The following draft conclusions were distributed during the morning session (18 December 2013) of Wednesday’s SCCR. There will be changes before they are approved.
CONCLUSIONS ON THE PROTECTION OF BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS
1. The Committee considered the working document SCCR/24/10 Corr., as well as the proposal submitted by the government of Japan, document SCCR/26/6. In addition, the Committee took note of the working document containing the proposal from the government of India.
2. It was agreed that traditional broadcasting organizations and cablecasting organizations will be the beneficiaries of the protections provided by the proposed Treaty, subject to clarification of the inclusion of cablecasting organizations in the definition of broadcasting organizations in national laws and the effect of that inclusion on the scope of protection.
3. It was agreed that broadcasting and cablecasting are included in the scope of protection of the proposed Treaty, without prejudice to clarification of the inclusion of cablecasting organizations in the definition of broadcasting organizations in national laws and the effect of that inclusion on the scope of protection.
4. Discussions took place on the inclusion in the scope of protection of transmissions over the Internet, with the common understanding that such transmissions, if they are to be included, would be limited to those transmissions originating from traditional broadcasters and cablecasters.
5. Discussions took place on transmission over the Internet of simultaneous and unchanged transmissions of broadcasts, and it was agreed that if transmissions over the Internet, originating from traditional broadcasters and cablecasters are included in the scope of protection of the proposed Treaty, then at least such simultaneous and unchanged transmissions of broadcasts should be included.
6. It was also agreed that further discussions will take place in relation to the possible inclusions in the scope of protection of the proposed Treaty of transmissions over the Internet, when originating from traditional broadcasters and cablecasters, of original broadcasts, on-demand transmission of broadcasts, or deferred and unchanged transmissions of broadcasts.
7. Discussions took place on the protection to be granted to broadcasting and cablecasting organizations and delegations exchanged views on various approaches, which will be further examined at the next session of the Committee.
8. Discussions took place on the definitions that need to be included in the proposed Treaty. Delegations exchanged views and the definitions will be further examined at the next sessions of the Committee.
9. The proposals discussed during the session will be included in an Annex to document SCCR/24/10/ Corr.
What follows is the WIPO stream text transcription of the morning’s discussions; the Chair of SCCR 26 is Martin Moscoso (Peru).
The Delegation of Belarus has the floor.
>> BELARUS: Thank you very much, chairman. Chairman, on behalf of the regional group we would like to express support for the document before us. In our view this document gives a detailed and objective reflection of the course of our discussion and work over the last two days. We think it is factually prepared and are prepared to support it. We understand that other groups may make their proposals to this document, and we’re prepared to consider and assess that. We would like to call upon everybody to work on this document for mutual reflection of the course of our discussion and we must refrain from turning our discussion today into a further long discussion on what’s already been said. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the Delegation of Belarus for their comments. I give the floor to Poland.
>> POLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to everybody. On behalf of the group I would like to say thank you to you and the Secretariat for providing us with draft conclusions of this paragraph. We would like to extend our support to the text. The issue we would like to raise is to have some minor changes in terms of throughout the text so instead of having the wording “adribble broadcasting organizations and cablecasting organizations we would like to suggest to have it instead of traditional the wording would be broadcasting organization and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense.
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate from Poland for his comments.
Would any other regional coordinators like to take the floor before we move to country contributions?
I give the floor to the Distinguished Delegate of Algeria.
>> ALGERIA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning to all of you. I would like to begin by thanking you and the Secretariat for having prepared the draft conclusions on the protection of broadcasting organizations. The African Group looked at the proposal and made the following comments: First, the conclusions do somewhat change the practice of the other committees of WIPO by getting into such a degree of detail. We shared this with all of the African members that felt that by going so deeply into detail that this could be of concern to some Delegations and then the use of the term “it has been agreed” certain members of the African Group emphasize that in fact no agreement had actually been found on the issues included. Rather it was a general understanding of certain issues. Some concerns were expressed by certain members of the African Group over the term “it has been agreed.”
