WIPO Broadcasting Treaty is gaining momentum; possible Moscow treaty 2015?

SCCR 26 December 20, 2013 afternoon: workplan discussion

After 5 days of diplomatic if not collegial meetings (at least in plenary, I do not really know what is going on in informals), the last day afternoon session is quite tense. The conclusions have been drafted (I briefly saw a leaked version) and the group coordinators have met with the Chair.

The main issues, Broadcasting, Limitations and Exceptions for libraries, Archives and for Education and people with other disabilities will not all move forward at the same pace and the proponents of each topic are waiting to hear the decisions.

The broadcasting representatives seemed giddy at times and were checking out the draft workplan proposed by the Central European and Baltic Regional Group. According to this plan the Diplomatic Conference for broadcasting will take place in 2015. Interventions by Brazil and India somewhat tempered the mood.

This SCCR is really about broadcasting, broadcasting and broadcasting. Webcasting is also creeping back in and the Tech sector is not paying attention and is not even represented today among the NGOs. The L&E discussions were substantial but there is clearly no consensus yet. In comparison, the broadcasting treaty seems more advanced.

The US is clearly joining Europe in its push for the broadcasting treaty and stated in a second intervention:

“Obviously, we are zeroing in on the principles and objects for the other exceptions and limitations, but we don’t feel that that really necessities intersessional work right now. That can take place in the Committee along with the other issues, but the issue of broadcasting has been on the SCCR’s agenda for I think 15 years now. I think it’s really time that we put our emphasis on that and see this through.”

However, Brazil questioned whether there was consensus and India supported Brazil and added that it was premature. India wants to delay the decision to the next SCCR.

The discussion then focused on whether the committee could establish a long term workplan (SCCR 27, 28, GA and SCCR29) or only focus on the upcoming session (SCCR 27 in April). Seeking consensus, delegates seem to agree on one thing: they want to leave (the EU delegates have planes to catch). Some think Friday 7pm is late (US). And some are hungry (Japan).

The Chair ended the torture:

So the solution I suggest is as follows: We have five days and we need time to discuss conclusions and Future Work as well. So I propose the following: Distribution of time for broadcasting, two and one half days of work. For limitations and exceptions, two days of work, including limitations and exceptions mainly for libraries and archives. And if we have additional time because we have made progress, then we can also go into research and education. And the half day that remains would be devoted to a discussion of the conclusions and Future Work of the Committee.

Now onto the conclusions!

QUOTE

POLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the group of central European and Baltic states I would like to reiterate for a long time we have shown support for the expediting the work of SCCR in establishing standards of international protection of Broadcasting Organisations. We support the view that working out the proposal for the treaty on the protection of the Broadcasting Organisations is the main priority for the future work of the SCCR. It should be negotiated with objective of reaching a decision to convene a Diplomatic Conference in this regard in 2015. Having this in mind last October S ECEPS has put into consideration of the 51 S general Assemblies of WIPO the proposal for the road map of SCCR. On that basis today we want to propose the plan of future work, main target of which will be to prepare the grant within the work of SCCR for taking the decision and holding the Diplomatic Conference on protection of Broadcasting Organisations in 2015.
It is my understanding that the Secretariat has distributed out our draft work plan and you should have it in front of you at this moment. Just let me make a few remarks on this work plan.
We support the idea of the Secretariat to have three SCCRs next year. Although at the same time we would like to say that we prefer quite different dates for these SCCRs as placed in the provisional WIPO calendar for next year.
It is our opinion these meetings should take place earlier than expected. So, for example, the SCCR 27 as proposed of end of April should be held at the beginning of April or in March. SCCR 28, for example, in June and not in July.
We envisage these meetings as follows: Consisting each of five days we suggest three days go to the protection of Broadcasting Organisations and two days for Limitations and Exceptions. This is SCCR 27.
SCCR 28, three days for the protection of Broadcasting Organisations, two days for Exceptions and Limitations. And then we would like to see the General Assembly take a decision and comment to hold a Diplomatic Conference on the protection of Broadcasting Organisations in 2015. And SCCR 29, three days of protection of Broadcasting Organisations including a Preparatory Committee for Diplomatic Conference. Two days for Limitations and Exceptions.
At the same time we are quite flexible if this prep com would take place during, after, or
At the same time we are quite flexible if this prep com would take place during, after, or shortly after this SCCR meeting. Mr. Chairman, the Regional group of CESS is also looking forward to discussions relating to the activities of Libraries and Archives as well as educational research and teaching institutions. We are still of the view that the work of the Committee should enable deeper understanding on how the best practices based on the existing international legal system function in their Member States of WIPO.
Recognizing the primary aim that the group of central European and Baltic states has identified, we also acknowledge other topics of importance. This means that future work should envisage reflection Recognizing the primary aim that the group of central European and Baltic states has identified, we also acknowledge other topics of importance. This means that future work should envisage reflection on the recently adopted treaties, open the floor for discussions on the implementation of our legislative success and present members’ national experiences.
We believe there is also space to work together on new issues that take into consideration conditions of the digital and globalized environment in relation to licensing of rights.
We are willing to take up discussions on the role of licensing to facilitate access to content protection, copyright and related rights including to the use made by Libraries and Archives as well as educational research and teaching institutions. We also see merit in discussing role of collective management of rights in the access to protection by copyright and related rights.

