In case you are interested to follow what is going on at the United Nations: Despite its name, which unfortunately adds to the confusion around this area, the articles by the Intellectual Property Watch (IP-Watch) Team are a very useful resource to follow the proceedings in various fora.
The March issue of their “Monthly Reporter” covers both the WIPO Development Agenda talks and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
IP-Watch also — among others — quotes from my presentation at the IGF and an evaluation of the Development Agenda talks I gave for IP-Watch and quote here for your information:
The negotiations have moved forward in substance, but it is not clear that the United States have given up their blockade on issues of analysis and review at WIPO level. The cycle of any organisation includes planning (norm-setting), action (implementation), and analyis (impact review). WIPO is mainly concerned with the first two, but not the last, and thereby ends up with a lot of faith-based legislation about more monopolies always meaning more innovation and more intellectual wealth. The United States only focus on more effective implementation, and do not acknowledge that norm-setting and impact review also require improvement -- otherwise a more effective implementation will only mean more effective implementation of bad policy. This is a necessary effect of insisting to conduct studies only on a national level, which the United States have been doing with fervor. While national studies are necessary and useful, they are not sufficient. Review has to take place on the level of norm-setting and implementation to be effective. That is why it will be necessary for this process to address all three areas of activity if it is to come to the desired outcome of a WIPO that addresses the needs of all of humankind. Whether or not it will do so remains to be seen.