The third comment concerns the final paragraph which speaks of an annex to the basic document and to there some Delegations emphasized that they could not at this point support the inclusion of a proposal in an annex because they would need additional time to study the proposals and to report back to their capitals and receive instructions so the African Group would prefer that the proposals appear in the report like any other statement or proposal and not the annexed to the basic document.
That said and taking into consideration your explanations on the fact that other Regional Groups do agree with the formats of the conclusions as they now appear I think that my group could be flexible and continue working on the basis of this document. We would take note that this level of detail is to prevent future discussions from wasting time by going back over ground that’s already been covered. In this sense I think the African Group could share that understanding, that is that it would be a shame to always go back over the same ground. Even if we can agree on in continuing in this manner we would need at some point to change some of the language, for example, it has been agreed or other comments which I would be able to send to the Secretariat by e-mail so as to go through the conclusions again with some detail on precision.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate from Algeria and the African Group for giving us their views on the conclusions and for their contributions in the form of suggestions so that the document will actually reflect what took place in the meeting. I thank them as well for mentioning the usual procedure of working, and here I would like to say that in this case the style that’s been used that’s going into more detail will be continued throughout the session. We await with pleasure your suggestions and contributions for the purpose of improving the document and we thank you, we thank the African Group for their flexibility. Trinidad and Tobago, please.
>> TRINIDAD and TOBAGO: I was consulting with Delegates. My apologies. Chair, once again, we wish to thank you for your draft conclusions, you and the Secretariat on this particular topic of which we’re discussing. It was just one particular question I would have liked to ask, is we already gave our comprehensive statement this morning with respect to our views on the conclusions so I was wondering if the Chair, if you wished or so desired for me to repeat the views in this forum? It is in your hands and, of course, I look forward to items on this. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the Delegate from Trinidad and Tobago. It is not necessary to go in detail into each of the specific words and contributions that the Distinguished Delegate of Trinidad and Tobago suggested today in the coordination on behalf of GRULAC. However, if you could in a general sense go over the topics to which these contributions belong we can take note of these general considerations as you feel is necessary as to avoid a repetition of what we went over this morning but to give general information to the plenary. Thank you.
>> TRINIDAD and TOBAGO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will go in the general comments that the GULAK had seeing that we discussed this in the group meeting this morning, coordinators in terms of transparency I would seek some — I would just reiterate some of the issues which were of importance to GRULAC. First, with respect to item one we would have liked to have seen discussions with respect with the U.S. proposal, the U.S. proposal which is not in the formatted of a working document. We would have liked to see that included, that is U.S., India, Japan proposal. Also if there is some reference that these three documents be the basis of the discussions for the next SCCR.
Another concern, another issue I should say rather than a concern, is that in terms of item 6 we know that we had some preliminary discussions, not items, paragraph 6, we had preliminary discussions with respect to the protection of pre-broadcast signal and we would have liked to see that also reflected in the document itself.
Four and five, paragraph 4 and 5, whereby, you know, I know we have been discussing this in previous SCCRs as well, some Delegations, they’re a bit uncomfortable with the use of traditional broadcasters, the word especially traditional and we would — we were trying to see if we could get some sort of language that we can use to replace that word traditional and broadcasters as all broadcasters in a traditional sense. That’s something that we will also look at within the GRULAC.
We spoke about the pre-broadcasting and so on, I think essentially there were orbit of grammatical issues, sentence construction issues, when we go into again paragraph 4 and 5 I know we asked for the deletion of the word cablecasters but after speaking to Delegations within the group we recognize that we can be flexible on that and perhaps if the use of the words beneficiaries can be used instead of cablecast that is something which the GRULAC we can also be flexible about. These are just — I would like to suggest the tip of the iceberg, I know I went into greater detail in the coordinator meeting with the different proposals, this is without prejudice to what other Delegations within my group would like to see.
I thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate from Trinidad and Tobago on behalf of GRULAC.
I give the floor to Japan.
>> JAPAN: Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning. First of all, our group would like to thank Chair and Secretariat for their excellent work over the night and to prepare the document of the conclusion on the pre texts of broadcasting organization.
Also we have given our proposal to the secretariat and Chair at the regional coordinator meeting for transparency I would like to mention about those issues which I mention bad at the regional coordinator meeting this morning. First of all, so the document, I would like to support that correction pointed out by GRULAC relating to the word “traditional broadcaster and cablecaster” to be replaced in the language, mainly broadcasting, cablecasting organization in a traditional sense.
