SCCR32: Conclusion by the chair and comments from the floor

SCCR 32 Conclusions proposed by the chair. Late Friday May 13, 2016. Nigeria, Bahamas, Brazil, South Africa and Egypt were exceptionnaly interesting. Here is most of what was said including the reading of the proposed conclusions and the comments from member states. In brief all topics are maintained. Including the broadcasting and cablecasting treaty, the Limitations and Exceptions discussion for libraries, archives, education, research and for people with other disabilities. The GRULAC proposal to work on the digital environment received much support and there will be more about this important topic too. Some of the delegates did not forget the development agenda recommendations and made sure it was also included.

This statement from Bahamas on behalf of GRULAC reflect quite well the mood at the end of the meeting:

>> BAHAMAS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I have the honor to take the floor for GRULAC, we would like to thank you for your very hard work this session. The Vice-Chair. Members of the Secretariat and the wonderful interpreters that made all this happen. We have had some lively discussion within the informal process of broadcasting organizations, we have furthered the discussions on the three topics that are important to our group, including the limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and limitations and exceptions for research institutions and Persons with other Disabilities.

Even though we didn’t come to agreement, we look forward to more discussions with this Committee and want to reiterate our support for your proposals to convene an extraordinary session and hold regional seminars in relation to the extraordinary session on broadcasting and regional issues and exceptions.

We would like to thank the Member States and the stakeholders, NGOs for their very positive perspective on the discussion on the proposal for analysis of copyright for the digital environment and we thank them for viewing it as one of the best proposals in the history of WIPO and we hope it will be reflected in the record of this Committee and we look forward to continuing this exercise in the next session.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Here is the discussions:

> CHAIR: Thanks very much. You have received the printed version of the draft summary by the Chair regarding the 32nd session. The way we are going to proceed is we are going to read the agenda items paragraph by paragraph in order to receive comments. Those comments will be, might deserve some additional comments.
I will take them in account when I prepare the final version of the summary by the Chair. Of course, just to let you know that this will not be subject to approval by this Committee, or otherwise I would be happy in turn them summary by the Committee, but that is not the case at this point. I would invite the Secretariat to read the document, please.

>> Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, 32nd session, Geneva, May 9 to 13, 2016. Draft summary by the Chair. Agenda item 1, opening of the session. The 32nd session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights SCCR or Committee, was opened by Mr. Francis Gurry, Director General who welcomed the participants. Miss Michele Woods, WIPO acted as secretary. Agenda item —

>> CHAIR: I think that I can assume that we will not have comments until we get to agenda item number 5, in which we will request that. But we will continue with agenda item number 2.

>> MICHELE WOODS: Agenda item 2, adoption of the agenda of the 31st session. The Committee adopted the draft agenda, document SCCR/32/1 prov with the addition of a ad hoc nonpresidential agenda item on the contribution of the SCCR to the implementation of the respective Development Agenda recommendations.

This new item was added as agenda item 8 before other matters which became agenda item 9, and the closing of the session which became agenda item 10. Mr. Chair, I can see we have a stray L, in Limplementation, so we will fix that. Agenda item 3 accreditation of new Non-Governmental Organizations. 3, the Committee approved the accreditation as an SCCR observer of the nongovernmental organization referred to in the annex to document SCCR 32.2 namely the Canadian museum of history. CMH.

Agenda item 4, adoption of the draft report of the 31st session. 4, the committee approved the draft report of its 30th session, document SCCR 31.6 as proposed.
Delegations and observers were invited to send any comments on their statements to the Secretariat at copyright.mail @ WIPO.int by June 15, 2016.

Agenda item 5, protection of broadcasting organizations. Paragraph 5: The documents related to this agenda item were SCCR 27.2 Rev, SCCR 27.6, SCCR 35, SCCR 31.3, and SCCR 32.3 as well as informal charts and nonpapers prepared by the Chair.
Paragraph 6, the Committee welcomed and considered document SCCR 32.3 prepared by the Chair, entitled revised consolidated text on definitions, objective protection and rights to be granted. Paragraph 7, some delegations requested further clarification on the document and others suggested amendments to the text.

Paragraph 8, the Committee requested that the Chair consider the textual proposals and clarifications made during the session with respect to definitions and object of protection with a view to integrating them in document SCCR 32.3.
Paragraph 9, the Committee decided to continue discussions on a revised version of document SCCR 32.3 that will be prepared by the Chair for the next meeting of the Committee.

Paragraph 10. This item will be maintained on the agenda of the 33rd session of the SCCR.

>> CHAIR: Any comment related agenda item number 5, proposed summary’s Chair. Bahamas has the floor.

>> Bahamas: Sorry, Mr. Chair I was pointing to type out the typographical error at paragraph 2 that Miss Woods saw.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that. We appreciate it. Any other comment? Okay. We proceed to agenda item number 6.

>> MICHELE WOODS: Agenda item 6, limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. Paragraph 11: The documents related to this agenda item were SCCR26.3, S cc. C26.8, SCCR 29.3, SCCR 30.2 and SCCR 30, .3 as well as a informal chart prepared by the Chair.
Paragraph 12. Discussions were based on the chart introduced by the Chair on, “exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives.”

