Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal

[Mark R Measday <measday@ibm.net>]

Jonathan,

Is it possible to ask that organizational affiliation be inserted into
these emails? The weight of a measured argument is the greater for being
supported by, say, INTA or ICC,  and the less for being an individual
voice of someone who just happens to work for such an organization.

I believe the same question has been asked of Dr Carrington and Jonathan
Cohen in wg-b, for the same reasons.

I note, for completeness sake, in applying these terms to myself, that
although I speak for Josmarian and its clients in the OECD countries and
Africa, I do not currently speak directly or indirectly for IBM, the UN,
WIPO, ITU, EuroISPA or any government, bar one. Any coincidence of
opinion is exactly that, coincidental, even if we say it first. My
personal background has both for-profit and not-for-profit elements in
it.

On a separate topic, I'd be interested to hear the views of anyone in
the constituency who was involved in the Uruguay Round, or the
negotiation between WIPO and WTO, conceding WIPO's titular control over
TRIPs etc to WTO.

The point being that the relation between WIPO and other international
bodies has changed in WIPO's disfavour. When someone can demonstrate
that the government of the Isle of Man (to give an entirely spurious
example) cannot invoke its absence from GAC as a reason to bring up
TRIPs and bring the whole thing under WTO control as part of the trade
package (largely unsigned if I recollect well) to renegotiate for the
next fifty years (the time it took for the GATT/WTO transition), then we
can start taking these working groups seriously.

I know these statements are not welcome, and I hope someone can
contradict the last paragraphs forcefully,

MM