parties to work out a proposal for any modification necessary for the use of the Voluntary Fund to support its participation in the Intersessional Working Groups. As a final note, the Indigenous Caucus supported the African Group’s recommendation that the Intersessional Working Group meetings be closed and that TCEs be the first topic addressed by them.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Egypt stated that these issues had been discussed before. In respect to the formation of the Intersessional Working Groups, the Delegation agreed that the principles which should guide their work were efficiency, specialization, transparency and a fair representation of the various regions. Each Working Group should work on one theme. Membership of the Working Groups should be limited to experts on the basis of their CVs. In addition, the Working Groups should have legal experts specialized in IP. There would be a negotiation within the Working Groups in order to reach a draft legal text.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Argentina maintained that the experts should be appointed by Member States and that the three topics, TK, TCEs and GRs, should be dealt with concurrently in each intersessional meeting. The topic of GRs should not be relegated to the end. It recalled the mandate of the General Assembly, which specified that the work of the Committee would be without prejudice to the work being undertaken in other fora.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Portugal supported the Chair’s approach and wished to participate in a flexible and open manner in these negotiations. The Delegation expressed its disappointment that the Chair’s suggestion to convene in informals had not been accepted by all. Group B was engaged in very constructive discussions. Speaking then in its national capacity, the Delegation addressed the question of participation from a technical and legal, rather than political, standpoint. Portugal believed that participation in the Intersessional Working Groups had to be open so that the intergovernmental character of the Committee would be respected. The Delegation could see no legal grounds for experts to be appointed. Would the experts be chosen by the whole Committee or by each Member State? The Delegation further questioned whether they would be paid by WIPO or by Member States. Would the experts come from the different regions of the world corresponding to the regional groups in WIPO, and how many for each region?
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Algeria, on behalf of the Arab Group, supported the statement made by the African Group and the contents of its proposal regarding the Intersessional Working Groups. The Working Groups should be of a limited membership and they had to be distinct in their activities from those of the Committee. The distinction would relate to their working methods and composition. The Delegation underscored that working groups with limited membership was a common practice in the UN system. The Arab Group found the composition of 37 representatives to be a sound and balanced proposal. As to the participation of the Member States in the work of the Working Groups and their working methods, the Arab Group welcomed the proposal made by GRULAC. The Delegation supported further the working structure proposed by the African Group, namely, three groups each examining one of the three subjects discussed in the Committee.
     

