Today, the more conflictive issues might get to be discussed. A list of all items has unofficially become available (pages 1 and 2). (I've had a few qualms about posting these - so much for the spirit of transparency at WIPO.) Before the start of the regular session at 10 am, there are closed group meetings by the EU, Group B (industrialised countries) and the African Group.

The EU, unsurprisingly enough, still has troubles arriving at a common position that is in any way substantial. As for likely outcomes of this meeting, it appears that the recommendation to the General Assembly in late September will be either to totally remodel the PCIPD (the solution favoured by rich countries) or a continuation of the IIM process, meaning three of four meetings like this one in 2006. The latter seems much more likely, as the only ones seriously opposed are the United States. (Yes, I know, this is not a dramatic turn.)

Just as I'm writing this, I'm handed the latest proposal by the United States. It must have taken them a full five minutes to write it up. It has all the air of a defiant child about it, as it is a reaction to the rather bold paper handed in by Brasil yesterday, where they basically suggest that the adoption of the Development Agenda should be recommended to the General Assembly.

The US paper is blatantly unimaginative: Hand to the General Assembly the reports of the three past IIMs (including this one), and the push the Development Agenda issue off into the PCIPD. Falling about three months behind the current state of the discussion, the core sentence is:

"The General Assembly reaffirms that the mandate of the PCIPD is sufficiently broad to consider fully the proposals made." The US paper also suggests that the frequency of PCIPD meetings should be raised from once every two years or so to two times a year.

If this dim-witted impertinence is to go anywhere other than the dustbin, it would surprise me.

Today at lunchtime - and instead of lunch for those participating - there will be a briefing by Public Interest Public Interest NGOs on the WIPO Development Agenda. Sponsored by the Civil Society Coalition, IP Justice and the Third World Network, the speakers will include Georg Greve of FSF Europe, Thiru Balasubramaniam of the CSC and the Consumer Project on Technology (cptech), Pedro M. Simonetti of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility - Peru, Ellen 't Hoen of Medicins sans Frontiers and Pedro Roffe of ICTSD. It'll be moderated by Robin Gross of IP Justice.

This should be fun: The most provocative of the hardcore industry sector NGOs are sure to come and ask pointed questions - which with these speakers, I am sure, will find pointed answers.

"The idea [of a Development Agenda for WIPO] is horrible, but luckily it's starting to fray", said one of the German delegates to the IIM. Not only does this not exactly make me proud of my country' s position on this; it is also simply wrong. As during the last IIMs, the Group of Friends of Development is holding firm.

The discussion has gotten quite substantive, with few surprises so far. This is probably due to the fact that it has begun with three points that are contested, but not overly conflictive: Amending the WIPO convention to include language on development; setting up an independent evaluation and research office (WERO); and increasing Civil Society participation.

The question about the WIPO convention is basically if there should be an explicit reference to WIPO's development mission. The Friends of Development are in favor of this, while many others are sceptical; they purport that the convention in its present form allows WIPO to do everything necessary for Development.

The question of an evaluation office involves money, so it is somewhat more contested. Most other UN bodies have some sort of internal audit, while "WIPO does not have an evaluation culture", as one delegate told me. So the question is not so much if there should be evaluation, but how.

The call for a wider participation of Civil Society has sparked statements valueing their input and advice, but there seems to be a consensus that they should not get any voting rights (which is hardly surprising, considering that WIPO is an intergovernmental body.

The EU is trying to find a common position, but it has not had excessive success in that matter. The statements they have made are not really decisive.

Tomorrow should be more interesting, when the harder issues come up. This might be such things as having principles and guidelines for technical assistance. As this will actually have an effect in the real world, the discussion is sure to heat up.

Now the meeting is being closed. Time to post this entry and then go for dinner and a beer.