I will continue paragraph by paragraph. As far as paragraph one pointed out by friends of GRULAC, the U.S. proposal should be included by the language, for example, at the end of the paragraph, the proposal for discussion from U.S. As for Paragraph 4, I know that you reflect and the discussion held in a proper manner some notion should be mentioned as following, at the end of Paragraph 4, if this protection is to be included further discussion should be had whether it should be mandatory or optional. I think that notion reflects the discussion held during two days in a proper manner. As for Paragraph 4, the — from the beginning of the first line, as of the word original broadcast, in order to reflect the concept in a more proper manner we prefer the language internet originated transmission instead of the word original broadcast.
Next comment also goes to the Paragraph 6, first line. We would like to propose to delete the word “broadcast” after the word on-demand transmission in order to reflect the notion in a more proper manner. Last comment goes to the Paragraph 9, we think that the annex would be appropriate venue to accommodate the proposal and then we in Japan, India, United States, those proposals will be discussed at the next session including whether they should be included in text or not. In that sense, annex would be the appropriate venue to accommodate those proposals at this stage. I thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the Delegate of Japan forgiving us the views of group b which were also expressed at the coordinators meeting. Japan.
>> JAPAN: One thing I forgot to mention. My last comment goes to the Paragraph 5, the agreement mentioned in this paragraph has a proposition in character in that sense it will be better to insert the word provisionary in the second line of Paragraph 5. I thank you, Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for that additional contribution. Are there any other Regional Groups that would like to take the floor? If not, my thanks to the Regional Groups and now I open the floor for individual countries. India had asked for the floor to be followed by South Africa. India first.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. I would also like to thank you and the Secretariat for the excellent work done on the conclusions of the discussion of the protest of broadcast organizations. India conveyed concerns through other regional coordinator during the morning meeting of the regional coordinators. It may have been conveyed through the regional coordinator India’s concern. For the sake of now transparency and also the view of proposing some amendments in the texts for the conclusion we would like to suggest to make the intervention now. First thing, we have to make all amendments in the whole text or we have any opportunity further to go by paragraph is what we used to do here on the conclusion. As you want, you can go along.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, India. for your cooperative attitude and your contribution to the final results which we’re putting together. What we’re doing at the moment is just gathering up the various views which could be, as India suggested done in general form, after which we can go in detail in terms of drafting so as not to get into a discussion now of changing comas and not to unleash a whole series of differing opinions as to how to word the conclusions because the Chair, after they have heard all the views from the plenary could make it his job to redraft we say in Spanish that when everybody sits down and tries to draw a horse you end up with a camel. In order to avoid that outcome, first let us listen to everyone and then you can give a specific drafting suggestion at a later stage.
India, please continue.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I fully agree with the statement made by the Distinguished Delegate of Algeria on behalf of the African Group, the understanding expressed by her, that is the way it should have been deflected in the conclusion, the draft conclusion because in some paragraphs we have concern that the words used, it was agreed is quite misleading as it is actually in views expressed.
That would be — also, the other thing from India’s point of view, we wanted, we have requested also that any textual contributions of India, that we have sent to the Secretariat and also particularly on the three articles, 6, 7, 9, which was broadly discussed during the plenary of this committee should be reflective as alternative in the body of the text, not the annex and I would like to bring the attention of the committee to the conclusion, there is some textual contributions from the India Delegation in the footnotes and they were incorporated after the committee into the main body of the text and it reads paragraph 17 of the conclusion of SCCR, it says the committee pursued discussion that led to the option of single text documents which includes India’s proposal as a working document which will constitute the basis of further text based discussions to be undertaken by the committee in the 25th session subject to any modification or further textual comments to be made by the members. Here, another understanding was any textual contribution, not only intervention made on the floor, but if there are textual contributions and there is discussion during this session on that basis we request that those articles at least should be reflected as alternatives in the basic texts in the main body of the text and we will not feel comfortable to put it merely as an annex. That’s been expressed by the African Group. That’s what we have, that understanding.