This chart was designed to serve as a useful tool to provide structure to discuss the substance of each topic, drawing on the many resources before the Committee. This will allow the Committee to have an evidence-based discussion respecting differing views and understanding that the goal is not to guide the discussion toward any particular or undesired outcome, but instead, to lead to a better understanding of the topics and of the actual relevance to the discussions of the intended outcome.
Paragraph 13: The Chair highlighted some of the elements that were drawn from the views expressed in comments and submissions of members of the Committee on the topics of preservation, the right of reproduction and safeguarding copies, legal deposit and library lending during previous SCCR sessions.

Paragraph 14: Members of the Committee also exchanged views regarding several of the topics listed on the Chair’s chart, namely parallel importations, cross-border uses, and orphan works retracted and withdrawn works and works out of commerce.
In addition, concerns that could arise when considering limitations and exceptions related to these topics and possible measures to address such concerns were expressed.
Suggestions were also made for alternative approaches. Paragraph 15: This item will be maintained on the agenda of the 33rd session of the SCCR.

>> CHAIR: Any comment related to agenda item number 6? I see none. We can proceed.

>> MICHELE WOODS: Agenda item 7. Limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.

Paragraph 16: The documents related to this agenda item were SCCR 26.4 prov, SCCR 27.8, and SCCR 32.4.

Paragraph 17: The Committee heard the presentation by professor Daniel Seng on the draft study on copyright limitations and exceptions for educational activities, contained in document SCCR 32.4.

The Committee welcomed the presentation and delegations and observers participated in a question and answer session with professor Seng. Professor Seng announced that he intended to complete the study for all WIPO Member States for SCCR 33, and requested assistance from Committee members to obtain additional information about national laws.
The Committee requested the updating of the information contained in the presentation of professor Seng for the next session of the Committee, and many members agreed to send information on their national laws to be used for the completion of the study.
Amendments and clarifications should be sent to the Secretariat, copyright.mail @ WIPO.int by June 15, 2016.

Paragraph 18, a scoping study on limitations and exceptions for persons with disabilities other than print disabilities will be presented at SCCR 33. A survey on national laws on this subject will be prepared for SCCR 34. The Secretariat will request information from Member States in order to provide data for the survey.

Paragraph 19: The Committee held discussions on the topic of limitations and exceptions for educational, teaching and research institutions and their relationship with the fundamental roles of education in society with reference to the existing documents including the draft study prepared by professor Seng.

Paragraph 20. Some members requested the preparation by the Chair of a chart like the limitations and exceptions chart for libraries and archives to be used as a tool to focus discussions on this topic. The Chair agreed to prepare such a chart, using the categories identified in the draft study prepared by professor Seng as a starting point.
This will allow the Committee to have an evidence-based discussion respecting differing views and understanding that the goal is not to guide the discussion toward any particular or undesired outcome, but instead to lead to a better understanding of the topics and of their actual relevance to the discussions and the intended outcome.
And I can see we are missing a period or full stop at the end of that paragraph. We will add that.

Paragraph 21. This item will be maintained on the agenda of the 33rd session of the SCCR.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much. Any comment regarding this agenda item number 7 set of draft conclusions? Greece has the floor.

>> GREECE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. With regards to this agenda item, we would like to seek some clarification regarding paragraph 3. We see that there is a scoping study on limitations and exceptions, and in addition a survey on national laws on this subject, prepared for SCCR 34, and as we had a discussion within our group for this, and we did not remember such a decision having been taken during the plenary.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: For clarification, when you refer to the decision, you are meaning the scoping study, the survey, or both? Please, would you please clarify us?
>> GREECE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I refer to the survey.
>> CHAIR: Thank you.
>> GREECE: We do not remember that a discussion and a decision, a discussion — we are not sure about what was exactly presented at that point. But we do not remember a decision on a survey on national laws to be prepared for SCCR 34. We do not, as a group we didn’t remember that there was such a decision taken during the plenary. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: To tackle your request, since it was involved and even was requested a clarification by the Secretariat on that specific point, I will go, ask for clarification for the Secretariat on this regard.

>> MICHELE WOODS: Thank you, Chair. And I think we should first point out that in the consolidated document, we are discussing paragraph 18.
So with respect to the scoping study on limitations and exceptions, we were asked for further clarification about that work, and the Secretariat or I described conversations we have had with the professor who is preparing the study, regarding the concept of the scoping study and a potential survey on national laws, we were clarifying because some Member States had confusion as to what was included in the proposal.
We said that the scoping study providing a survey of the legal issues, the different ways that disabilities topics are addressing the intersection of copyright and disabilities in national laws would be ready and presented at SCCR 33.
We also noted that the team, working on the survey, excuse me, working on the study, had said that it would naturally be, that a survey could naturally be as second study leading on from the scoping study, and that one way to obtain data for that, because that would be more complicated, would be to provide data or to request Member States to provide data.
So this was stated in response to a question from, several questions actually from members, and Chair, I understood that when it was put in this document, it was essentially for validation or not by Member States, as to taking this next step.

>> CHAIR: Thank you for that. Nigeria has the floor.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m speaking on behalf of the Africa Group. We had, in the original meeting, with original coordinator, the Africa group had made a suggestion for paragraph 20, the second sentence, and in the area where you note the Chair agreed to prepare such a chart, using the categories identified in the draft study by professor Seng we had included language that stated, if I recall correctly, including the elements contained in document SCCR/26/4/prov. The idea behind this as we had made previous proposals to the Committee, that the Chair could undertake to prepare a chart and that that chart would be based on the document, working document of the Committee. This SCCR/26/4 prov is the document the Committee has used for maybe the past six sessions. We believe that the work and the provisions contained in that document should be reflected in the chart to help to continue structuring the discussion of the Committee.
You had asked member, asked Regional Coordinators to consult with their groups and to hear back from Regional Coordinators if their support to have this in the text. We believe we shouldn’t lose sights of all the discussions that have been held for three years using one document and to focus solely on the categories identified in the study that we haven’t had a chance to see the complete work, and has been presented already.
It will be good to hear the feeling of Member States, regional groups on this. Hopefully Member States can support the inclusion of that in the Chair summary. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. Brazil has the floor.

