[A quick TL;DR, for those who have heard the news: Is this about
censorship? Or Taiwan? Maybe in the larger context, but the point at WIPO
isn't who agrees with whom on these issues, but why anyone should think
they matter for the purposes of admission. Confused by this? I'll try to
explain.]
Hi everyone--
I wanted to update this list on something that happened in Geneva this
week. On Wednesday
<https://c.connectedviews.com/05/SitePlayer/wipo?session=109586>, the
delegation from China objected to the Wikimedia Foundation's application
for observer status
<https://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/observers/index.html> at the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (An eyewitness-level view from
our friends at KEI is here <https://www.keionline.org/33999>, press
coverage from Quartz here
<https://qz.com/1908836/china-blocks-wikimedia-from-un-agency-wipo-over-taiwan-dispute/>,
and ZDNet France here
<https://www.zdnet.fr/blogs/l-esprit-libre/la-chine-empeche-la-fondation-wikimedia-d-obtenir-un-statut-d-observateur-a-l-ompi-39910151.htm>)
Because of this, WMF will not be able to attend as an observer NGO until
our application can be considered again next year.
This is highly unusual for WIPO, frustrating for us at WMF, and an
unnecessary barrier for our communities and movement. WIPO is where the
world's countries gather to write the treaties that shape the laws that
govern the world's knowledge. If you've ever complained about DRM laws
being ubiquitous
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty#Protection_Granted_by_the_Treaty>,
you can blame lobbying that took place at WIPO; if you're glad for
recent laws that make it easier for blind and visually impaired people to
access books <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrakesh_VIP_Treaty>, you can
thank lobbying that took place at WIPO, too.
Those treaties are negotiated among country delegations that typically sit
in a big impressive room in Geneva. Meanwhile, hundreds of non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) representing publishers, broadcaster, record labels,
libraries, and civil society organizations sit at the back of the room,
observing the negotiations as they happen and, in between official
sessions, those groups hold side briefings, pass out position papers and
white papers, and try to make sure that the negotiators don't forget about
their particular interests.
We wanted to make sure that the Foundation could be a part of those
conversations, as a way to bring more members of the community to WIPO, and
make sure that our movement's interests don't get left behind. On
Wednesday, though, the delegation from China asked that the Wikimedia
Foundation's application be set aside from all of the others, vaguely
mentioning they had some questions about the application itself, but more
pointedly noting the existence of Wikimedia Taiwan. China is particularly
sensitive about Taiwan, and insists in many forums that people adhere to a
"one China" policy.
It's tempting here to discuss the merits of that kind of policy, or to
raise the issues of Chinese censorship or other human rights issues. But I
think that that's missing the point that's most relevant within WIPO--which
is whether we deserve a seat at the table. (The *observer's* table, even.)
The criteria for being an observer don't hinge on the geopolitical
positions the organizations take; a large number of the 193 member states
of WIPO have been roundly criticized by many of the civil society,
academic, and even industry groups that observe there. Observer groups have
their own opinions, and their members or associated allies do, too. Groups
representing actors or recording artists aren't barred from observer status
even when some of their members are explicitly vocal on geopolitical
issues. Nor is the existence of a Taiwan chapter some sort of outlier. Many
of the other observer organizations have members or businesses in Taiwan.
All of that is to say that it's disappointing that we'd be blocked for
reasons completely unrelated to our application, and for reasons that seem
plainly inconsistent with the standards by which other organizations have
been routinely admitted for years.
So what are we doing now? The Foundation has issued a press release
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2020/09/24/china-blocks-wikimedia-foundations-accreditation/>
on the matter, and we've been seeing messages of support from other
globally-focused groups working on IP (Creative Commons
<https://creativecommons.org/2020/09/25/in-support-of-the-wikimedia-foundation-wipo-application/>,
Communia
<https://www.communia-association.org/2020/09/25/blocking-wikimedia-becoming-wipo-observer-unacceptable/>,
Alek Tarkowski <https://twitter.com/atarkowski/status/1309416601301598209> at
Centrum Cyfrowe, Sean Flynn
<https://twitter.com/Sean_Fiil_Flynn/status/1309126606196178945> at PIJIP,
and others, to start). Wikimedia Deutschland has its own statement
<https://www.wikimedia.de/presse/china-blockiert-antrag-der-wikimedia-foundation-auf-beobachterstatus-bei-der-weltorganisation-fuer-geistiges-eigentum/>
(Justus at WMDE has been tracking WIPO and was following this meeting
closely), and Wikimedia Taiwan covered the events in an update
<https://www.facebook.com/wikimedia.tw/posts/3193465514023069> on its
Facebook page. In the meantime, we're continuing to work on unblocking this
process for the next go-round next year.
Thanks everyone, and hope you're doing well.
Sherwin
--
Sherwin Siy (he/him)
Lead Public Policy Manager
Wikimedia Foundation