Regarding this concern, you recall that at least not only India but three, four Member States and others expressed the concern about the mandate, NGOs of this committee to discuss in a traditional sense or it goes beyond to the webcasting, broadcasting over internet which is not reflected here in this conclusion paragraph. That is missing. We want to see that be reflected here, that some clarification was asked, it was not only one Delegation, that’s what I can recall, so it should be reflected in writing that it should be in that traditional sense or going beyond that mandate, some hang should be there. I will leave it in your hand how to reflect and maybe there is not many amendments from India, I would like to reflect maybe in paragraph, two paragraphs, in paragraph 1 the second sentence in addition the committee took note of the text — textual rephrasing of certain paragraphs, paragraphs in the working document. So, textual rephrasing of certain paragraphs in the working document containing the proposal from the Government of India. So it is regarding the India proposal that we want to amend. I hope that should not be a problem for other Delegations and it is regarding the Indian proposal and also in paragraph 2, we do not have much concern in paragraph 3, again, we would like to reflect here it was agreed that broadcasting and cablecasting with signal based approach in traditional sense to be added. I understand that that is also the request from other groups who are not feeling comfortable that it is traditional broadcasting or cablecasting but should be reflected in the traditional sense.
In paragraph 4 perhaps some amendments in the end and if they are to be included, limited to those transmissions originating from the traditional broadcasters or cablecasters to the extent contractual agreements with the content owners authorized on different media of transmission.
Further we would like to have additional paragraph after paragraph 4 that India Delegation suggested that instead of giving absolute right the broadcasting organization could have right to prohibit unauthorized use of their signal transmissions over different media including internet to the extent contractual agreements with the content owners authorized on different media of transmission.
This is a new paragraph I can send by e-mail also to the Secretariat further and in Paragraph 5 we want to add in the end, to the extent contractual agreements with the content owners authorized on different media transmission. Further, in the line of that, we had requested to include our textual proposals in the main body of the text so in paragraph 9 it should be amended, it should not be that all the proposals will be in the annex, India supports the proposal from Japan and U.S.A. to be included in the same main body of the text, given their flexibility if they want to leave that text in the an next. For India will be important to highlight it. That we request that. About the rephrasing of the paragraphs, there it is agreed, should always be referred to as some Delegations express this view, they have different views and opinions expressed, it should be more defined. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, India, forgiving us your views on the document with the conclusions. For taking note of the topics that you have raised. Naturally we will continue to listen to the various points of view so that at the end we can provide you with conclusions that represent the views of the entire plenary, not broken up into the views of specific Delegations. That is the work that the Chair will do. I give the floor now to the Delegate of South Africa.
>> SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My Delegation is going to make an input in the content of the document I think by in large the discussions of the last two days but also I think we’re off procedure. The last two days, they’re not necessarily the discussions that went out the window, but as something that indeed marks some level of progress in our discussions. So, as a point, my Delegation wants to say that the reason why we adopted the working text, Chair, was so that our discussions could be focused. To whatever that people want to submit as part of the discussion points should be in the draft working text. I’m hope that the discussion of the last two days I think reflected that, that most of the countries, Member States, India, Japan, the United States as well, they referenced to those.
My Delegation wants to request that perhaps either way we can share these discussions, they should reflect the articles that were made whether they are proposals, they should reflect that so that I think in the moment you have the working document only in the first paragraph and last one, it looks like this was just formal discussions, people were just bringing a lot of issues. I think I would really appreciate this as South Africa that the discussions should reflect the articles that were discussed and any proposals made should refer to those articles so that even next time when we meet we know which articles were discussed and what is it. For my Delegation, they should — they should put that in the annex but the most important thing, at least it shows that there is some level of progress in the discussions that have been held in the last couple of days were indeed fruitful discussions, a mark of progress, therefore we should refer to those articles as draft articles as continuing in the working committee so that way everybody will see the discussions that we had focused. So that would be our submission, Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate of South Africa whom we welcome your suggestions. We’ll certainly take them into account because the plenary is witness to the fact that we have discussed both topics and articles and indeed it is the articles that have led us to discuss the topics. We’re taking note of this very interesting suggestion and I give the floor now to the European Union followed by Brazil to be followed by Venezuela and then Bela Russia, the European Union has the floor.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you very much, on behalf of the European Union and Member States I would like to thank you very much and the Secretariat for preparing that document which we think in a very correct and objective way reflects the discussions that were held during the last two days.