126. 
     The representative of the Saami Council supported the statement by the Indigenous Peoples Caucus. He stated that the seven regions recognized by the UN had mechanisms for appointing their representatives to meetings such as the intersessionals being discussed. The representative stressed that the indigenous participants should appoint their own experts to such meetings. It was not appropriate that the selection would be made by the Advisory Board of the Voluntary Fund. He underscored that the people applying to the Voluntary Fund might be new to the process and not necessarily the right people for the intersessionals. There were experts that received funding from other sources than the Voluntary Fund and they should also be considered for participating in the intersessionals. The appropriate way to select representatives from indigenous peoples for the intersessionals would be to have their own mechanisms and not to use the Advisory Board.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Turkey respected the able guidance of the Chair but disagreed with certain aspects. The Delegation supported the adoption of international rules on the protection of TK, TCEs and GRs and appreciated the proposals of the African Group. But, like the Delegation of Portugal, Turkey believed that the Working Groups should be open-ended. It was inevitable that policy and political issues would arise in the Working Groups. The Delegation was surprised that the African Group had asked for a restrictive approach because Turkey, like the African Group, in all fora in the UN and in WTO had advocated inclusiveness and transparency in all negotiations.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Morocco supported the statements made by the Delegation of Senegal on behalf of the African Group and by the Delegation of Algeria made on behalf of the Arab Group. The proposal submitted by the African Group was in harmony with the three principles the Chair had referred to, namely efficiency, transparency and representativity. The composition of the Working Groups should be restricted. Efficiency could not be achieved within an open-ended Working Group. The Working Group had to be composed of specialist experts. The three sessions of the IWG should each tackle one of the three subjects. Furthermore, the Committee should not seek to have a second Committee, an “IGCbis“. The Working Groups should be composed of experts aiming at assisting the Committee and providing it with their opinions and expert views. This should not exclude member countries but there could be a coordinator present for each group of member countries. This would allow the members to follow closely developments within the Working Groups.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Cameroon recalled that the proposal put forward by the African Group was the only one to have been submitted. It stressed that a separate approach to the topics would facilitate achieving concrete outcomes, by avoiding repetition. As regards the issue of the composition of the Intersessional Working Groups, it stated that the more restrictive approach of the African Group was more pragmatic and more likely to produce a text than a broad approach with a wider scope. It mentioned the experience of national parliaments in setting up small working groups to facilitate the preparation of normative acts.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Indonesia thanked the Chair for the three principles he had mentioned. In the informal meetings there had already been a growing agreement that the Working Groups should be technical and not a negotiating forum. The Working Groups, in order to fulfill the three criteria, should be limited. If they were open-ended, they would be the same as the Committee. There would also be representatives from the regional groups and also indigenous communities. On the issue of transparency, the result of the discussions would be circulated to all of the members of the Committee.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Switzerland, on behalf of Group B, referred to the consultations in progress on the format of the Intersessional Working Groups and expressed the wish to see them come to an agreement before the end of the current session. It stated that the underlying objective of the Committee’s mandate was, within two years, to provide international legal instruments which would bring effective protection to genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional expressions of folklore. It believed that the creation of the Intersessional Working Group should meet that objective by catalyzing the work of the Committee. On the nature of that Working Group, it stressed that it should be the agent of the Committee. Due to the intergovernmental nature of the Committee, the Delegation found it logical, as underscored by the Delegation of Portugal, that all Member States wishing so to participate might be part of the working groups. Referring to the previous statements made by the Delegations of Egypt and Cameroon, which implied that the Intersessional Working Groups should produce a legal text, the Delegation of Switzerland, on behalf of Group B, believed that the best way of ensuring that the text would be accepted by the Committee was to allow all Member States to take part in those Working Groups. Touching on the issue of the three criteria, it believed that an open group could be efficient in as much as it was given clear rules, such as not making fruitless or inconclusive general statements, with the Chair being authorized to enforce them. It also proposed, in order to ensure the effectiveness of the Working Groups, that the Committee assign them a specific mandate and agenda. Making reference to the criterion of transparency, it believed that the work report of the Working Group should not be exhaustive, but contain conclusions made by the Chair, and those conclusions should reflect such work, both at Member State and observer level. The Delegation stated that it was the participation of all of the Member States and observers that would guarantee transparency. It recalled in that regard Recommendation 44 of the Development Agenda providing for all formal and informal meetings and consultations relating to norm-setting to be held in a transparent manner. On the criterion of representativeness, it considered that a membership open to all Member States, and with the authority to appoint their own experts, should avoid controversy on their representative nature. It stressed that the experts appointed within a limited context would represent regional groups, while within each region, different viewpoints could exist. In that connection, it did not understand why the number of observers should be drastically reduced, and recalled Recommendation 15 of the Development Agenda which provided for all norm-setting activities to be inclusive.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Namibia supported the statement made by the Delegation of Senegal on behalf of the African Group and recalled the mandate of the Committee. In order to achieve this mandate, Namibia believed that the working procedures or rules of engagement should be agreed upon first, as proposed by the African Group. The Delegation underscored that the African proposal contained core issues and it was gratified to see broad support for it.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of the Republic of Korea appreciated the three principles that had been identified. The issue was how to increase the efficiency of Working Groups as it had been said that working in small groups was more efficient than open-ended groups. The Delegation believed that the main task of the Working Groups was to provide conceptual clarity on the issues of GRs, TK and TCEs and, based on that conceptual clarity, the Working Group could draft a text. It had been suggested that a list of the suggestions and concerns that many delegations had be compiled and the Secretariat could provide such a list. Then the Working Groups would tackle each concern and give some clarification. In this way the Committee could find conceptual clarity and a framework, on the basis of which the Committee could work on the draft of the text. The Committee could also designate the experts in advance and give them “homework” based on the questions, subject and issues, and the experts could communicate with each other even before the Intersessional Working Groups met.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Australia expressed its disappointment that it had not been possible to continue bilateral and informal sessions, as these were often the only way to gain a shared understanding of issues. Australia commended the African Group for the work it had undertaken in developing a proposal for intersessional work and agreed with the intent of the proposal, particularly in attempting to develop a proposal which would ensure the deliberations be conducted in an efficient manner and transparent manner. However, Australia had consistently indicated that the work of the Committee crossed regional groupings and boundaries and development status. For example, its own region Oceania, which included Australasia and Pacific States, who were not always represented internationally, included mega-diverse countries and developed, developing and least developed countries, all with strong indigenous cultures with strong links to their lands. In determining the experts for the Intersessional Working Groups, it would be important for countries with significant interests and expertise in TK, TCEs and GRs to have the option, in the interests of transparency and efficiency, to be represented. The Delegation was concerned that the current proposal by the African Group did not take account of this reality in relation to the numbers proposed, accepting that this was not an easy issue to resolve, and it appreciated some of the proposals made by delegations indicating some flexibility on this issue. Whilst this might result in a large group, this could be managed through sub-Working Groups, which, while complex, was common practice in a range of fora. Secondly, Australia stated that it did not understand the approach which pre-determined the topics for discussion at all three sessions, and did not appear to take account of the very discussions the Committee had had during this meeting across all three topics. However, the Delegation strongly supported discussion of the broad issues for discussion across the three areas, proposed in the African proposal, particularly in relation to definitions, objectives of protections, exceptions and limitations and beneficiaries. These were all cross-cutting, important issues. However, before determining options, gaps and limitations in existent systems needed to be completed. Then, options to address these gaps and limitations, including sui generis options, should be looked at. Australia’s preferred approach was to focus on the key issues that had been identified to date. Discussions so far had clearly indicated a need to ensure that the Committee made progress across all three subject matter areas and that linkages between the three subject matter areas were maintained. While Australia accepted that some areas of text were more mature than others, e.g. TCEs, it would also recognize that there were significant legal and technical issues to be addressed particularly in relation to TK and in addressing GR issues relating to disclosure and ABS. If the Committee would wait until late 2010 and 2011 to address these substantive issues then Australia considered that it could not adequately progress on its work in IGC 16 and 17. Australia believed that it should sequence the work based on the elements proposed by the African Group with some modification. In addition, through its discussions at IGC 15, Australia had identified a need to address further technical and legal issues to the Working Group.