>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Chair. We have done so during the discussions under this agenda item, and regarding the request of information for, from Nigeria, from the African Group, we have actually requested that the basis should be the document 26/4. We would second the proposal.

We also would, one of the delegations had requested information on the scoping study and we were very glad to see that the study would then be part of a sequence of works.
We would then support the actual text in paragraph 18 and support the proposal from the African Group on inclusion of the mention of document SCCR/26/4. Thank you, Chair.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. Bahamas has the floor.

>> Bahamas: Thank you, Mr. Chair. GRULAC has consulted on this matter related to the African proposal to add words related to the elements of SCCR 26/4 prov into what is paragraph 20, and we have no objection. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Any other comment? Greece has the floor.

>> GREECE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the Secretariat for the information and the clarification provided. Reflecting what was discussed and what was explained by the explanations given by the Secretariat, we have some wording to propose with regards to that. The Secretariat described the process by which a survey, on national laws, at this subject could be prepared so as to reflect the discussion held in the plenary.

And regarding paragraph 20, that document, and the request to insert elements contained in document SCCR/26/4, we had the chance to discuss it within our group, and we would like to see the summary paragraph 20 as it stands now. We would like to include this additional wording. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you for sharing with us your views. Any other comment? Nigeria has the floor.

>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m curious to know why there is no support to include a basic, basis document that the Committee has used for discussing exceptions and limitations for educational research institutions for a number of years, and but there is willingness to support a ongoing study that is incomplete at this point, and to accept the categories contained in that study, but will oppose inclusion of it based on the provisional working document the Committee has used 2012 or 2013. I would like clarity on the reasons why we cannot support the Chair’s inclusion of a document that the Committee has engaged in for a number of years but we can support an ongoing study, elements identified in an ongoing study that is not yet complete. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The question is to Group B, please.

>> CHAIR: Okay. Group B is invited to have a comment. But in the meanwhile, South Africa has the floor.

>> SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. South Africa would like to align its support with the statement made by Nigeria. We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the SCCR/26/4/prov remains the basis document for discussion. Anything else we do here would input and facilitate our discussions on this particular document. We would put our support for inclusion and reference to the document. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Any other view regarding this point? Clarification might be taken. Egypt has the floor.

>> EGYPT: Thank you Mr. Chairperson, and along the lines of what was mentioned by the Distinguished Delegate of Nigeria on behalf of the Africa Group and also the delegate of South Africa my delegation would insist on having a reference to the base document that has taken up much of our time in this Committee, taking into consideration that the study as much as it is good and substantive and scientifically done study, it is still under consideration, and couldn’t be used as an only basis for future work on this agenda item on this specific issue. And in the absence of willingness to provide clarification otherwise, then I would suggest that we keep the reference to the referred to document. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. Greece has the floor.
(switch of captioners. Please answer the incoming Skype call) paragraph where some members requested a chart by the Chair and the Chair agreed to this.
We’re not sure there was an agreement in the plenary at that time to have a chart. Nevertheless, we do not object to this paragraph 20 as it stands. As a group, we gave our consent. We will not give our consent to an additional item element.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you.
Nigeria has the floor.

>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaking on behalf of the Africa Group and I still don’t have an understanding based on the response that’s been provided by Group B on the reasons why the graciousness was shown to the study and why that graciousness cannot be extended to a document that the Committee high school worked with for more than three years. I think there is a need for clarity and to understand why the same graciousness could not be extended to a document we have worked on and engaged on for more than three years.
Thank you. Chair.

>> CHAIR: Thank you.
U.S. has the floor.

>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the hour grows late and my memory fades I hope this comment will be helpful: As I understood the conversation the eight categories suggested — the categories adopted appeared to be a coherent framework for understanding this topic. I didn’t understand that in adopting any chart it would be exclusive of any other content that this Committee had under stain in the past. At least that was this individual’s understanding of the conversation, if that helps.
I actually asked for the floor for one additional comment on paragraph 20, we did make an intervention with respect to the U.S. objectives and principles approach document which we would appreciate having included in this document. It could be quite simple that preference was made to the U.S. objectives and principles for Exceptions and Limitations for education, teaching and research institutions SCCR/Twenty-Seventh/8 as a way forward discussion as — as a way forward for work on this topic.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: I think we have heard different views on these. I take note of that.
Of course now we’re engaged in just how to reflect objectively and not to start with substantial discussion which will be required, but not at the moment of the summary so even though we have interventions, I would require them to limit it to specific suggestions or saying — stating that you’re in favor or not regarding other specific suggestions.
South Africa has the floor.

>> SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you.
We’re in favor of inclusion of SCCR/26/4.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you.
E.U. has the floor.

