We also reached out to WIPO on a number of occasions to ask for comment but were always met with the same response: “No”. We did cover the OIOS findings and the decision to drop the investigation. Gurry does not identify any specific titles in the interview, but it would be interesting to know who he has in mind. I don’t think we have fully come to terms with this,” Gurry concluded. Anyone can put anything out there, and I see that as one of our biggest problems.
“We all know that one of the fundamental problems is ‘fake news’ and the integrity of information. However, he says: “There was very little reporting on the conclusions.” He continued: “You have certain people running around saying this, that and the other, but what’s the responsibility of someone who makes the accusation and which results in a six or 12 months process from which there is nothing found?” (Note that in the original MIP report Gurry is also quoted as referring to “certain lunatics” after “certain people”, though that has now been dropped). In the piece, Gurry says that media that covered the initial allegations made against him were also obliged to report the findings that led to the investigation of him being dropped. It follows an interview given by Gurry to Managing Intellectual Property headlined: “WIPO’s Gurry hits out at ‘fake news’”.
So, why bring it all up again nearly four years after the story was put to bed? Throughout the two-and a-bit years between the original Pooley Report of Misconduct and the decision to drop the investigation, IAM regularly covered what was, by any standards, a sensational story one that no serious title covering IP could ignore. Regarding Pooley’s second accusation, the report found that: “Mr Gurry had directly influenced procurement processes so as to facilitate the award of the contract.” But, it continued: “There was no evidence that Mr Gurry directly or indirectly gained any financial or personal benefit from the procurement processes.” However: “In disregarding the financial weight of the predetermined evaluation criteria, Mr Gurry acted in non-compliance of WIPO’s Procurement Instructions.” However, it also made clear that the Swiss authorities, which would have had the relevant information about the DNA samples and how they were acquired, refused all requests to co-operate and provided no information whatsoever. This followed a report from the UN’s Organisation of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) which found that: “Although there are strong indications that Mr Gurry had a direct interest in the outcome of the DNA analysis, there is no evidence that he was involved in the taking of the DNA samples.” Furthermore: “There is no evidence that Mr Gurry attempted to suppress an investigation into the taking of DNA samples.” Just over two years later, WIPO member states endorsed a decision taken by the organisation’s Coordination Committee to drop any further investigation of the allegations Pooley made. So began the Report of Misconduct about World Intellectual Property Organisation Director General Francis Gurry, written by then WIPO Deputy Director James Pooley on 2 nd April 2014 and sent to the Chairs of the General Assemblies and Coordination Committee of the organisation. Specifically, l draw your attention to (1) the taking of DNA from senior WIPO staff members without their knowledge or consent, in violation of fundamental human rights, as well as efforts to suppress evidence and investigation of the incident and (2) evidence of the corruption of a recent procurement that was redirected and awarded to an Australian company led by an acquaintance of Mr Gurry, even though that company had not been selected in the competitive process. I write to report what l believe is serious misconduct by WlPO’s Director General, Francis Gurry.
0 kommentar(er)
