Proposed Draft Conclusions regarding the Broadcasting Treaty and L&E for libraries and Archives.
At 10pm, le SCCR 28 reconvened in plenary to present the conclusions of the committee. Kenya, Brazil and India are diplomatically pushing back on nuances such as differences between “meaningful progress” or “meaningful discussions” regarding the proposed treaty for broadcasters. However, it is difficult to deny that a diplomatic conference is around the corner.
The secretariat is reading paragraph by paragraph the 17 conclusions. The first 6 paragraphs are about the progress of the broadcasting treaty for which a diplomatic conference for 2016 may well be recommended at the General Assembly according to the proposed conclusions. Paragraphs 7 to 12 are about the continuation of work on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. Paragraphs 13 to 15 ensure that exceptions for education, research and persons with other disabilities remain on the agenda, 16 and 17 announce that the next SCCR will be December 8-12, 2014 with the same allocation of time as the SCCR 28.
The beginning of the long discussion truly started at 10:30pm but we are moving fast.
SECRETARIAT: Chair, the draft that is distributed is labeled the 10:00 p.m. draft from
July 4th. This includes a draft of SCCR conclusions for the Twenty-Eighth Session of the SCCR.It begins with the section on protection of broadcasting organisations, with conclusions. The final item in the conclusions is a proposed recommendation to the WIPO general.
Then there is a section on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. Once
again, there are proposed conclusions followed by a proposed recommendation to the WIPO General Assembly. There are then sections on limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions, and persons with other disabilities, summarizing the work done on that Agenda Item. For those three agenda otherwise, protecting of broadcasting organizations, limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities, it is proposed to maintain those Agenda Items on the Agenda for the next session of the SCCR.In addition, there is an item on the contribution of the SCCR to the implementation of the respective Development Agenda recommendations, which will require a minor edit, Mr. Chair. In the first line it says: The Chair stated that all statements — we should insert “including those submitted to the Secretariat in writing,” et cetera. Then we conclude with a section on the next session of the SCCR, which sets out the dates, December 8 through 12, and says that the allocation of the time will be the same as the allocation decided for this meeting. Thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you very much to the Secretariat for this description of the structure. What I am
intending to do is to receive your views in order to have a structured discussion. We will go through the document. We will ask the Secretariat to read us, and then we will receive comments paragraph-by-paragraph. Of course, there is the understanding that the approval of the document as a whole, just for clarification reasons. So can you help us with that, please? Kenya has the floor.>> KENYA: Thank you, Chair. To say what you just stated is what I wanted to say. That we cannot adopt any paragraph-by-paragraph format. Everything is notagreed until everything is agreed. And that includes until we reach paragraph 17 that’s correct is when we can view it is in agreement. Before then, we just have a reading of the paragraph and the indication of
where members lie, basically. >> CHAIR: Thank you to the Distinguished Delegate
from Kenya for highlighting what I have just said. Nay has the floor.>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just I just want to — maybe I should not waste the time, but of course that something was missing when the Secretariat or yourself explained about this SCCR conclusions, that we had actually maybe seven, eight hours of discussion upstairs in Regional Coordinator plus 3 format. If something could be briefed in this
Plenary also, that would be useful because we are not starting from scratch on this paper. It was something which was discussed. I mean, we have spent so much hours upstairs. So it has to be at least informed in a nutshell what was the outcome of that. Thereafter, of course, it has to be opened to the Plenary for comments. That is for the So it has to be at least
informed in a nutshell what was the outcome of that. Thereafter, of course, it has to be opened to the Plenary for comments. That is for the transparency reason, that is also important. Thank you.>> CHAIR: As you know, the Distinguished Delegate from India, we have made an effort through Regional Coordinators to reach an agreement on the topics we were facing on that. There have been a lot of exercises given from the different Delegations, including yours, to have, to try to reach progress. But as we saw in that exercise, some Delegations were trying to put forward ideas to move on which were not positions or national positions. That was repeatedly said. So in that sense what we have is what for transparency reasons which we presented. Any other specific suggestion we come back to the Plenary and might be for sure individually expressed. So in that sense we continue with this exercise as has been highlighted. So we will receive comments paragraph-by-paragraph, with no decision until the very end of the 17 Draft.