>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you very much, Chairman.
I just am looking at paragraph 20, you have taken the language of the chaupo of the charts for libraries and archives and reproduced it in the paragraph. It may be helpful to clearly indicate that this language will be included in the chaupo of the charter itself to avoid any misunderstanding, it would be reassuring so that you can say that the chart will be framed by the principles. ^ thank you.
A further point of clarity, we refer to the chart on this topic, but the topic, if we take the item of the Agenda as both exceptions for education, research institutions and Persons with other Disabilities, it might be clearer to indicate what topic we’re talking about as we’re in a new paragraph.
Thank you, Chair.

>> CHAIR: Thank you for your suggestions.
Greece has the floor.
>> GREECE: I see other members my group, I would like to take the stage at a later stage. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Brazil has the floor.

>> BRAZIL: Thank you. I’m sorry to take the floor once again.
It was said that this is a good start, I would just like to remind us all in the discussions even the professor mentioned that he started delivery 5 classifications and then he came up with 8 and probably if he had one more week, more time he would come up with more and more definitions. On this point I understand that — it could be used by the Chair but I would like to second the proposal by the African Group and GRULAC.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you.
U.K.

>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, we would like to support the comment made by the E.U. in relation to the chapeau. You probably recall that our Delegation kindly asked you to actually clarify that point during the discussions under that item and that was — you were kind to read the exact language that you were planning to include under the chapeau.
Secondly, on the issue of the proposal made by African Group, our Delegation would not object to any reference in this para under the condition that this actually reflects what was discussed under the Agenda item 7. According to our recollection the discussions that we were having was the chart in relation to the study by Professor Singh. If our recollection was right we should limit that chart to the study by professor Singh.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: We have finished receiving your contributions on item 7 and we’ll continue on 8, 9, 10 and at the end I’ll tell you how I think I will proceed.
Nigeria has the floor.

>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like until you finish and tell us to proceed before intervening.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you.
Greece announced — you were waiting for other members to make a statement, are you ready?
Okay.
Going to Agenda Item number 8, please.
>> SECRETARIAT: Agenda Item 8, contribution of the SCCR to the implementation of the respective Development Agenda recommendations, paragraph 22: Several Delegations made statements regarding this Agenda item which was added to the Agenda on an ad hoc non-presidential basis.
23: The Chair stated all statements including those submitted to the Secretariat ^ in writing by May 20th, 2016 in relation to the contribution of the SCCR to the implementation of the respective Development Agenda recommendations would be recorded in the report of the 30s second session of the SCCR and would be transmitted to the 2016 WIPO General Assembly in the report of the SCCR to that body in line with the decision taken by the WIPO General Assembly related to the Development Agenda Coordination Mechanism.

>> CHAIR: Any comment related to Agenda item number 8?
Greece.

>> GREECE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With regards to paragraph 23, Agenda item 8, our group with like to stop the sentence after the reference to the body, full stop.
It is in the last sentence that we would like to stop the sentence after the 2016 WIPO General Assembly in the report of the SCCR to that body, full stop.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Any other comment related to this Agenda item number 8?
Brazil has the floor.

>> BRAZIL: I would like to ask clarification on the reason behind the request from Greece. It would be easier if she could explain why it is necessary to delete the later part of the sentence. It is a report summary made under the responsibility of the Chair and unless there’s a strong reason why perhaps we shouldn’t change this part of the text.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Nigeria has the floor.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to ask the same question posed by Brazil.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you.
Distinguished Delegate from Greece is invited to make some clarification.
Greece has the floor.

>> GREECE: Mr. Chair, we think that deleting the last part of the sentence reflects the discussion held in the plenary. To our recollection you referred to the report of the 30sy second session would be transmitted to the 2016 WIPO General Assembly but we do not remember any reference to the Coordination Mechanism.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you.
Egypt has the floor.

>> EGYPT: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
I believe you were going to correct this phrasing of what you mentioned in the room at the time because I think my memory serves me right when I remember that you mentioned that the submitted statements in writing will be included in the report, and then you corrected yourself and said and also statements expressed in the room during the discussion, which is missing here from the document, and then you ended up your intervention saying that this is in accordance with the Coordination Mechanism as mandated by the WIPO General Assembly.
I believe this has to be reflected in the text as you mentioned it. Again, this is your own language. You are responsible for it. Thank y>> CHAIR: Thank you.
Any other comment related to Agenda item number 8? I see none.
U.K.