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Kenya fully supported the proposal of the African Group and the three principles which had been outlined. For effectiveness, it was considered imperative that the Working Groups be of limited membership, while ensuring equitable geographical representation and participation of experts on all subject areas. It would be difficult to achieve effectiveness in an open-ended Working Group. The Committee should not re-invent the wheel. It was normal in the UN to achieve results through groups of experts. Kenya believed that, with some minor modifications as suggested by some delegations including Australia, the Committee could achieve agreement on Working Groups that were representative, efficient and transparent.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Algeria supported the proposal put forward by the African Group and formulated by the Delegation of Senegal and was highly supportive of the statement made by the Arab Group, which it had made on the Group’s behalf. It stressed that the African proposal was exhaustive, clear and structured, but might still be refined or supplemented. It stated that the expert group planned in the Committee’s mandate was to prepare and support the Committee’s decisions. It believed that an open membership would contradict the principle of efficiency and that the representative nature of the Intersessional Working Groups might be guaranteed without necessarily opting for an open membership. It added that the principle of efficiency required that the topics be covered separately, without prejudging the need to ensure Committee-level consistency of approach. It stated that the transparency of the working groups could be ensured by implementing information and consultation mechanisms between experts and regional groups. It believed that the most pressing issue aimed rather at the Committee monitoring the work of experts and its linkage with the progress made within the Committee. It recalled that the Committee’s mandate required concrete results and the establishment of one or more texts as effective instruments of protection. It concluded that it was that objective which would dictate the format of the Intersessional Working Groups.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Sweden, on behalf of the European Union and its member States aligned itself with the statement forwarded by Switzerland on behalf of the Group B. The delegation welcomed the idea having technical discussions that could feed into the Committee’s work. The delegation fully supported the three guiding principles for the Committee’s work announced by the Chairman. Based on the principles of transparency and representativity, the Intersessional Working Groups should be open-ended allowing Member States experts as well as representatives of indigenous and local communities to participate.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Yemen, on behalf of the Asian Group, fully supported the African proposal, in particular having three different sessions for the three different subjects. The duration should be up to ten days or less if the experts could manage to finish earlier. The representation during the sessions of the Intersessional Working Groups should follow the three principles. The proposal of GRULAC increasing the number of experts from regional groups and observers would ensure fair representation. The Delegation supported the five key elements of African proposal for the work of the Intersessional Working Group without prejudice to other relevant topics or issues. The Intersessional Working Groups should be mandated to make proposals for a draft international legal instrument or any alternative language to the consideration of the Committee.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Pakistan aligned itself with the proposal of the African Group and also supported the statement made on behalf of the Asian Group. Pakistan considered the three principles that had been mentioned were very important and that they were already addressed in the proposal. The Delegation doubted whether an open-ended Intersessional Working Group would be efficient. This was exemplified by the Committee having worked for years and it was still far from an outcome. Five representatives per group had been mentioned in the African Group’s proposal. The Committee could increase that number to eight as had been proposed by GRULAC. The composition would then be efficient, transparent and representative.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Kyrgyzstan, on behalf of the Regional Group of Certain Eastern European, Central Asian and Caucasus countries, referred to the proposal of the African Group. Each session of the Intersessional Working Groups, should focus on one of the three substantive issues, GR, TK, and TCEs. This kind of approach would allow the Committee to maximize its efforts instead of dealing with all these issues at a single meeting. Meetings of the Intersessional Working Group should not be longer than five days and not ten days. The format of these meetings should be open-ended and respect the three principles announced. A restrictive membership would not achieve effectiveness of the work of the experts. Therefore, the experts should be selected and appointed by Member States.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Egypt referred to the issue of open-ended or limited Intersessional Working Groups. In the statement made by the Delegation of Switzerland the delegation noticed a misunderstanding about the function of the Working Groups. It consisted in confusion between functionality and principle. The principles mentioned by Switzerland in the WIPO Development Agenda, specifically recommendations 44 and 15, dealt with norm setting activities that should be inclusive and Member States driven. In this case a norm setting activity would be the work of the Committee itself because any Member States would be free to accept or reject whatever derives from the Intersessional Working Group. Therefore, this principle was safely guarded. Concerning recommendation 44 and the background of the WIPO Development Agenda itself, the delegation highlighted that it arose out of a particular meeting outside of Geneva that dealt with substantive matters on the Patent Law Treaty. This had been seen by some as an attempt to engage in norm setting activities outside of the proper channels of governance of the organization. In any case, the African proposal was not against the spirit of the WIPO Development Agenda as it concerned a specific expert group that would give particular advice and in order to be functional and to succeed by a limited composition. In fact, recommendation 18 of the WIPO Development Agenda required this Committee to move ahead on this substantive issue. Therefore, the reference made to transparency was out of context. In respect to functionality, an open-ended expert meeting would not achieve the goal of recommendation 18. All Member States should focus on the functionality of the Intersessional Working Groups. A limited group could give clear advice that could be rejected by a single Member State in the Committee if it wished not to agree with the content of that advice.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Brazil strongly supported the proposal of the African Group. It reflected some of the concerns that all members have expressed here during the nine years of work of this Committee. No extra budgetary costs as guiding principles within WIPO and all Committees were needed. It contained a very well structured work plan. If the Committee had the three issues in the same week costs would be very high, at least, for developing countries and the delegation did not believe that WIPO would fund all experts, representatives of the indigenous communities and other persons to discuss the three issues at the same time. It would be very helpful if the Committee had sufficient funds that developing countries could be equally represented as developed countries. The delegation agreed with the Chair about the “ghost” in the room but unfortunately it was real probably costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Concerning timing the delegation recalled, as presented in the side-event by the representative of the CBD, that CBD was well ahead and they received the mandate to deliver a text in the middle of next year on many issues that this Committee was starting to think about. The delegation questioned why to duplicate something that is almost half done – and the Committee, almost the same members, could be a huge step forward using complementary the work which were done in another forum. Regarding the composition of this group an open-ended Intersessional Working Group would be no different from having a Committee and the mandate distinguished between Committee and Intersessional Working Group. Therefore, it should be ensured that those experts would be different and that there was enough time for deliberations in the Intersessionals.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of El Salvador thanked the African Group for submitting its proposal which it considered highly useful and of real value. It stated that it agreed with many of the points raised in that proposal, particularly with the order in which issues were to be dealt with. It considered it very beneficial and timely to start dealing with those issues which had been sufficiently developed, namely TCEs and TK, during 2010, and the issue of GRs during the first quarter of 2011, also taking into account the expected outcomes in other fora, in that case the CBD. It aligned itself with another aspect of the African Group’s proposal, in as much as the Intersessional Working Groups were to submit draft texts and recommendations, which would serve as a starting point for negotiations within the Committee. It thanked the Chair for its explanation on the Group of Experts which would carry out doctrinaire or highly technical work and on the Committee which would have the opportunity to take negotiation-related decisions. It maintained that Member States should be permitted to attend Intersessional Working Group meetings under certain conditions. It considered that it would set a very negative precedent for WIPO not to allow Member States to attend. It requested that it be put on record that El Salvador was willing to work in that direction, in as much as its presence was allowed, although not necessarily its participation in the Group of Experts.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of South Africa aligned with the proposal of the African Group putting into practice the three principles that the Chair had outlined. The delegation challenged the concept of transparency by some of the Group B countries if the Committee could not even move forward in the plenary session and should go to closed informals. There was a fundamental misunderstanding. The reason to have Intersessional Working Groups without presence of Member States was to focus the discussion on efficiency. These representatives or experts would attend the meetings in their individual and not national capacity. The Intersessional Working Groups would not be a body for negotiation but for technical discussions. As a Chair’s conclusion would not be sufficient, a record of the discussions could be considered in the Committee for its negotiations. Usually confusion started whit drafting text. Even if the experts drafted, i.e. writing and putting words together for the consideration of the Committee, that would not necessarily mean that the Committee would accept the text. The proposal of the African Group had been already presented at the 13^th session. The delegation did not to see any options coming from Group B countries and raised strong concerns about the process in the Committee.
     

