It is the view of KEI that separate instruments for traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions are more manageable, as the issues raised are significantly different, as are the nature of the rights and/or measures.
And even then, narrower instruments within TK or TCEs might have more promise.
The IP regimes in the TRIPS were the product of the evolution of many different agreements. For copyright and related rights, and for trademarks, there have been many different instruments, some building on each other, some focusing on special issues. Within TK or TCE, one can imagine some narrower topics that could be the subject of norm setting proposals.
Bundling everything together can present so many loose ends and unanswered questions that progress is delayed or blocked on everything,
I understand the appeal of a broad instrument, but negotiators may want to at least have a discussion on an unbundling approach, within the TK and TCE topics, to see if there are areas where consensus seems more feasible in this forum.
I note that the first our staff attended these negotiations was IGC2.
Regarding the choice of hard or soft instruments, it may be useful to have a report of the national and cross border implementation of the 1976 WIPO/UNESCO model law for copyright provisions on traditional cultural expressions, as well as the experience of other earlier WIPO model laws, to understand the practical impact of a WIPO soft norm.