Supported by Belarus.

Japan: JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Quickly, work of this Committee especially on the protection of Broadcasting Organisation. At this session we made a good progress on this issue by sorting out views on the transmission of the Internet and considering possible way out.
Decision formed the basis for further consideration which would bring us to the achievement. The discussion on the protection of Broadcasting Organisation which is higher maturity than other issues and this nation which we should arrive at is clearly shared among all Member States.
Taking this first it is very logical to allocate sufficient time to the discussion on the protection of Broadcasting Organisation in the work programme for next year to achieve the results, namely, decision to convene a Diplomatic Conference to adropped the treaty and sufficient time and location for advanced issue is the way of working which we were in line with at this Committee in the past, such as discussion of Marrakech treaty.
We support in this regard a target and time allocation in the draft work prepared by the distinguished colleague of CEBS. We believe the work plan strikes a balance among various elements including the degree of maturity, degree of interest of Member States and so on.
As for the other things included in the work plan we would like to draw your attention for the following two points. The first Committee for the conference is usually held within the period of the Committee but back-to-back session. And second point is that the complete days of SCCR 27 and 28 could be considered later, taking into account the fact that no meeting is scheduled in June at this moment in the provisional WIPO principal meeting calendar by the Secretariat several days ago and propose appropriated into the session.
Our GroupThinkss The possible date proposed by CEBS would make sense to all Member States.
As for the possible intersession of meeting, which was mentioned in the opening statement by some groups, it is difficult to accept intersessional meeting, intersessional meeting at this stage for this group. This is not the only issue relating to SCCR, but, rather, a systemic issue on management of meetings in this organisation as a whole. Intersession natural meetings should be only conducted in the case where additional venue for the negotiation is required to sort out problems before Diplomatic Conference.
In this regard, Group B cannot find justification to have an intersessional meeting on Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives at this stage. Trends of preparation of the meeting at WIPO these days should be reconsidered in reconsidered in the context of priorities of WIPO as a whole. Excessive number of meetings would give adverse effect on the usual business of the organisation such as implementation of existing mechanism and decrease the quality of the meeting rather than facilitating the work.
It should be avoided that each Committee add meetings.
Group B is looking forward to the work in this Committee next year with a view to the convention of diplomat particular conference for the new Treaty to protect Broadcasting Organisation and further exchange of views and experiences to find the best position way that Exceptions and Limitations could function within the existing framework of the international treaties and conventions. We are also interested in the discussion on the issues mentioned by CEBS and I thank you, Mr. Chair.