126. 
     The Chairman stated that plenary sessions were not designed for real dialogue, exchanges of views and negotiations. That was why there were informal meetings.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Thailand aligned with the Asian Group and the proposal of the African Group. The Delegation shared the idea of having a small and limited number for the intersessional expert meeting, but saw the merit of increasing the number of experts from each region as proposed by the GRULAC. For the sake of transparency, the meeting should be close-circuited, telecasted to another room or webcasted, for the benefit of all countries interested in following the progress of the expert meetings. Moreover, the expert meeting should propose options for legal texts to be considered by the Committee.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Canada aligned with the delegations of Argentina and Australia. To organize the Intersessional Working Group most rationally all three issues should be attacked in the first meeting taking into account the cross-cutting nature and the inter-linkages. Otherwise, the meeting would risk being more inefficient and duplicating some of its work. The delegation supported the Delegation of Switzerland on behalf of Group B. In respect to the issue of closed versus open sessions, it assumed that efficiency was guaranteed through a sound structure as well as very clear terms of reference and tasks. Even if the proposal of the African Group was the only one on the table, it did clearly not enjoy consensus. Canada reminded that the suggestions to outsource this work to experts groups were not covered by the mandate. Moreover, it wanted in this respect take a look at the concerns raised by Group B and other countries and to precedents as way out of the deadlock. Experience showed that Working Groups were not closed and limited in its numbers and therefore the Delegation suggested being inclusive to promote greater transparency in the process. Looking at experiences in WIPO concerning inclusiveness and how the Working Groups had operated, the delegation thought that there was no need to deviate from this practice as guidance to the Committee.
     

