Re: Who really benefits from 60-day period?

[Albert Tramposch <0002082489@mcimail.com>]

Gary Morrell wrote:
>I've been reading this list diligently since the draft came out.  Noone from
>the IAHC has ever admitted that there is anything wrong with the draft.
>Every post from the IAHC is in defense of the draft.

This is in the nature of dialogue.  The job of the IAHC was to come to a
consensus within the committee by December 19.  That this happened was a minor
miracle in itself, considering the diversity of opinion.  The draft changed
fluidly up to that time, as you can imagine.  However, once the IAHC reached its
own consensus, the task changed.  We offered a 5 week comment period (fairly
generous by Internet time), in which the public could comment on the draft, and
IAHC could defend its reasons for coming to the consensus.

The IAHC reached a consensus on the *draft*;  not necessarily on each point
within the draft.  We are defending that consensus (arrived at through difficult
discussions and compromise), not each point.  If we appear to be defending a
particular point without seeming flexible, it is because every point in the
draft is an important part of the consensus, and if one point is changed the
consensus as a whole must be reevaluated.  It would not be appropriate for IAHC
to do that in public, any more than the original consensus was arrived at
through public discussions (it could not have been, I tell you).

My job at WIPO includes involvement in many international negotiations.
The goal of each negotiation is not complete agreement on every point, but a
balanced package that each negotiator can accept, because they get some things,
give some things, and agree to include somethings that they do not object to or
do not care about.  A successful negotiation usually leaves everybody a little
unhappy.


>We've been told that
>there is no interim draft forthcoming. It seems that this "public comment
>period" is nothing more than a period of time in which the IAHC must defend
>it's draft. If that's the case, just say so. If I'm mistaken, I appologize.

The public comment period is just that, an opportunity for public comments.
Many other public comment periods involve *no* feedback from the drafting body.
You have a lot.  The fact that the public has the opportunity to respond to our
responses gives you much more influence on our position than you would have
otherwise.

What this -discuss list is *not* is a re-opening of the work of the committee to
reevaluate its own consensus.  That work will take place within the committee
itself.  It is not appropriate, or acceptable, for one person on the committee
to change his or her position on iahc-discuss, without first having the
consensus of the rest of the committee.  I consider that the members of the
committee have been admirably diligent in this, which is critical to the success
of the process.


>If I'm mistaken, please list what parts of the draft have any chance of
>changing.

No one yet knows, not even the members of the committee.  Our task is to monitor
the public comments, then to discuss how the draft should be modified in
response.  The committee has not yet polled itself on where there is a consensus
for changing the draft.  This does not yet mean that this will not happen.  But
we will follow the process used, successfully, in connection with the Dec. 19
draft.

You can rest assured that the parts of the draft that have been discussed in
detail on this list will all be considered within the committee.

>This is not a personal attack. It just seems that there is a misconception
>between the public and the IAHC over the purpose of this period of time
>between submission of the draft and the finalization of the draft.

I hope the misconception has been corrected.

I can tell you, from my point of view (and mine only), a little bit about what
may sway me, as one member of the committee, and what will not.

What may sway me are reasoned arguments, held by a significant number of
commenters on the list, which make sense to me.

What will *not* sway me are:  vulgarity;  personal attacks;  anger or
sarcasm;  criticisms of the committee itself or of any of its members;
childlike tantrums;  arguments that are clearly based only on personal
self-interest;  threats of suit;  death threats;  threats of ignominy.


>It also
>seems that there is a degree of doubt and confusion as to whether our
>comments have any chance of affecting the final draft.

They do.  I have not read over 4000 postings for my, my family's, or my
employer's health.  I am sure that the other members of IAHC feel the same way.


Albert Tramposch
WIPO
IAHC member, speaking very much on my own behalf