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: Thank you, Mr. Chair and good evening to all colleagues. I would just like to, of course, make this statement on behalf of the GRULAC and in so doing I thank the definition of Poland for submitting its draft plan on behalf of the CEBS group.
While we can support the hosting of three SCCRs, during the course of 2014, the GRULAC still does not have a common position with respect to the substance of these negotiate gaitions and the time devoted to each thematic issue during each SCCR.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the GRULAC recognizes that while the draft text of Broadcasting Organisations is most mature out of the three thematic issues, more work still needs to be done under the thematic issue with respect to Limitations and Exceptions in relation to libraries and archives. Also consistent with GRULAC’s opening statement which has been supported by other GRULAC Delegations Who took the floor this week, the GRULAC would like to propose an intersessional on Limitations and Exceptions for libraries and archives be held during SCCR 27 and SCCR 28. By so doing, Mr. Chairman, this will promote the advancement and maturity of the text on Limitations and Exceptions on Libraries and Archives. In addition to holding a Diplomatic Conference on the protection of Broadcasting Organisations, the group does not have a common position as well. I would therefore leave this issue for individual Delegations To comment upon. With that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman

ALGERIA: Thank you, Chairman. The African Group would like to thank those Delegations Who have taken the floor to propose a draft work plan for the SCCR next year, so far as our group is concerned, we’d like to remind you that there is already an agreement by the Committee on a work plan for the SCCR which was adopted by this Committee at its Twenty-Fourth Session. It states clearly that after the 28th session of the SCCR, there should be a recommendation for the General Assembly of 2014 on Exceptions and Limitations and the recommendations should also be made on the subject of the protection of Broadcasting Organisations. We think this is the point of departure for any decision on the work plan that we consider for next year’s SCCR.
So the GA has to give its views on exceptions and limitations and the General Assembly.
So on the basis of that principle which as I say was adopted by all Member States, it has to be room for both issues in the remaining sessions. The African Group can agree on the fact that during the next session of the SCCR, the Twenty-Seventh session, that three days be set aside for the protection of Broadcasting Organisations. We think that time has to be given to this draft Treaty. It has to reach a certain stage of maturity. This has been noted and it requires more work on it during that session.
Obviously we hope that the remaining two days will be used for Limitations and Exceptions, including of course the conclusions of the Committee.
During the next session, the 28th session, which should produce a recommendation for the General Assembly, here the African Group has different views from those already expressed.
We think that two days should be set aside for the protection of Broadcasting Organisations and two days for Limitations and Exceptions and the remaining time should be to discuss the
We think that two days should be set aside for the protection of Broadcasting Organisations and two days for Limitations and Exceptions and the remaining time should be to discuss the conclusions and recommendations that have to be made to the General Assembly. As so far as the Twenty-Ninth Session, and there we hope that we will be working after the General Assembly has decided to convene a Diplomatic Conference on the protection of Broadcasting Organisations and that we also will work on a more ambitious recommendations on exceptions and limitations so during the Twenty-Ninth Session, we propose that two days be set aside for broadcasting and two days for Exceptions and Limitations and one day for conclusions.
Including a prepcom.
Meanwhile, the African Group would like to associate itself fully with and support GRULAC’s proposal to have an intersessional meeting which would come between the Twenty-Seventh and the 28th sessions of the SCCR. As I said before, we need to do real work on Exceptions and Limitations and we won’t really have time to do that during the formal sessions of the Committee. So there is a need and certain amount of urgency for work to be done on Exceptions and Limitations and that’s why the African Group feels it crucial to have an intercessional meeting between the Twenty-Seventh and 28th sessions. Thank you.