126. 
     The Chairman asked whether delegations wished to continue in informal meetings.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Senegal, on behalf of the African Group, thought that the previous consultations would have allowed respective positions to be identified very clearly. It stated that it was willing to continue the consultations.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Yemen supported the African Group.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Angola proposed continuing the consultations in Room B.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) stated that there was a need to separate efficiency and effectiveness of the closed or open parties or groups.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Zimbabwe reiterated the principles laid down by the Chairman. However the delegation expressed its constant surprise by the manner in which this organization was working. It seemed as if it did not really adhere to the UN bodies. The Delegation felt strange if human rights member states agreed that a rapporteur was an expert to undertake a specific research or study and come up with recommendations and options for Member States to deliberate on and in the meantime this rapporteur was elected by a Member State.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Portugal raised concern about the concept of transparency and drafting of the delegation of South Africa and the statement which was potentially worsening the atmosphere in the Committee.
     

126. 
     The representative of Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA) aligned with the Saami Council, the chair of the Indigenous Caucus, and the African proposal. The Intersessional Working Groups should be limited in number of participants. The indigenous peoples should nominate its representative through regional platforms. Most of the region had a well organized regional platform for indigenous peoples, in African all were members of its individual organization and also member of the African Indigenous Platform (IPACC). It believed that IPACC had the technical and logistical means to carry out the regional process of selecting of indigenous expert and therefore it should be given the right to carry out the selection, as to ensure transparency and effective representation of indigenous and local community. The indigenous peoples had always successfully carried out this kind nomination process in another UN system like the Permanent Forum, the Expert Mechanism for the right indigenous peoples. The selected experts for the Intersessional Working Groups should be funded by the WIPO Voluntary Fund.
     

126. 
     The Chair informed the plenary that he had held informal meetings with the regional or group coordinators so as to find a formula which would enable all the groups to reach agreement on the mandate, nature and characteristics of the Intersessional Group. He recounted that he had tabled a concrete proposal, as follows:
     

The intersessional Working Groups will take as a basis of its work, all WIPO working documents, including WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/5, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/11/8(a) in line with the WIPO GA mandate.

The outcome of the Group’s work as presented to the IGC shall be translated into all United Nations languages, as well as published to the fullest extent possible, and circulated as a WIPO document no later than one month before the 16th session of the IGC.

