WIPO 2nd Special Session Day 2 – Summary of Notes

I arrived at WIPO yesterday for Day 1 which started at 12pm. The delegates and NGOs went for lunch at 1pm and the meeting started again in the afternoon. I’m not sure it was because of jetlag but the meeting did not make much sense. The Chair was re-elected (of course) and he just talked, talked and talked.

Day 2

This morning the international governmental organizations then the NGO made statements. You probably read most of them on the a2k list by now and I will not repeat them. Ben Ivins (or “The broadcasters”) repeated again that they have been working on this treaty since 1997 and they were thus entitled to have protection (with rights, there’s no other way as far as they’re concerned). And now. The rights holders want to make sure there’s no overlap with their rights, the IT Cies representatives expressed their concerned regarding impact on innovation…well, you know what was said. NGOs are not “negotiating” and thus can keep their positions… consistent. At the end, except for broadcasters, we’re all supporting signal-based approach (and a narrow treaty).

The afternoon session started at 4:11pm. A lot of talk in the meeting room but no chair (Liedes is absent today and his vice chair was no where to be seen).

Anyway, here are my summary of the afternoon and my take on it.


Vice chair acting as Chair: Before discussion on substantial matters, I asked del to do general statements first

floor is open.

US: congratulations. This is an important phase of meeting, your skill important.
The US appreciates efforts to implement the GA mandate [i.e signal based aproach NOT rights approach]
The non-paper is a good basis for discussion but much work to be done for a diplomatic conference on the current proposal. The document 15/2 must be narrowed. As we stated in the past, we do not support moving forward with such instable document.

This would undermine the work. We have to discuss the objectives, scope and object if we’re to proceed.
And the provisions on competition, public interest and cultural diversity etc undermine protection under treaty in 15/2

Unless we can satisfy that..we cannot support to proceed to dipomatic conference.
It is fundamental to protect broadcast organizations against retranmission on the internet and simulcasting on the internet without their permission.

Again, we reiter our position on the technological protection measures. If there’s a provision on TPM, we believe it should mimic the provisions in the WCT and the WPT. We also concern with rights. They should in no way negate contract with content holders.

We have scaled back our ambition, we have withdraw our proposal for webcasting and hope member states can show flexibilitties. At the same time, if it interfers with content or give rights that are greater in scope that are unacceptable on a signal based approach so we cannot proceed to dip conf.

Mexico: we believe WIPO has done a great deal of work to culminate in dip conf. we are concerned about opposition in some countries without consideration for what we’ve done. we are quite openly in favor of what weve done and do not want to start froms scratch. in addition we had the opportunity to listen to private sector.

We support signal approach
we’re looking for access to knowledge.

we’re looking for productive session.

We’ ve discussed update of Rome for a decade. the point is to agree and finalize signal approach. discussing exclusive rights is of course within the mandate of the meeting.
we hae to reach consensus and then move forward to dip conf.

European Communities
We have short comment on the new non paper [April 20]

We believe it is a good idea and a good approach if we take the non paper and discussed article by article and then discussed how signal approach would be implemented. How do we translate this signal based approach. Look at paragraph 2 and 7 and how can we make them in line with signal based approach
We have to think in termes of harmonization of effective remedies against piracy
and as we are approach the treaty as such, we believe some rights need to be granted so they can operate in different jurisdictions. We need a basis for remedies, injunction relief.
We should now try to reconcile this without losing site that casters need remedies based on rights.
one friendly reminder to distinguished representative of Brazil, it is our belief to start with operative text, and then preamble for simple reason that preamble is the context of treaty.

Would respond to appeal made to me by Eu commission
we have flexibilities in the order

however, [provisions that were put in the preamble re cultural diversity, competition and balanc with the public interest] should be in operative text
as they are essential and part of the body and not an element of the preamble.

4:40 coffee break

5:13 back in plenary

Chair: given that the treaty will be signal based…we have to start from the very beginning. So we should start by preamble or also the title of the treaty.

Brazil: No comment on the title but signal-based could have made it to the title if you were serious.. we’ll propose new language on issues dealt in para 4 5 and 6 so we’ll not discuss them at this moment.


Maybe I did not understand Brazil.Iin any case he’s proposing to defer dicussion of the preamble and I could agree to that but he said he will propose text to make para 4 5 and 6 part of the treaty and we want to hear from other delegations about that.

India: we would like to suggest that in para 1 and 4 the word rights be deleted and replace by broadcast signal since this is not about to provide positive right. Thisis necessary.

US: like switzerland we’ re flexible about addressing the preambe later but have concerns if such language is placed in operative part of the text. a2k, public interest , we are concerned about the impact on future copyright treaties.

Iran: The para 4 in preamble is important because we have to preserve balance between public and casters. Suggest replace by alt RR of art 3 of 15/2

Chair: Can you repeat?