BANGLADESH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the Delegation of Poland for submitting this proposal on behalf of central European and Baltic states Regional group. Since we have just received the proposal and we did not have time to discuss among our group members, it has been just circulated to them and if any group member is in the position to react, they would be free to do so and they would be doing it from that. Thank you.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I thank my colleague from the European Union for that.
Thanks, Chair. The United States fully supports the statement read earlier by our Group B Coordinator. The SCCR has been focusing for many years on norm-setting activities which has led to success in achieving a series of treaties. WPPT and WCT and recently the Beijing and Marrakech treaties.
We are now seeking to move forward on the proposed treaty for broadcasting and should continue the positive momentum of this session. In this regard the United States fully supports the proposed CEBS work plan. The time has come when we need to intensify our work on the broadcasting treaty and allocate ling three days during the next two sessions devoted to that topic. We are also looking at issues of Exceptions and Limitations to rights in the context of Libraries and Archives and educational purposes, looking at the range of different approaches but some of the most important current developments and copyright relate not to the legal structure of rights, but the practical operation of the copyright system. How owners and users work together on a day-to-day basis. There are major changes under way as global markets and new technologies revolutionize these relationships and processes. United States believes it he 7 shall to follow developments in this area, too, ensuring effective and up-to-date operation of the system is critical to the authors, rights holders and users in each country stall stages of development. Relevant issues include licensing especially in the online, management of rights, including through collecting societies, voluntary cross-industry initiatives and codes of conduct. There is a tremendous amount of activity taking place and creative approaches being explored in countries around the world. We can all benefit by learning about these developments and discussing their significance and their impact. Whether we decide to foster similar approaches in our own countries or work to create links between national experiments, much progress can be made. We do want to be clear: We are not suggesting slowing or delaying work on the SCCR’s current Agenda items or chaining priorities but this Committee should not close its eyes to such a fundamental and fast evolving dimension of copyrights. United States urge we add these other items to the Agenda for future consideration, not as norm-setting exercise but for purposes of better education and understanding. Thank you. Chair.

EU [problem with audio] [Supports Group B and supports program of work but no to intersessional on L&E. We support the US and we propose…]To this Committee. And hope that it will be met with support from all Delegations. As regards Future Work for this Committee and without prejudice to the work that we are currently engaged in we would like to lend our support to the persons, we just heard from the U.S. and would like to propose a few elements which were made by the U.S. This Committee could address the role of licensing to facilitate access to content protected by copyright and related rights including mass digitizing,….role of wipo for creation of database. Role of collection of rights, …implementation, [long list of possible issues]