>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We would actually be kindly asking you if — I think you have the minutes of the discussion, if you could just say — explain what you plan to include in this, whether you said it or not.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: I’m — thank you for the question. I will say that the end will have the modifications.
Agenda item number 9, plea>> SECRETARIAT: Agenda item 9, other matters, paragraph 24: Documents related to this Agenda item were SCCR/31/4 and SCCR/31/5.
25, the Committee discussed the pro proposal for analysis of copyright related to the digital environment, document SCCR/31/4 submitted by the group of Latin American and Caribbean countries, GRULAC. Members of the Committee and observers acknowledged the importance of the subject and offered comments on and reactions to the proposal. Many members welcomed future consideration of the topics raised in the proposal and made various suggestions as to how that could proceed. A proposal was made to add the topic to the SCCR Agenda as a standing Agenda item.
Paragraph 26: The Committee discussed the proposal from Senegal and Congo to include the resale right in the Agenda future work of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights of the World Intellectual Property Organization, document SCCR/31/5.
Mr. Chair, I see that organization is missing and we can add that.
Members of the Committee and observers acknowledged the importance of the subject and offered comments on and reactions to the proposal. Many members welcomed future consideration of the proposal and made various suggestions as to how that could proceed. A proposal made to have a presentation at SCCR33 of an external study prepared by professor RSK icketson was supported by some members. The Secretariat will organize this presentation for SCCR33 or SCCR34. Some members suggested that the commissioning of an SCCR study on the topic.
Paragraph Twenty-Seventh: These topics will be maintained on the Agenda of the 30sy-third session of the SCCR.
The Committee made and discussed various proposals for accommodating all proposed Agenda items and considering future topics for the Committee’s work.
Further consultations on the topics will be arranged.
Paragraph 29, some members expressed support for the Chair’s proposal to hold an extraordinary session of the Committee on pro protection for broadcasting organizations. Some Regional Groups supported the proposal. Others were of the view that an extraordinary session on protecting broadcasting organizations should follow the agreement on the scope, objectives, objective proposal of the treatedy. Some considered it unnecessary or premature to hold sessions in addition to the ordinary sessions of the Committee. ^ some Regional Groups expressed support for the Chair’s proposal to hold regional meetings on the subject of limitations and exceptions for Libraries and Archives. One of the groups expressed a preference for the regional meetings to include the subject of limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and Persons with other Disabilities.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Any comments?

Bahamas has the floor.
>> BAHAMAS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We would like to — I’m speaking on behalf of GRULAC — and we would like to make a comment in relation to paragraph 26, the sentence, the ultimate sentence reading the Secretariat will organize a presentation for SCCR33 or SCCR34. We note that during the plenary while we thank the Delegations of Senegal and Congo for their proposal we did express the concern that the inclusion of another Agenda item on the SCCR may have a negative impact on the timeframe for adequate time for discussions on broadcasting and Exceptions and Limitations and so we want to seek some clarification. We don’t remember an agreement that this would happen.
We’re not opposed in principle, but we just want to understand — we want clarification on what time would be allotted, how will this effect the two topics that have been subject of discussions.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Just a question to the Distinguished Delegate from the Bahamas, the comments you made is related to the sentence, the Secretariat will organize this for SCCR33 or 34, just for that sen
Thank you.
Any other comment? Latvia has the floor. Latvia: A small editorial suggestion for the two first sentences of the paragraph 29. We propose to merge them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
30s Greece has the floor.

>> GREECE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Our group would like to seek some clarification with regards to paragraph 28. We’re not sure the way it is drafted reflects the reality. Nevertheless, we would like to seek some clarification on further consultation on the topics that will be arranged which are the topics and what kind of further consultation would be undertaken, and is there a timeframe for that? Transportation.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for that.
E.U. has the floor.

>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Chair.
Some of the points I was going to make have been taken up by other Delegations.
Turning to paragraph 25 I do feel that there’s a missed opportunity here for us to all that we should insert a reference to at the very successful WIPO conference that was held on the global digital market and we can insert that in the second sentence along the lines of members of the Committee and observers acknowledge the importance of the subject which was recently addressed at the WIPO conference on the global digital market. This would reflect that many interventions did make reference to this particular event.
At the end of the sentence we could remove or replace rather the words to the proposal with the words on this topic which is more general and allows us to cover the GRULAC proposal and issues raised on the global conference on the global digital market.
I do have a few other minor points: Turning to paragraph 29 I do believe that the fourth and fifth sentence could be merged and certainly I think that the European Union would fall in both of those categories. It would be better for us if they could be merged. We consider it unnecessary to — too early to hold sessions in addition to the ordinary sessions of the Committee, but at the same time we support the idea that if you reach agreement on the scope objectives and Object of Protection of the proposed Treaty then you can move forward. Some sort of merger of the notions would be appreciated and they would properly reflect the EU position as expressed in our statements.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: For the record, you were saying exactly what sentences? Could you please clarify?
Thank you.

E.U., followed by Iran.

>> EUROPEAN UNION: Yes.
It may be better to separate the last section of paragraph 29 and give it a separate numbering, paragraph 30, the sentence would start — the paragraph would start with some regional groups expressed pressed support for the Chair proposal to hold regional meetings on the subject of limitations and exceptions, et cetera, et cetera as we move from broadcasters to a different topic. I think from reasons the clarity the text would read better in that way.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you.

Brazil has the floor.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor.
Perhaps all Delegations could make summaries of what they thought was interesting and share in them. We would just have a good time and hearing their views of the meeting. I have one specific one, an intervention by the Federation of — international Federation of Musicians that decided this was one of the most important missions of the SCCR in recent years. I would very much like to see that in the Summary of the Chair.
Being the case — we would like to see more, actually to be a clear portrait of the discussion that we have.
On paragraph 25, it really should depict the strong support and discussion of copyright in a digital environment and Chair, I understand this is a paper that’s done under your responsibility and it would not be respectful to change every single word that’s there.
Having said that, I would like to associate myself with the Delegation of Bahamas and speak on behalf of GRULAC seeing that we still — for us, it is not clear, one part of paragraph 26, the rest of the text we can go along with your proposal.

>> CHAIR: U.K. has the floor.

