Dear Bram, dear Christoph
To give the companies the right to respond is a helpful tool – and we used with Berne Declaration/Public Eye many times – but not always.
I share the view of Christoph, that our critique on the companies are not central in the report. Much more we use database (The Wipo database for patent applications) to explain how the current patent system is functioning and what is wrong with it.
But as you will be in touch with the Dutch comapnies anyway, it could be interesting to see their answers and to see if it makes sense to include them in the report.
Would be good, if you could coordiante with Christoph the timing, so we do not lose this potential opportunity.
Best
François
Von: Christoph Then info@no-patents-on-seeds.org Gesendet: Freitag, 20. März 2020 15:22 An: Bram de Jonge Bram.de.Jonge@oxfamnovib.nl; francois.meienberg@prospecierara.ch; npos_2018@testbiotech.de Betreff: Re: ***SPAM***RE: [Npos_2018] the first (nearly) full draft of the report and tabled overview for media strategy
Dear Bram
thanks a lot. I will try to have a look onto your comments and come back as soon the report is nearly ready to go so you can circulate as needed.
Comments from companies and others are always welcome, however we are not primarily addressing the companies, but the political decision makers. We want to get our answers from the governments, accusing them to have taken 'wrong' decisions. This process - which does not need to be formalized (but strong public outreach) - will catch our whole attention and resources.
So please do not expect No Patents on Seeds to follow your example - at least not on the currently available resources.
have a nice weekend
Christoph
Am 20.03.20 um 12:56 schrieb Bram de Jonge:
Dear all,
Many thanks!
I also think this is a good basis. My main comment would be to try to clarify/simplify some of the info on the ‘EPO affairs’ for those readers that are less acquainted with the matter. This would mainly imply – in my view – to add some extra detail in the introduction, while having a very concise and simplified summary at the start. See some suggestions in the text attached (on top of Katherine’s comments).
Regarding the media strategy: We would like to do some media communication here in the Netherlands as well (and possibly broader, depending on the interest of other Oxfam affiliates), but we only see potential for media attention if we link it to the coming EBoA decision. Certainly in these times, there is little chance to get media attention for the publication of the report in/for itself. This does not mean we cannot publish beforehand, but here in the Netherlands we will only start referring to the report once we can include our response to the EBoA decision.
Doing so implies that we have to start the whole Oxfam circus again, meaning informing and getting sign-off throughout the federation. Since we now have an approved position paper on the topic this will not be too difficult, I hope. But it does imply one important aspect: the need to allow companies the ‘Opportunity to Comment’ on facts published about them. This is defined as: “providing the opportunity to a company to respond to certain statements about them ahead of publication. This implies sharing information ahead of the publication and giving them a chance to give an alternative explanation or reject our statement. Oxfam decides what to include of the reply in the final publication.” So, it is not the same as the ‘Right of Reply’, which generally means the right to defend oneself against public criticism in the same place where it was published. This right e.g. exist in Brazil.
I have included some more info from our internal guidelines below, including a draft email that can be send to the relevant company. For this (and future) NPOS reports, I expect that it is not necessary for Oxfam country offices to provide sign-off and the right to comment for every company mentioned in the report. Yet, for the Dutch companies (i.e Rijk Zwaan, Keygene and Nunhems) I will need to do so, and I certainly want to do so with Rijk Zwaan as we do have an existing relationship with that company, and because it could be very strong to have Rijk Zwaan responding in affirmative terms if we manage to get any media exposure.
However, I have been asked to check with you whether NPOS would be interested to start following the same principle. As described below, the Right to Comment is considered a valuable tool, both for building advocacy relations with a company and to reduce legal risks. It is also considered an advantage in any media campaigning to be able to show that we have had contact with the companies we criticize, even if no comments were received (what happens most often).
This is enough info for now I think. See below some additional explanation. I certainly do not want to hassle you with Oxfam bureaucracy but need to flag this from our side and hope it may be useful for you as well.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Kind regards,
Bram
1.Background: Why give the Opportunity to Comment
1.1 To support effective relationships with target companies: Engaging with companies before we publish facts about them is good practice because:•It builds credibility as an organisation, as we are perceived as professional and trusted •Where an existing engagement with the company exists, getting in touch with them before publication supports professional relationship building with the company. Where no such relations exist, it can open up channels to create an influencing dialogue •It provides us with additional information on the company, which we can use in the report or in reactive lines for media use.
1.2 To protect Oxfam against legal actions by companies: When Oxfam publishes facts and/or opinions which, taken separately or all together, directly or impliedly criticise a company, whether in our own publications or in coalition with others5, a company might respond with a legal claim for libel. Not every criticism provides grounds for such a claim, but a well-founded claim carriessignificant risks for Oxfam so early legal risk assessment working with the legal team before publication is important. Whilst companies will certainly consider the PR implications of taking legal action against an NGO, they can and do, sometimes as a SLAPP suit (strategic lawsuit against public participation) intended to use the cost of running a legal defence to silence critics. Where there is the risk of a libel claim, giving an opportunity to comment can be a necessary part of establishing our defenceto any such claim.