Brazil: We do not have adequate time for broadcasting and also L&E. Recall the good balance that allow progress on text based discussion. We need more time re research in relation to L&E. That would eb a good balance. Re specific re decision on Dip Con this would be subject of discussion at SCCR 28. Re other consideration, I am seeking clarification would it be under other items or is it future work? If we have a hard copy of this draft proposal so Member States can consult and have a clear understanding of what is being discussed and what is the proposal, what are the things that are proposed by the Delegations of the United States and the European Union to be discussed in the next sessions.
If this is the case, then if the case is that we would have to analyze this items, these new themes to be discussed, then we would have to provide adequate time for discussions.
In this regard, Mr. Chair, I would say that perhaps in the context of this great number of new proposals, we could stick with the good balance that we have reached in this session having two days for, two days for broadcasting, two days for limitations and exceptions regarding libraries and archives and one day for education provided that one day for education will be probably in the middle of the week so we wouldn’t have only one morning session dedicated to this important subject. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair and on behalf of the Delegation of India I would also like to thank the CEBS Group for presenting this draft plan for future, which is focused mainly on the broadcasting organisations to expedite the work on the protection of broadcasting organisations, to convene a Diplomatic Conference in 2015 as it has been expressed by the Delegate of Brazil, we are also of the view that it should have a balanced program, giving adequate attention to all the three subjects being dealt with here. And our proposition here would be in this session, 26th session of SCCR, we had a good discussion for two days on Broadcasting Organisation, but unfortunately we do not see that there was a good progress made on the text-based negotiation of the treaty text or what we have in front of us.
Although there were several divergent issues discussed with a view to reach some sort of understanding among the Delegations, among the groups which was also some questions were raised whether that was within the mandate that was given for this treaty text to negotiate by 2007 General Assembly.
So in that sense we do not see that much progress was made. From here to recommend to get some sort of approval from this session of SCCR for having recommendation with particular mention of 2015, Diplomatic Conference, I think it will be too early. Rather than waiting for the next session of the SCCR for to see the progress made in the work. That is how we proceed here in woip is our understanding and other Committees, first to make the assessment by the Committee itself actually in the text. So that is our submission. And of course we support the proposal. We may support the proposal of the GRULAC if it is flexible for the intersessional as made on the Diplomatic Conference and. And the other proposal from the USA we are not very clear but we need some time to reflect what was it as it was mentioned by the Delegation of EU. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And equally South Africa wants to thank the CEBS Group for the draft work plan. I think first of all one should say that South Africa really supports the three SCCRs meetings because I think this is the way in which we can advance our work so far as the issues on the table are concerned. Secondly, we support the proposal to have a Diplomatic Conference, the recommendation of a Diplomatic Conference in 2015. We really support that.
But there is one thing that South Africa wants to make an appeal to Member States here, that negotiations are not necessarily the maintenance of one’s positions. Otherwise it doesn’t reflect negotiations. It is about compromises, about being flexible so that all of us, we can in the end make progress.
I want us to take you from the achievements we have made as this Committee in the last two years. I think this has been phenomenal on the issue of the VIP as well as audio visual performances. What is it we have done and the reason we have succeeded? It is not simply because we made those issues to compete against other Agenda Items but we ensure that we don’t create competition between the issues. Therefore, based on the level of maturity, we created a space for that. That has helped us in creating additional space for other issues that we want to deal with adequately. Therefore, based on this, I still feel as South Africa that we still need to maintain that level of approach because that is the best way to do it because if — I’m tell you, we are going to make sure that we say we deal with these issues equally. Give then the same time. We won’t make much progress. We link issues that are not necessarily linked. Therefore, I prefer for an equitable
allocation of time of the issues. Not because this is important or any of the issues is important. All the current Agenda Items of the SCCR are very, very much important to us. Therefore, that is why we request for equitable distribution or allocation of time. We support the CEBS proposal in so far as the allocation of three, two, three, two, three, two. But we want to make an appeal that the other issues, we didn’t want to lose momentum on those issues. Therefore, if those countries that are opposed or Member States that are opposed to the intersessional cannot agree, we can — intersessional, we are not necessarily saying we are going to bind ourselves and there is going to be a document that binds us out of that. From our discussions, text based and so forth, I’m happy that the colleague from the U.S. has raise — U.S. or European Union raised some issues we need to look at, without a doubt. Therefore, whether the intersessionals are held between the 27th or the 28th,
or at any time, we will say as a middle ground, two days so people will have time to discuss all these other issues. That is the compromise we need to make because, Chair, if we maintain all our positions and say no intersessionals and the other side says intersessionals, we can’t make progress. South Africa says can’t we appeal to the colleagues who are opposed to intersessionals? There is no harm in doing so. All the issues that the colleagues raised, we look at that from there, but we make sure that the progress that has been made, am I opposed or I disagree with those who are saying there is no progress, there is. Because if you look at the kind of negotiations that have happened in the last two days, they are making progress. That progress towards driving towards scones inconsensus.
Based on that, I think things are far better than 2009 on the issue of broadcasting. Therefore, that level of progress has been made. Without a doubt we need to build na momentum but equally, not losing the momentum on other issues equally important to other Member States. I think that is the kind of compromise that South Africa wants to present.
Therefore, we are saying whether they are held between 27 and 28, or between 28 and 29 or after the A.G., but the most important thing is that we have an intersessional to give other colleagues further opportunity to discuss as well. In that way it will be balanced.
I thank you very much, Chair.