>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have two comments: In para28, the first sentence, or at least the first part of the sentence we actually don’t understand what it is trying to say, the Committee made and discussed various proposals for accommodating all proposed Agenda items. If you could just clarify.
In para 29, maybe even better para 30 as proposed by the E.U., a totally different subject, we want to ask you to clarify if there is some kind of conclusion in it? It just speaks to one point, some groups expressed support. Was there an agreement on this? In our perception it wasn’t but because it doesn’t state there there were also opposing views we’re just trying to be — to make it clear that there is no confusion in the next session if there is some implicit conclusion on that or if it is clear that there was no agreement, otherwise it would have been explicitly mentioned.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you.
Now we go for the next remaining part of the Summary by the Chair.

>> SECRETARIAT: Summary of the Chair, paragraph 30, the Committee took note of the contents of this Summary by the Chair. To the Chair clarified that this summary reflected the Chair’s views on the results of the Thirty-second session of the SCCR and in consequence it was not subject to approval by the Committee.
Agenda item 10, closing of the session, paragraph 31, the next session of the Committee will take place from November 14 to 18, 2016.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for all your contributions which are really helpful in order to try to reflect properly what’s been said. Of course, as these last paragraphs or previous paragraphs has been read by the Secretariat, it is the Chair’s summary and reflects the Chair’s views and the results of this session. I have to be reminded that — of that situation.

As usual, I finish taking note of all of these recommendations and I take them with me in order to reflect that in the final summary Chair of this, considering this clarification which is so important that I will read it out loud again.
The Chair clarified that this sum recent events nexted the Chair’s views and the results of the Thirty-Second session of the section CCR and in consequences it is not subject to approval by the Committee.

In considering so, let me state in advance as I’m used to do every time I undertake this task to answer your comments and to give you some clues as to the way I’m going
let me state in advance as I’m used to do every time I undertake this task to answer your comments and to give you some clues as to the way I’m going to refer to them.
I’ll thank you for trying to review this draft summary for Agenda item number 5 and Agenda item number 6 in advance because it is reflected when we don’t have observations at all. Thank you for that. Regarding Agenda item number 7, there are numerous — on Agenda item 8 and 9, we have lots of observations. If we — I will use the criteria of this objective and if it is — if it is — if we can reflect properly with clarification of what’s happened I will include it as such, such suggestion.
Regarding Agenda item number 7, there’s a comment regarding the survey. There are two issues related to the survey. The first one, it was effectively mentioned by the Secretariat as she reported. We will mention that.
Regarding the preparation for one specific deadline or occasion, which is mentioned now, it is a matter of announcement by Secretariat usually and that’s not precluding the inclusion in the Agenda item which is always a matter of a coordination with Regional Coordinators.
We will in that — we will take note of the Secretariat describes effectively the process and possible — the possible mechanisms to which with your participation, get information on a future survey for potential future work.
I see there is a concern, legitimate, if the mentioning of a specific session of the SCCR implies that we will change the Agenda and this is still undecided because we have recognized that we will have consultations on how to tackle the future work and the inclusion of the different ICT Agenda and regard — we have to be baring in mind also that this suggestion to reflect more properly what’s happened relating to the survey, it will be added. Meaning that the Secretariat described the processing in which the survey of national laws, it could be prepared for a future sessions and in order to do so it will undertake some efforts asking for collaboration for member countries, for that regards.
Regarding the suggestion in paragraph 20, this was a discussion of if the chart that was considered officially is a good tool to use for further discussions. Now it has become a contention, — it could impact the discussion on the document SCCR/26/4/Prov. I will take the criteria and the way the information was considered received using the last intervention of the Distinguished Delegates from the U.S. With that approach, meaning that as you are aware in the discussion of other topics when we undertook discussions on charts it didn’t preclude discussion on any specific documents. It didn’t change the methodology, it didn’t deny the existence, the importance, the requirement of this document and in considering so I invite you to with this suggestion as it was the intention to have it as a starting point.
However, I will clarify that adding that — I will take in account previous discussions and documents on these specific topics.
Regarding the suggestion to clarify in the last sentence to lead to a better understanding of the topics, it was correct that a decision could be made. We were talking about since the Agenda item number 7 is broader we were at this point talking about the topic of limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions regarding the need to clarify that we’ll use that criteria that’s in what was the chapeau of the previous chart, I think that you’re absolutely aware that this last sentence is there to serve the framework in which we will undertake that discussion, and in considering so, that was used as a clarification when we undertook the effort in the previous set of limitations and exceptions for Libraries and Archives and was considered enough for the record I could say it was considered effectively to be used for a framework for our discussion. I don’t see any need to emphasize that which is already there very clear and with a strong reference to the previous use
because I thinks that clear.
Regarding the Agenda item number 8, there was a question if following my words I mentioned submissions in writing were not enough and we have — we should include submissions or opinions made during the discussions within these SCCR that was — that comment was right, that’s why we changed the version here to say that all statements, meaning all, including those submitted to the Secretariat in writing so we tackled that specific concern.
Thank you for reminding Regarding the suggestion to remove the last part of the last sentence in line with the decision taken by the WIPO General Assembly related to the Development Agenda Coordination Mechanism, since it was mentioned in this session when it was in the material I shared with you, you can find it on the records, it will be kept. Regarding the Agenda item 9, other matters, there’s the suggestion that some Delegations highlighted the importance and relevance of the last seminar held in relation to a conference, in relation to the digital environment when they expressed views in Agenda item number 9 and since that opinion by some members was — is objectively recorded in the records of this session it will be included. Regarding the suggestion to change the term on reactions to the proposal to use it instead of that to the topic I think that we could do both because we are not talking about only the ontic but to the proposal as was expressly offered by some Delegations.
Regarding — the Secretariat mentioned already that we miss in para number 26 the term organization, that’s already set.
Regarding in this paragraph the helpings that the Secretariat will organize this presentation for SCCR/# 3 or SCCR/34 and I want to share with you that in order to have a clarity of a previous organizations on that matters, it will be necessary to take some further steps. I’m aware it doesn’t give you comfort because it does not reflect exactly what’s been mentioned and is part of a fixed decision on that organization and probably what we could do is to adapt that sentence in order to see exactly what the Secretariat can do in order to give us a chance to have the presentation without impairment of what is continued in paragraph 28, which is consultations regarding the way that topics are going to be arranged for in the future Committee’s work or Agenda Item for this Committee.
Regarding paragraph 28, when saying that is — not precisely drafted, the term for accommodating all propose Agenda items, we’ll try to do an effort to be precise. I think since the notion is that we will try to organize Agenda items in a workable, efficient manner that will be considered at this point.
Regarding the clarification required to the term topics at the end of this paragraph, further consultations on these topics will be arranged, thank you for requiring that clarification. Those further consultations will be arranged for the elements contained in this paragraph meaning the way that Agenda — that SCCR Agenda will be decided and possible in relation with the possible inclusion of future topics for this Committee. These future topics are those topics that member countries decide to consider as future topics.
Regarding the suggestion to merge the first and the second paragraph of para 29 I think that it reflects properly and would be merged so we’ll have some regional and some members as it has been suggested.
Regarding the possibility to separate merge paragraph — sentence, third and fourth of this paragraph, since it is reflected in one Delegation’s position and there was no opposition to that. I think that we will — we will do merge to this third and fourth sentence, for they had more than one reason in their position.
Regarding the separation for reason of clarity on the treatment we make or bring to the topic of broadcasting and the topic of Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives I don’t face problems for that as separation because they’re treated in the paragraphs separately, the first para and second, if we go to separate paragraphs within this, we think this will not be a problem at all.
Those are the topics at this stage that I could just consider that are part of the discussion of the ways I will reflect your suggestions. With that, I can offer you that I will take due note of what you have just suggested in the way that I have described, and I ask to just to remind that this reflects the Chair’s views on this matter.
Brazil has the floor.