Following on the statements made researched by Group B we would like to have two small suggestions to Paragraph 6, which is to reflect our discussions on transmissions over internet and in particular to reflect taking from the Japanese diagram points 2, 3 and 4 and in that regard we think that it would be possibly better to draft it in a way that is closer to the drafting proposed in the Japanese diagram and we would suggest rather than say original broadcast in the third line of this paragraph to say “internet originated transmissions” so replace original broadcast with “internet originated transmissions” which reflects point 2 in the Japanese diagram and then after where it says on-demand transmissions of broadcasts we would suggest delete of broadcast and just to say “on-demand transmissions.” Again, we think it better reflects the diagram that was discussed.
Just one additional comment we very much support the statement by the Chair, what we’re trying to — what should be reflected in this conclusions, is the overall discussions and not extending as a common understanding some issues that were raised by particular Delegations. We, of course, appreciate that certain Delegations had to — had particular suggestions but as some comments were made as to Article 4 we would like to just note that Article 4, Paragraph 4 is about common funder understanding. Under common understanding we would prefer not to see suggestions that came from individual Delegations that have not been given common support. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: I thank the European Union, and I give the floor to Brazil.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Chair, forgiving me the floor. On the outset I would just like to second the GRULAC intervention, Trinidad and Tobago on behalf of GRULAC and we would like to highlight comments made regarding Paragraph 3, in order to have a more precise reflection of the discussions that we had in the second line we would need to replace the words “without prejudice” to “subject to clarification” on cablecasting. It refers to the points that were raised in discussions, that we need to find language that is flexible enough on this point prior to advance and to have a definite decision on this.
Regarding the language in 4, 5, 6, Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, it was mentioned by Group B and GRULAC and there is no consensus as to how to refer to the traditional webcaster, cablecasters, broadcasters, in a traditional sense, I believe that the best solution was brought should the — to the issues should be to focus on the word “beneficiaries.” That would be a possible way out as was mentioned by GRULAC. That perhaps leads us to change to Paragraph 2 when we’re discussing what the is the — where we can find the first language referring to traditional broadcasting organizations and cablecasting organizations and perhaps in this, the first line of the second paragraph we could go with the language of the mandate and after that we would refer to beneficiaries. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate of Brazil for his suggestions. We have taken careful note and it is now our pleasure to give the floor to the Distinguished Delegate of Venezuela.
>> VENEZUELA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have read with great interest of subject that was of little interest to my Delegation and the only agreement we see here is a lack of agreement and had there been agreement then there would be two days for broadcasting, two days for limitations and exceptions on archives and a day for educational matters but when I turn around I see a lot of NGOs that are here that are interested in libraries and I think are not very interested in the idea of the multinationals and broadcasting. Others are interested in this topic so quite naively I had — I would like to ask you what is our schedule for the coming days? Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If this is a difficult question to respond to, then please consider that I never asked it. (Laughter).
>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate from Venezuela. It is not necessary to suggest that you didn’t actually ask it because yesterday we said it was important to take up the second topic, but it was decided based on the suggestion of the plenary that we would take limited time at the beginning of this sitting, and we limited it to one hour to deal with the conclusions. We’re quite certain that we will be able to complete this and perhaps even finish a bit early because we have received a number of views and the NGOs will also be heard on the second and very important topic. I thank you very much for your comments. I give the floor to Belarus.
>> BELARUS: Thank you very much, chairman. I’m speaking in my national capacity. Chairman, taking account of the fact that the representatives of the African Group and India have expressed their views on the proposals that were considered at this meeting either in the text or in an annex or in some other way we would also like to give our opinion on this. From the practical viewpoint weapon don’t think it is a good idea to have all these proposals as alternative text because as these proposals grow the text might become difficult to read so we would like an annex to be considered and we’re prepared to be flexible on this. We would like to officially state our understanding, the term “proposal” officially submitted to the Secretariat in the future either between meetings of the committee or the next meeting of the committee will receive the same status as will be done now for the current proposals on the table.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate from Belarus for his views. We will certainly consider these in planery and in the proposals to be put forward in in context. I give the floor now to the United States.
>> UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have been listening to all the approaches as to how to deal with the new proposals were discussed yesterday. We certainly share India’s concern about ensuring that our discussion proposal too is fully reflected for future consideration by this committee and also we share South Africa’s desire to be sure that the progress that we have made in the last two days is captured on paper for further discussion. We particularly appreciate South Africa’s suggestion of a compromise which might be to put into the discussion, into the proposals that have been made references to the specific articles that they relate to in the text and with that approach in mind the United States could be flexible and agree to inclusion of certainly our discussion proposal along with the others in an annex with these references with the understanding that the next meeting should start with integrating proposals in the annex with the reference to the particular articles into the text and that this should be done in an appropriate and helpful way with guidance from the Chair and Secretariat as to how best to achieve that result.
We hope that this may be a compromise that everyone can accept to make sure that we capture all of our work in an appropriate way and to ensure that it is fully integrated in a single document as soon as possible. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate from the United States for her suggestion. We have taken note and we hope for comments on that proposal. I give the floor now to Japan.
>> JAPAN: Thank you very much, Chair. I would like to take the floor first for group b followed by a national capacity.
The proposal discussed during the session in the annex to the text, it is bald and appropriate reflecting the situation of the discussion of the session in a proper manner.
The proposal should be reflected in the text as such only when it is deliberated enough and regarded as a firm and good basis for further mainstream text.
The discussion at this meeting preliminary because of the timing of the submission and many Delegates need more time for further reflection. We could consider further at the next session how to deal with the proposal including whether the proposal should be included in the text or not as a basis for further discussion.
I would like to speak in my national capacity, first of all, this Delegation would like to thank colleagues in this group for the wide support of our proposal as a way out for the transmission of the internet. We also recognize that further reflection is necessary for some Delegations. Needless to say, generally speaking, every Delegate submitting a proposal would be more than happy if their proposal is submitted in the text by wide support but given the objective discussion we have the inclusion of the proposal in the annex, not in the text as such at this stage and in this regard we hope that our proposal will be included in the text by a wider support, not at this stage but in the future and that at the same time we would like to appeal that the proposal, the fair treatment of those proposals should be respected with the same spirit.
I thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the Delegate from Japan.
We’re just about to conclude the time that we had allotted. We have taken note of all the comments made and we have now the European Union followed by Kenya.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll be very quick.
We first of all would like to support the proposal made by the Distinguished Delegation of South Africa and also of the United States on referring to Articles that have been discussed in the conclusion paper, we think it is very helpful.
As to proposals that were made during the sessions, we’re grateful to all of the Delegations as Japan, India, the U.S. for proposals and we think they all deserve the proper consideration and we will be certainly looking at them. We think that the best way forward from our point of view would be to keep them in the annex because we should try in the next session try to streamline the text that we’re working on, including, of course, with these proposals and other possible modifications that can be made but looking at how we can take this into account and work on the text to streamline it rather than make it bigger, but I would like to stress that means taking in county all the proposals and other modifications and hopefully we’ll have a streamlined and shorter text and we’ll be getting closer to a result. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: I thank the Delegate of the European Union. I give the floor now to the Distinguished Delegate from Kenya.
>> KENYA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First I want to take the opportunity to thank South Africa and other Delegations to have the proposal to making references to the specific articles. In terms of conclusion we shouldn’t be carried away and start drafting it as if it is the final report because the conclusions should basically capture the essence of what was generally agreed because there are so many issues discussed in the last two days some of which we had the concurrence of, some which we did not, some which we have left pending for the next discussion. We should look at the conclusions and any other details should be contained to the final report. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of the hour. We have used an hour’s time. Exactly an hour. Thank you very much. Yesterday we made comments on the work of all of the Delegations on broadcasting I simply wish to reiterate the constructive attitude by Delegations and their flexibility in working towards consensus and in meeting the mandate that was given to us by the General Assembly. Thank you.