4.2 How to go about giving the Opportunity to Comment:
•The Opportunity to Comment process is organised by the home affiliate/country, and is done as part of affiliate/country sign off.
•The email sent to the company only needs to contain the parts in which the company is mentioned, you don’t need to send more unless considered necessary.
•Allow a company 7 working days to reply, and use one working day to address the comment of the company (8 working days total). Build in enough time in the publication timeline to do this.
•Once you receive the response from companies, if it contains relevant information or a rebuttal, include in the main text or in a footnote the answer from the company (unless you decide to delete the fact because you don’t think it is relevant or trustworthy).
•If no response is received (this happens often with companies that are fairly regressive and where we have not had engagement) we continue publication and no further action is needed.
4.3 Sample email to contact a company
Re: draft of new Oxfam publication mentioning your company
Dear Madam, Sir,
In the next few weeks [DATE], Oxfam will be publishing a new report on [XXX explain].Your company features in this report and we would appreciate your feedback on the final draft so as to take into account any factual mistakes you may identify or any new or additional information you may wish to share with us prior to publication.Attached you will find the relevant excerpts from the draft report. Please note this document is not public and does not yet represent Oxfam’s views. It is a draft for your internal use only.We kindly request that you get back to us by XXXat the latest. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to get back to me.
Yours sincerely,
Attachment: excerpts from paper
From: Npos_2018 mailto:npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de On Behalf Of francois.meienberg@prospecierara.ch mailto:francois.meienberg@prospecierara.ch Sent: Thursday, 19 March 2020 17:48 To: 'Christoph Then' mailto:christoph.then@scouting-biotechnology.de christoph.then@scouting-biotechnology.de; npos_2018@testbiotech.de mailto:npos_2018@testbiotech.de Subject: Re: [Npos_2018] the first (nearly) full draft of the report and tabled overview for media strategy
Dear christoph, dear all
I also believe that the report is a good basis for our upcoming work. Thanks a lot to everybody who has contributed.
Find attached my comments to the report.
Regarding the media strategy. We agreed in Switzerland, that we will only do one media communication – and this will be (directly) after the decision of the EBA. If the report is published on the NPOS already before (this would not be a problem) we would also put it on our Website the same time.
Hope this helps
Best wishes
François
Von: Npos_2018 <npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de mailto:npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de > Im Auftrag von Christoph Then Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. März 2020 13:01 An: npos_2018@testbiotech.de mailto:npos_2018@testbiotech.de Betreff: Re: [Npos_2018] the first (nearly) full draft of the report and tabled overview for media strategy
Thanks!
I think we should work straight forward with the report to have it ready when the Enlarged Board presents it decision. I think there is no need to publish the report before, but we can do so.
In any case, I still like the idea to work with selected examples if e.g. Arche Noah wants to work with.
let us collect more comments and suggestions on this.
Am 18.03.20 um 11:31 schrieb ARCHE NOAH Katherine Dolan:
Dear Christoph,
Please find attached my comments on the report. I think the report will be a great basis for our work this year - thank you (and to the research team).
I'm not clear on the timetable - when do you now intend to publish the report? In the current situation we can of course not reckon with any media attention, but if the plan is to do weekly releases, one idea might be to publish the report on 31st March, pointing to the impending decision in April. In my view it would be helpful to have the report out before the decision, so we can refer back to it, but also after the decision go into more detail on our political demands as appropriate.
Best, Katherine
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Npos_2018 [mailto:npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de] Im Auftrag von Christoph Then Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. März 2020 10:10 An: npos_2018@testbiotech.de mailto:npos_2018@testbiotech.de Betreff: [Npos_2018] the first (nearly) full draft of the report and tabled overview for media strategy
Dear all
please see first nearly full draft of the upcoming report. Please give feedback till end of the week. Please try to avoid to insert technical functions in the text which are not necessary, we will try to save the format as it is for final stage of editing.
Meanwhile we will try to run first translations of the examples into German and organise some visuals.
In addition, we consider to add a list of explanations on specific terms used in 'patent world', now marked in red.
Further, some passage marked in yellow, indicate some elements just added or still need to be added.
The summary will be accomplished as soon as we received your comments.
Arche might plan for media release on 24 March, using the cancellation of the Admin Council as a hook and the example for new patents on beer. We also would plan to send out media release for no patents on seeds on that day. I tried to make a tabled proposal for media work, also attached.
Cheers
Christoph
_______________________________________________ Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de mailto:Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://lists.testbiotech.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/npos_2018 https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.testbiotech.de%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnpos_2018&data=02%7C01%7CBram.de.Jonge%40oxfamnovib.nl%7C46d90b02f273418cbffb08d7cc254285%7Cc42c6655bda0417590bab6e48cacd561%7C0%7C0%7C637202332739104633&sdata=Ps31JEJq7okaZUZ8vW4cWrgHIpZF52FPzk%2FOh3dc%2FKE%3D&reserved=0