>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Chair.
Regarding the proposal to include the proposal from GRULAC was the best proposal in the recent years in the SCCR, this was also a proposal that I raised. I was actually — when I made it, the proposal, I was thinking that some mentions regarding, for example, the conference on digital content would not be included because it was one of the mentioned even though it is factual that it was mentioned, many Delegations mentioned the side events we had this week and all Delegations mentioned the WIPO conference on IP development and also dealt with the proposal from GRULAC. It is uneven to come back in this proposal. Since I understand that this is — this document, it is presented under the responsibility of the Chair we can just follow your lead and go back home with feeling that we have fulfilled our duties here.
I will have to say that I was expecting a different kind of approach regarding the discussion of other matters.
Thank you, Chair.

>> CHAIR: Thank you for sharing your view on this.

Nigeria.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A question of clarification, I may not have completely grasped how your explanation of how you see paragraph 20 on the Agenda item 7. Could you please just explain again or give us some information, how you intend to conclude this especially reference to the request that was made by the Africa Group and supported by many Delegations.
Thank y>> CHAIR: Thank you.
I will answer you after listening to the following requests from the floor.
E.U. has the floor.

>> EUROPEAN UNION: In the same spirit as the intervention of the Distinguished Delegate of Brazil I would like to thank you for your hard work and with the suggestions that you have now indicated that will be inserted in the document, we recognize your wisdom.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you for that view.
I will answer the request made by — first by the African group and then Brazilian comment.
Regarding the clarification, regarding Article 20 I told that I wanted to follow the approach explained by the Distinguished Delegate for U.S. stating that it was not a matter of how we’re going to work on the Committee, but just as a
way to use the presentation by Professor Singh as a tool to prepare initially a chart without having impacted the categories expressed in previous documents. I wanted to clarify that, that was not the intention to reduce the amount of categories or to forget about the content of previous documents.
Recognizing the intention behind the proposal to mention the document that’s guided discussions on this Agenda item for so many years and as you clearly explained meaning SCCR/26/4/Prov where I said — where I took the decision considering the list already mentioned in Agenda — in paragraph 16 as a related document to this I will just add a sentence to the mention of the Chair’s chart that it will use — the Chair agreed to prepare such a chart using the categories identified in the draft study prepared by Professor Singh as a starting point and elements contained in previous discussions and documents.

In that regard I think I have the flexibility as professor itself, himself had the chance to go and have an ongoing work which is unfinished yet and I will face the necessity to see the previous discussions and documents in order to try to reflect that in the chart and as a starting point I said it right after the conference that it was — I remember that, it is in the records — that it gave us some light, a way to structure our discussions.
Considering that, I mentioned the Professor Singh as a starting point and elements contained in previous discussions and documents. Hopefully this will give comfort to all of you.
Brazil had different expectations regarding the result, the treatment we made for Agenda item number 9 I see at this point that the discussion on this Agenda item or of other matters is unfinished, specifically on the discussion, on the proposal of analysis of copyright row lated to the digital environment. Since it is not finished, we look forward to continue the discussions but at this point it is very preliminary to say more because it has been clear, that’s been welcomed and there were different comments and reactions to this proposal.
Regarding the suggestion of mentioning the digital conference it was objectively reflected in the record that was mentioned in the context of the discussion of this Agenda item. I would be really pleased to include in the reference that you have mentioned that comes from an NGO, but we have not done so with the statements made by NGOs and I ask for your understanding regarding that exclusion and I could say that it is on the records and it really could be used and recommended and disseminated as on the records and ready.
However, I have — I will add that the digital conference, the mention in the digital conference without effecting the proper importance and comments and reactions related to the proposal, that’s what I kept the term proposal at the end.
Hopefully this will give comfort to all of you. Of course, please bear in mind that since this is not an SCCR set of conclusions, it is the Chair’s view, please consider that is my understanding of what’s happened in the meeting.
Nigeria.

