Read bellow the "five part series on the World Intellectual Property Organization Leadership Race" developed by IQsensato, an independent, international not-for-profit development research and policy think tank.

A Five Part Series on the WIPO Leadership Race

In the next few weeks, IQsensato will run a five part series on the race to succeed Kamil Idris as the Director General (DG) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The aim of this series is to examine what the candidates for the post offer in terms of intellect, management and political acumen, and to highlight other considerations that could shape the outcome of this important race for the knowledge governance and IP community as well as the broader global community. In this first part of the series, we review the candidates’ field in the context of the type of leadership WIPO needs/deserves. In subsequent parts, we will examine: What it means to learn from the Idris Era while avoiding to be held hostage by his legacy; The North-South Question; The Insider-Outsider Dichotomy and whether such dichotomy has any relevance; and the influence that non-governmental stakeholders can bring to bear on the process and hold governments responsible for the leader they choose.

Part I: A Review of the Candidates Field

The race for the election of the next DG of WIPO looks wide open. At the close of the deadline for receipt of proposals for candidates for the post on 13th February 2008, 15 names; one woman and 14 men, had been put forward by WIPO Member States. The WIPO Coordination Committee, which is charged with the responsibility for nominating a candidate for approval by the WIPO General Assembly, is to meet in an extra-ordinary session on 13 and 14 May 2008 to make the nomination. The campaign is now on.

In making their choice, WIPO Members need to address their minds to a number of issues to ensure that the ultimate winner is the right person to lead the organisation into the 21st Century. It is worth remembering that whoever gets elected will lead the organisation for between 6 and 12 years that is, until around 2020. If the wrong choice is made it will be a heavy burden for the organisation. It is also important to remember that sometimes the adage that people get the leaders they deserve comes true. In this context, it should not be lost to the Member States and observers that Kamil Idris was re-elected unanimously by WIPO member States a few years ago.

In order to determine whether the Member States made the right choice, the first question that ought to be asked is: What choice do they have? What does the candidates’ field offer? A preliminary matter, however, before examining this question is to determine what kind of leader WIPO needs/deserves today.

What Leadership does WIPO Need/Deserve?

WIPO’s overall responsibility, as a specialised agency of the United Nations, is to take “appropriate action in accordance with its basic instrument, treaties and agreements administered by it, to promote creative intellectual activity and for facilitating transfer of technology related to industrial property to developing countries in order to accelerate economic, social and cultural development” (as per Art. 1 of the 1974 Agreement between the UN and WIPO). WIPO can therefore be thought of as an organisation charged with coordinating international cooperation to facilitate creativity and innovation, and elaborating measures to ensure that the power of knowledge (technology) is transformed into real outcomes, especially for people in developing countries. Of course, for a long time, WIPO has not lived up to this responsibility for various reasons which we do not have space to go into here. WIPO’s responsibility seen in this context is important for the global community as the effects of WIPO policies and treaties are felt (knowingly or unknowingly) by everyone and affect everything from access to health products and services through to matters related to internet governance.

As already noted, whoever gets elected as WIPO’s next DG could be in charge until the year 2020. That is a long-time, longer than the constitutional limits for Presidents in most democracies. The world of IP, leave alone the knowledge economy, is likely to change drastically during this period. The next DG of WIPO should therefore be a leader prepared to shepherd the organisation to face up to the internal and external challenges of today and to a complex future.

The type of leader that WIPO needs/deserves will therefore be a DG who can get the organisation out of its current problems while being able to keep the organisation relevant for the wide range of stakeholders going forward. The new WIPO DG will be taking over an organisation in which not only the Member States have experienced bitter division but also one in which the staff is divided, demoralised and/or uninspired. In this context, WIPO will need a tough-minded, visionary and politically astute leader who can appreciate the needs of different stakeholders, but who is willing to push change against the protests of the corrupt and incompetent or other vested interests in and outside of WIPO. The ability to engage intellectually with substantive issues, tested managerial competence at a global level as well as political maturity will therefore be important attributes.

The Candidates’ Field: What is on Offer?

The field of candidates for the WIPO DG’s post offers interesting choices. Looking at the CVs of the candidates on the WIPO website; it is difficult to say that the Member States will be spoilt for choice. Nonetheless, depending on what one considers important, this might turn out to be a competitive race. The candidates’ field can be looked at from various angles. Three possible angles are: (1) the academic and professional backgrounds of the candidates; (2) the publication record of the candidates as a proxy for their level of intellectual engagement with current knowledge governance and IP-related issues; and (3) regional and gender diversity.

Academic backgrounds and professional experience

In general, it is fair to say that the WIPO Member States have a well educated pack to choose from. Seven (7) of the candidates hold PhDs. The other candidates, except two, hold at least two degrees. A number of the candidates also have lectured/taught at universities.

With respect to professional experience, the field can be narrowed down into two categories: IP professionals, who include the candidates from inside WIPO and those coming from national patent offices, on the one hand, and diplomats, mainly current or former Ambassadors, on the other. In the former category are nine (9) candidates namely: Aranha; Otieno-Odek; Takagi; Petit; Simonov; Amigo; Gurry; Adamczack; and Pretnar. In the latter category are six (6) candidates, namely: Manalo; Panting; Ali; Masi; Khan; and Filipov.

The academic and professional experience of the candidates show that the next DG of WIPO will be a lawyer, an economist or a scientist (engineer) whose claim to the post is backed by their experience either in IP administration or in diplomacy. There is no hope for bringing in leadership from the private sector, academia or the non-governmental sector. In this regard, there is a valid question, considering the predominance of heads of IP agencies and ambassadors, whether in fact this is the best group of candidates we could get. There is a real possibility that within many of the nominating countries the best candidates were not necessarily the ones put forward. Privileged access to the nominating authorities and perceptions of the expertise and experience needed at WIPO may have locked out better candidates.

Publication record on knowledge governance and IP

The publication record of the candidates ranges from impressive to dismal. In general, the candidates with PhDs, as expected, tend to be well published. Noticeably, the career diplomats have more limited publication record either on general international policy issues or with respect to knowledge governance and IP issues in particular. This means that, except in one or two cases, it will be much more difficult to discern the intellectual leanings of the candidates coming from the diplomatic community and their capacity to engage with the current challenges in this field.

What differentiates the candidates who have a good publication record is their level of engagement with global knowledge governance and IP issues, especially current issues relating to innovation, technology and IP management. While most of the candidates from the national IP offices have written on IP issues, their writings have tended to focus on national problems. Significant intellectual engagement with global issues and challenges is limited within the field. Only a couple of candidates stand out as having strong publication records on current global issues and challenges relating to knowledge governance and IP.

Regional and gender diversity

The candidates come from all corners of the world and from all WIPO regional groups except China. This offers some open choice unlike in other organisations like UNCTAD where regional rotation locks out deserving candidates on the basis of the region they come from.

In terms of gender diversity the opposite is true. There is only one woman among the 15 candidates. This is partly the failure of the Coordination Committee and the WIPO Membership generally. At the very least, the Note Verbale that was sent out to Member States asking for nomination should have urged them to consider gender in their nominations and give deserving female candidates a chance.