Frequency and venue of the meetings:

The three Intersessional Working Groups shall meet according to the work plan annexed to the General Assembly 2009 decision.

The duration of each meeting shall be 10 days.

The meetings shall take place in Geneva at WIPO Headquarters.

The Chairman of the IGC shall appoint, in consultation with regional groups and with the members of the Working Group, a coordinator of the Group from among the experts in order to facilitate its proceedings.

Recognizing the need for intersessional work as highlighted at the 12^th Session of the IGC and in view of the mandate to decide on a date for the Diplomatic Conference in 2011, the following three (3) Intersessional Working Groups are proposed:
First Intersessional Working Group — February/March 2010

Intersessional Working Group shall focus on Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) and Traditional Knowledge (with the exception of the TK associated with Genetic Resources)

Intersessional Working Group shall focus on Traditional Knowledge (TK) associated to Genetic Resources and Genetic Resources

The IGC/17 will determine the issues to be addressed for Traditional Cultural Expressions, Traditional Knowledge and Genetic resources by the third IWG.”

126. 
     The Delegation of Senegal thanked the Chair for his efforts and for his proposal put forward during informal consultations, which amended the proposal made by the African Group. That proposal was acceptable on the condition that the Committee did not prejudge the recommendations which the Intersessional Working Group might issue. The Delegation added that the mandate was not a problem and underscored that the African Group had shown flexibility on the matter as well as on the composition of the Working Group. Furthermore, the Chair’s proposal to increase the number of experts per region from five to eight had been deemed acceptable, as well as the proposal to involve the regional coordinators. As regards the Agenda, the Delegation of Senegal stated that the African Group would keep to the contents of its proposal. The first session would cover traditional cultural expressions, the second, traditional knowledge and the third, genetic resources. The Delegation added that the proposal to extend the term of the Working Groups to 10 days was also acceptable and that it was for the Group of Experts to appoint its own Chair, in line with the rules of procedure.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Switzerland thanked the Delegation of Senegal for having communicated the reactions of the African Group to the outcome of the day’s informal discussions, and also thanked the Chair for the way in which he had led discussions and consultations. The Delegation underlined the efforts undertaken by the Committee to identify the points which required more clarity with a view to drafting texts which would enable international legal instruments to be established. Group B would have liked to commit itself to the norm-setting work, and in that regard and so as to respect the principles of inclusiveness and transparency, the best formula would be for all Member States to take part in those consultations. The Delegation thought that what had been said during the consultations in the context of bilateral exchanges on the subject of small groups was acceptable. However, Group B was of the opinion that the work should be carried out by an open group and underlined that a closed group was possible if the drafting work was not included in the work of the Group of Experts, and if the Committee gave the working group a genuinely expert mandate to enlighten it as to the problems which had been identified during the 15^th session. The Delegation noted the lack of clarity as regards the possible drafting role of the Group of Experts as well as the need to establish a mandate with clearly defined rules of engagement for all. In that regard, the Delegation was of the opinion that a closed committee would not achieve the clarity required by Group B. As regards the three points that Group B would have liked to deal with concurrently, the Delegation deplored the absence of traditional knowledge and genetic resources in the proposal for the first session. The Delegation stated that it would distribute the document produced by Group B taking into account the discussions of previous Committees and which were submitted during the previous day’s informal consultations. The Delegation recalled that Group B had accepted the Committee’s new mandate, that it had committed itself to that and had indicated that it would have liked its hopes and needs to have been taken into account in the context of the Committee’s work.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Ecuador, on behalf of GRULAC, also thanked the Chair for his efforts and leadership. It stated that there was still hope that positions might be narrowed and a result could be achieved. It said that GRULAC agreed with the proposals submitted by the Chair in the informal group and reiterated its flexibility. As regards the composition, and on behalf of GRULAC, it was thankful for having accepted its proposal to increase the number of participants. On the order of the topics which would be covered in intersessional meetings, it regretted being unable to adopt a position as a regional group for the time being.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Angola noted a feeling of a failure as regards the Committee while praising the efforts of the Chair to arrive at a compromise to establish intersessional expert groups in order to speed up the work of the Committee and to carry out the mandate defined at the Assemblies. The Delegation deplored the indecisiveness of the Committee and the opposition to its work and wished to see specific rules defined regarding its objectives.
     

126. 
     The representative of CONGAF raised questions on issues related to the intersessional working groups, such as the geographical representation and participation of TK holders. He then shared with the Committee information concerning the adoption and content of the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention to Combat Desertification.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Brazil requested the Chair to distribute his proposal in writing so as to receive more clarification on it and thereby prevent any misunderstanding.
     