Iran: para 4, replace alt rr of 15/2

Chair: i would like to confirm that 15/2 rev 15/2 or 15/2

WIPO Secretariat: it does not make any difference. 15/2 and 15/2 rev are same about that.

Senegal: [in French] We want to express lack of understanding for statement by Brazil, the preamble was made as a package and he wants to take some para and want to make language. It would be important to have an outline of preamble and only when we have that we can have an idea of the preamble.

Egypt: some technical aspects: if we’re thinking how suitable the treaty title is with new approach recommended by GA then we should have signal based approach, it should be protection regarding their signal. they have different types of rights and the treaty is to protect one of their rights, it is right to protect their signal.

Same in para 4 recog the need to protect the right in their signal
in para 7: 2 criteria

first is right of the holder of the copyright and the second one is not a person but an organization.it is legally inconsistent here. protection of organization.

South Africa: congrats. Re the preamble, it is important to define the trajectory of our discussion. we have to get it right, it defines the architecture. many have spoken but I would lend my voice to Brazil and India…
first, we’re looking at protecting against theft or piracy. it cannot be a treaty to prvide exclusive rights which is granted somewhere else.
to be consistent with signal based, we have to qualify rights of broacasting org we have to say (every time) “rights in their signal”.
second, we still have reservation about definition of broadcasting org. over their signal
Brazil mentioned paras 2 3 and 4, a2k, anti competitive and we’re were equally amazed that they are in preamble and believe they should be in operative text. we cannot support any preamble that contain these that should be in text

we’re trying to understand “restrict trade” need clarification. in our own legislation.

really the issue is: delete rights and replace and add in respect to their signal in par 4 and 7


First observation. Like other delegation we want that good title be given to this treaty. Amend to broacast signal.
Re the preamble, our opinion is that it s a very good preamble. Ee want it to include balance and access to knowledge and protect against anti competitive.

But it si not necessary to include in substantive text provisions the protection of access and competition.

Switzerland: we’re all talking about the preamble. we propose that para 4 be changed, we like the WPPT para 4
And ,delete 5 and 6 like the US because it could impact in interpetation of the treaty and other treaties like the wct and wppt.
we’re trying to build a consensus for basic proposal for a dip conf so reasonnnably flexible on the preamble if other del flex on operative that are completely in our views now, inadequate.

Algeria: Notre groupe est tres diverse. pas en tant que rep du group africain. pour le preamble 2 observations sur para 4 le group africain la necessite pour l’aces au savoir, education, ,..sont ls des elements cruciaux et il est important dans le text mais les commentaires varient.
Para 7 tres important, petite modification alinea 2, en fr (de au lieu d’un)

nos discssions continuent et on vous communiquera les positions commnunes

Pakistan: the mandate and the scope are based on very clear understanding. the scope of this meeting is very clear. balance between rights and the needs. In para 4 of the preamble…it talks about acess to knowledge and it is important and should be moved to operative paragraphs

El Salvador:
no objection on the wording. for us no problem maybe better in the text but flexible.

Colombia: We’d like to make a proposal. the document of April 20 is quite distant fro m15/2 and preamble in 15/2 is better

for several reasons:
there are many countries that have accessed the internet treaty. they have balanced. the most obvious proof it is in our favor it that the treaties have been accepted. this one should be like the 96 treaties, the one in front of us has problem with cultural diversity. not in 96. the obligation for bacaster to provide for cultural diversity. it will not come from signal treaty. it would be under other obligations. most of our countries have obligaitons to maintain local music and foreign music. Names of performers for example, when it comes to cultural diversit there’s no link to protection, and cometition has nothing to do with IP
our legislation does not stipulate competition and authority should have their own auhtority with competition practices. it would be a bad precedent,
give serious consideration to avoid bog down and use 96 preamble.

error in Spanish. “uniforma” not in US and FR so delete

like colombia, we think it is overloaded. when we tried to improve the performers rights.
this is a good basis for our work but need adaptation.
include 2 para, the preamble is a preamble, to inform about justification of the text. para 5 and 7: para 7 right after para 1 to give more authority
for my del para 6. we need to be consistent and we should delete para 6.

[6pm] Ghana has asked for the floor. but we stop now and it will be first tomorrow. Before finishing, gratitude, absence of the chair, thanks for del support and understandning and secretariat for its cooperation, now group would like to make announcement.

on my list in addtion to Ghana we have: Poland

African group tomorrow at 9am in this room.

Poland central and baltic, 9:30 first floor

Germany: EU coodination 9 in room B

Barbed: grulac at 9:30 in room 1.27

END of session

Some people think the treaty is doomed, others think it is going well and all is going according to plan.

My take? Well, I’ve seen more brackets in draft that led to a diplomatic conference, so I will try to find a place to have Thanksgiving in Geneva.