MEXICO: Thank youp Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to thank the Delegation of Poland on behalf of the CEBS Group, who has submitted the work plan, the draft work plan and in the future, looking in this way, we will seek some solutions. Mexico also produces — supports what the Delegate on behalf of GRULAC said with regard to the intersessional meetings. So we support the intersessional meetings.
We support the idea that we would like there to be three days in each and every one of these in accordance with what was proposed. There is no objection for the time or dates in which we hold these Committee meetings, particularly 27th and the 28th. We are not opposed to the dates.
Now, I would like to pick up part of the words which have just been expressed by the Delegate from South Africa. When we worked on the document jointly and we did point it out at that time, these are issues of time and we consider here that there is time here re. We have pointed out here during this current session the word balance or even equilibrium. We would like to prepare for that. Let’s do it.
I invite you that we do this. That we see how each and every one of the situations are for the different topics. Of course, all the topics are important. I do believe that we have to make progress, headway. We consider that the, as an opposition we can work to achieve one of the objectives which would be an international instrument for Broadcasting Organisations, considering that the process has matured and matured well. So without looking into the other topics, or without not looking into other topics, there are two or three intersessionals days for exceptions and limitations, two days for exceptions and limitations, we are going to work for that, but we would also like to appeal that we support the other topic that is broadcasting. We would like under criteria and objectives, we would like us to be able to achieve consensus, a good consensus for all, and for all the topics. Thank you.

UNITED STATES: Thank you again, Chair. Just responding to the Delegations of Brazil and India on the new items that we suggested for Future Work. I don’t think it is necessary that we agree to those items right now. I mean, obviously we would like to see them on the next Agenda. I think what is more important is that we agree there will be a list at some point. We have some ideas and the EU has some ideas, and I think South Africa was in favor of at least looking at those for Future Work.
Moving on to the issue of intersessionals, we are not in favor of intersessionals. We have a very busy schedule coming up, as we always do at WIPO. On the issue of broadcasting organisations, the treaty for Broadcasting Organisations, we think that is much more advanced. We really need to put our emphasis on that issue.
Obviously, we are zeroing in on the principles and objects for the other exceptions and limitations, but we don’t feel that that really necessities intersessional work right now. That can take place in the Committee along with the other issues, but the issue of broadcasting has been on the SCCR’s agenda for I think 15 years now. I think it’s really time that we put our emphasis on that and see this through. Thank you.

BRAZIL: Thank you, Chair. I would like to react briefly to some of your comments regarding emerging consensus on actually the status of work. Actually, I couldn’t grasp the same meaning that you had. I understand that there is, either we had a consensus or we don’t have a consensus. We don’t have a qualified consensus or any other kind of consensus. Thank you, Chair.

INDIA: Thank you, Chair. The Indian Delegation agrees with the remarks made by Brazil. On the Broadcasting Organisation issue, it is yet to emerge that there is a consensus or not. In fact, as we witnessed in most of the proceedings, we have seen a lot of states have wanted more time to consider various new proposals which have come up. So at this exchange, I feel that it is premature to say that there is any kind of consensus.
But yes, we have discussed a lot of new ideas, new topics. I think we will need time to consider all of these. Thank you.

[….]

ECUADOR: Thank you, Mr. For our Delegation, sir, we think that your suggestion is quite wise, that we first focus on the work program of the forthcoming session. This will see to it that we don’t have discussions on topics which I’m sure are going to be solved in the next session. So consequently, our Delegation firmly supports the fact that we limit ourselves to solve this step. By the next session already with more maturity in the discussion, it is going to be a lot easier to adopt the following programs. Now, regarding the content of the program, our Delegation is flexible. Despite the fact that it has a very high interest for the issue, for the exceptions and limitations for libraries and education. And there we would like to say that we we feel like echoing the proposal by Brazil. In other words, maintaining the balance that was achieved in this session to the extent that a certain priority was assigned to the topic of broadcasters and those libraries,
and then the issue of exceptions and limitations for educational institutions and other people with disabilities. That would be after. I think that would be the most harmonious way of moving ahead. Of course, it would also depend on the flexibility of the Delegations.

JAPAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And thank you very much for your wise guidance and your pragmatism for this issue.
Our group supports a step-by-step approach proposed by the Chair, namely focusing on the work and time allocation of the intersessional, three days for broadcasting and two days for the exceptions and limitations.
We have already reached the time to make a decision. My stomach strongly urges me to do so. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Chair. It can be confusing sometimes. I would like to take the floor on behalf of the EU and the Member States and collar that the my statements were made on behalf of the European Union I would like to salute your dedication and that have the Secretariat and all of the Delegates this evening to try to move forward on all the issues under discussion and try to agree on a program of Future Work. We have heard your wise compromise proposal and I would just say the following:
We are now running out of time. Many EU Member States’ Delegates are having to leave to catch their flight. The EU Delegation does not have a mandate to negotiate on their behalf in their absence. I would therefore urge all of us here today to be as operational as possible and to recognize an agreement on the full program of work for 2014. It looks unlikely at this stage. And note that there seems to be support, an emerging consensus for your proposal, Chair, and would urge Delegates to bear in mind the need to reach a decision at an early stage to ensure that all stakeholders have a word and have a say in the decision. Thank you, Chair.

UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chair. And my apologies to the colleague from the European Union. You were looking at me and I didn’t hear EU.
First to India’s comment on the work plan and not necessarily needing to agree to it right now. I think we need to agree to the work plan for at least SCCR 27 right now. The list of other items that I mentioned, and then that the EU also added some, too, I think we can carry that forward to future sessions. I think it is important that we agree that a list should exist. So I don’t want to slow down the discussions on our work plan moving forward on the three issues that we’ve got on the Agenda right now. Getting back to your proposal, Chair, I would have to agree with my Group B coordinator that my stomach also supports that. We do probably need to finish up. This is the last meeting before the end of the year. It would be nice to finish up on a good note. That good note means before 7:00 o’clock on Friday.
So we would fully support your proposal. Let’s just identify a work plan for SCCR 27, go forward with that, and then take up future sessions following. Thank you

….
CHAIR: Thank you very much for those views. I think they were quite clear and I can endorse the suggestion by Egypt who told us of his experience and said that it is not a matter of competition. I think it is quite clear from many Delegations in their initial statements where they pointed out the great importance not just of one Agenda Item but also the second and third and the matters that we discussed this morning.
Consequently, let’s take on board that the distribution of days per topic does not in any way imply their importance. So as a compromise solution, I would ask you please to consider accepting them because it does take into account all of the matters that have been raised and I would hope you would consider it in that spirit. The Chair puts forth a final proposal. Otherwise we will set all of this aside for discussion in the 27th session when we will have more time.
So the solution I suggest is as follows: We have five days and we need time to discuss conclusions and Future Work as well. So I propose the following: Distribution of time for broadcasting, two and one half days of work. For limitations and exceptions, two days of work, including limitations and exceptions mainly for libraries and archives. And if we have additional time because we have made progress, then we can also go into research and education. And the half day that remains would be devoted to a discussion of the conclusions and Future Work of the Committee.
This is the solution that I believe, having heard everyone’s comments, we can arrive at and I don’t believe that we have time for a whole nother round of discussions.
So this is the conclusion I have reached after having listened to all of you.

(Applause.)
>> CHAIR: Thank you. So we have concluded with this topic. Now, the next topic is the conclusions. The conclusions, a tremendous effort has been made to try to adapt the different contributions which have been made in successive meetings of the regional groups. Consequently, we are going to hand out the way in which you have introduced all of your suggestions. This again is an appeal that I’m making to you. Recalling that Kamal that we can all draw together, it I can impossible that any individual contribution be resulted in the result, the final result. This is why we proceeded through the Regional Coordinators, to pick up the substance of their proposals. Even if you have seen the Delegations who are at the table to convince them that they had to reduce everything down to substance and not just a set of discussions on styles, on doubts, on concerns, the way in which we could conduct these negotiations, giving more weight to one point of view than another.
With that point of view we have conclusions on the three topics and we hope that we can have a very quick round. Let’s hope a positive one, regarding these three topics. The Secretariat will inform us how we are going to handle this round, how we are going to give it out to the Delegations here, particularly in view of the little time that we have left. Thank you.

Manon Ress's Blogs Add new comment Printer-friendly version Send by email Send by email