126. 
     The representative of Tupaj Amaru welcomed the proposals made by the Chair and the African Group’s flexibility in reaching a consensus. It regretted the absence of consensus and the fact that, meanwhile, resources were disappearing and indigenous peoples were being dispossessed of their knowledge. It proposed, given the critical situation, not creating an intersessional working group, but rather that each government delegation bring its own experts to the Committee and analyze the issue with its own experts. In that way, the work would be more democratic, more open, more inclusive, and savings would be made on financial and human resources.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of the United States of America reminded the Committee that it had already begun text-based negotiations and that it had made progress. In an efficient manner, Member States, accredited NGOs and representatives of indigenous and local communities had suggested changes to working documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/5 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/11/8(a), which was a positive step. Other positive steps were that the Committee’s work on the three substantive areas had been addressed on an equal footing, participants had posed questions and some answers had been given, and lastly, Member States had shared their national experiences. Although much work still needed to be done, this week was a week of many positive steps for a good continuation of the Committee’s work.
     

126. 
     The Chair considered that arrangements had not been sufficiently developed to take a decision on that issue but stressed that there had been significant progress, as it had been the first time in a long time that a substantive discussion had taken place on Items 7, 8 and 9, since there had been growing consensus, and increasing convergence on the long-term objectives, spirit and intentions on the Committee’s issues, and as there had been some progress on overcoming the deep mistrust which existed in the IGC. He emphasized that all the Delegations had shown flexibility to a greater or lesser extent and had made genuine efforts to make progress, but there had not been sufficient flexibility as the problem of deep mistrust had not been solved. He stated that in his opinion it was not possible to have an intersessional group until such time as, in the following Committee, there had been discussions on, and solutions to, its mandate, membership, characteristics, etc. He gave the floor to the Secretariat so that it might clarify what the status quo was.
     

126. 
     The Director General of WIPO agreed with the Chair’s assessment of the situation and that, if the Committee was unable to determine terms of reference, agenda and composition of the intersessional working groups, it would be impossible to hold them and therefore the next step would be to hold the next session of the Committee in June.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Egypt suggested that the documents be made available by the Secretariat in January 2010.
     

126. 
     The Secretariat stated that the documents would be made available as soon as possible, bearing in mind that as from 2010 documents would be prepared in all 6 languages.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Canada commented on items 7, 8 and 9 of the draft decisions, requesting that in the paragraphs dealing with those items that the words “proposed amendments” be replace by the word “suggestions”.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Egypt acknowledged the Secretariat’s point that documents would be provided in all 6 languages and suggested that since the documents would be a factual recording that they be made available by the Secretariat in the second half of January, in order to expedite discussions within other concerned fora as well as at the national level.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of the USA proposed that the documents be made available by April 15, 2010 to allow delegations sufficient time to comment in writing on both TK and TCEs before the next session of the Committee. After further discussions with the Chair, the Delegation agreed to consider that the documents be published by the Secretariat in January thus allowing the Committee members to present their comments until the end of February to include them in the revised versions of the documents.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of South Africa welcomed the suggestions made by the delegation of the USA but wished to seek further clarity in regard to the articles. The articles referred to were the articles that had been discussed in the meeting.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of India suggested that, because the Committee had actually started on text-based negotiations, the word “amendment” as appeared in the paragraphs of the draft decisions under items 7, 8 and 9 be retained.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of the United States of America stated that it had also made comments and posed questions regarding the objectives and principles in the documents. Therefore, it was proper for the questions and information to be submitted on all parts of the documents.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Australia wished to support the textual suggestions made by the Delegation of Canada with respect to the words proposed amendments in the draft decisions on items 7, 8 and 9.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Brazil commented on the proposals made by the Delegations of Canada, Australia and South Africa regarding the wording, and noted that if the word ‘amendment’ was taken out, the decisions would not reflect what had happened.
     

126. 
     The Chair said that, as regards the proposal made by Canada, the commitment made since the start of the substantive discussion was that it would reflect the approaches of the delegations, whether those were proposals for new paragraphs, proposals in abstract terms or proposals for amendments. He clarified that, pursuant to the decision of the General Assembly, the current meeting was carrying out “text-based negotiations”. It was appropriate to include the term suggestions and amendments as there had been suggestions and amendments.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Canada pointed out that it had made several interventions during the week enquiring as to whether documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/5 were to be considered as negotiating texts or working documents. The Director General had said that the aim was to reissue document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 as a revised working document, side by side with the provision at the left and then the comments submitted by parties and accredited observers on the right side. The Delegation explained that it had not been said that the documents would be negotiating texts. The Delegation was uncomfortable with the word “amendment” and requested that it be changed to “suggestion”.
     

126. 
     The Chair specified that the exercise undertaken during the current session of the Committee was text-based negotiations. He stated that the General Assembly’s decision was to work on documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/5 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/11/8(a), among others, however during the session only three documents had been discussed. He stated that there had been concrete proposals which needed to be reflected, such as new drafting proposals and amendments.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of South Africa concurred with the interpretation of the Chair and supported the intervention of the Delegation of India.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Indonesia fully supported the statement made by the Chair that the Committee had embarked on text-based negotiations. The Decisions should be a factual reproduction of what had been discussed, and the word “amendment” should be retained.
     

126. 
     The Chair stressed the importance of clearly reflecting the positions of the delegations on the issues decided upon by the Committee.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of the United States of America proposed that instead of using the words “proposed amendments” that “proposed edits” be considered, in light of the Delegation’s understanding that documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/5 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/11/8(a) were a basis for the work of the Committee, not negotiating texts, and that the Committee was looking at all documents.
     

126. 
     The Chair opined that it was now inappropriate to refer to “comfort levels” but reference should be made to the strict terms of the mandate contained in the decision of the General Assembly, which was “text-based negotiations”. He reiterated that that was what had occurred on Items 7, 8 and 9, and that as regards documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/5 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/11/8(a) there had been amendments and suggestions.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Venezuela thanked the Chair for his efforts and said that the word amendment should appear as that was the agreed term.
     

126. 
     The Chair replied that the word amendment would be retained.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of the United States of America requested confirmation that the document on TK would be available in January 2010 and suggested that the deadline for submitting comments could be a little later than February 2010.
     

126. 
     The Committee decided to refer further consideration of this item to its next session.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Senegal asked if it was possible to swap the following Committee session for the Intersessional Working Group and proposed that the following Committee session take place in February and the Working Group on the dates initially scheduled for the Committee.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of South Africa suggested that the wording indicate that the Committee decided to conclude this item at its next session.
     

126. 
     The Chairman stated that sufficient time would be needed to prepare the documents in all languages for the next session and this affected the dates of the next session. The Secretariat had stated that it would set the dates for the session as soon as practically possible.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Senegal emphasized that its proposal was intended to bring forward a Committee session so as not to lose a Working Group session, following the recommendation of the Assemblies and to schedule that session once an agreement had been reached, if possible in the following Committee session, as regards questions of procedure on holding the meeting.
     

126. 
     The Chairman pointed out that there could not be a session of the IWG as there was no mandate. The next IGC would be organized as soon as possible but this depended on several logistical and practical matters. The report would include reference to the wish that the session be held as soon as possible. The Secretariat had said it could have the revised versions of the documents ready by end January 2010 and comments would be invited for a month thereafter. Then, time would be needed again to re-issue the documents in all the UN languages and delegations would then need time to discuss the revised documents at home. In the Chair’s view, the next session could perhaps be held in late April or thereabouts. The Secretariat would make all efforts to organize the session as soon as practically possible.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Egypt noted that, had the Committee come to an agreement on the modalities for holding the IWGs in February or March 2010, the Secretariat would have been required to revise documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/5 as well as WIPO/GRTKF/IC/11/8(a) in time for the IWGs. The Delegation proposed that the time slot allotted for the IWGs be used to hold the next session of the Committee at which it would set out to reach an agreement on the intersessionals, discuss further articles as had been done in the fifteenth session, and that the time allotted for the sixteenth session in May/June 2010 be used to hold the first IWG.
     

126. 
     The Chairman stated that although a time had been set aside for the first IWG, this session could no longer take place. Because the documents for the next IGC had first to be revised, then commented on and revised again, in all 6 languages, it would not be possible to hold the next IGC at exactly the same time as had been planned for the IWG. When dates for the first IWG session had been proposed, it was not expected that the three main documents would have to be revised twice and re-issued after comments before the first IWG. These documents will be needed, however, for the next IGC and it would be held as soon as practically possible.
     

126. 
     The Delegation of Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) supported the proposal made by the African Group and the Delegation of Egypt on holding the following Committee session as soon as possible so as to make progress on the work of the Committee and to determine the provisions relating to the meetings of the Intersesssional Working Group.
     

126. 
     The Chairman reiterated that the next session of the IGC would take place as soon as possible. If the next IGC were to take place in March 2010, delegations would have only the first revised versions of the main documents before them, whereas if the meeting were held later they could have the next versions available which also included the written comments expected to be made by delegations in the month of February 2010.