>> NIGERIA: Thank you.
The Africa Group certainly does not want to prolong the discussion and to continue to question the Chair’s summary, we take into account that this is under your authority, but it is important that it is also reflective of the concerns that have been raised by Member States and that it is factual as well of the.
There is no doubt that this is as factual as it is. The Chair summary from the reference point for Member States ^ in subsequent Committee meetings. We would be acceptable to the new language you have used but I would like to take the floor to express that the group is rather baffled we would have details about including reference to a document that the Committee has worked on for a number of years and is essential to the discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

>> CHAIR: Thank you for your opinion. You have expressed it very clear. Let me tell few, when we undertake the discussion on the structure chart, I said in advance it was ongoing set of categories and of course it is dynamic and it will include to reflect properly our previous discussions and that’s what I’m looking for with addition to mentioning in previous discussions and documents. Thank you.
It has come up — I don’t see anymore requests from the floor at this point.
I would like to thank you and to open for the closing remarks.
Bahamas has the floor.

>> BAHAMAS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I have the honor to take the floor for GRULAC, we would like to thank you for your very hard work this session. The Vice-Chair. Members of the Secretariat and the wonderful interpreters that made all this happen. We have had some lively discussion within the informal process of broadcasting organizations, we have furthered the discussions on the three topics that are important to our group, including the limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and limitations and exceptions for research institutions and Persons with other Disabilities. Even though we didn’t come to agreement, we look forward to more discussions with this Committee and want to reiterate our support for your proposals to convene an extraordinary session and hold regional seminars in relation to the extraordinary session on broadcasting and regional issues and exceptions.
We would like to thank the Member States and the stakeholders, NGOs for their very positive perspective on the discussion on the proposal for analysis of copyright for the digital environment and we thank them for viewing it as one of the best proposals in the history of WIPO and we hope it will be reflected in the record of this Committee and we look forward to continuing this exercise in the next session.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Latvia has the floor.
>> LATVIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CEBS Group would like to thank the Chair and Vice-Chair for the skillful guidance of our work this week. We had useful discussions during this week in the broadcasting Treaty and the limitations and exceptions questions. As stated before the CEBS Group values the possible Treaty on the broadcast organization protection but a Treaty not taking in account the digital developments and the current needs, it will not bring that expected level of protection. We have been on this journey for 18 years and we wonder whether this journey has been so long because of our lack of agreement on the destination. In this regard we invite all the Delegations to reflect on the way forward while preparing the next SCCR session.
The group recognizes the role of limitations and exceptions in the socioeconomical development and is ready to continue the discussion in our national experiences in the implementation of the national legal framework.
Finally we would like to express the groups gratitude to all Delegations for the constructive engagement, the Secretariat for the valuable support and interpreters for helping us to understand each other.
Thank y>> CHAIR: Thank you.

China has the floor.

for education and research institutions. For example, we had a lot of discussion and Delegations showed flexibilities in order to reduce the differences.
My Delegation approved the organization of the ream Nall workshops to promote this process and we hope that we can exchange views on am balanced text and the Chinese Delegation is prepared to work with all other Delegations to achieve the best results.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Thailand has the floor.

>> THAILAND: I speak on behalf of the Asia and Pacific Group. We would like to thank the Chair, Vice-Chairs and Secretariat and the interpreters for their hard work during this week.
We also would like to reiterate that the issues on limitations and exceptions and the protection of the broadcasting Treaty, it is important to our group and we note that substantial work and exchange of views has been made this week reflecting the spirits to make the progress under the SCCR. The Asia and Pacific Group will be looking ways to engage constructively in this and contributing on our issues at the next SCCR taking into account the aspect of social, economic technological development.
Thank you, Mr. Cha>> CHAIR: Thank you.
Nigeria has the floor.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I’m speaking on behalf of the Africa Group, and we would like to thank you and the Vice-Chair for your skillful, tireless effort and commitment to moving the work of the SCCR forward. We thank the Secretariat for their hard work as well and the late nights working to make sure that the documents reach Member States on time.
We express our appreciation to the interpreters as well.
Our assessment is that there were good conversations held this week and there were missed opportunities to take important steps that could facilitate the eventual consensus on the issues before the Committee such as your proposal for intersessionals on broadcasting organizations and the regional seminars for Exceptions and Limitations. We hope that the time between now and the next meeting of the SCCR would be used as a time for deep reflection amongst Member States on the nature of our commitment to universally agr goals, with specific reference to the steps needed to take to facilitate the access to knowledge and life-long learning opportunities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much.
Kazakhstan has the floor.

>> KAZAKHSTAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of our group, I would like to express our gratitude for excellent coordination of the Committee meetings and Secretariat for organizing this meeting, as well as as the interpreters and we’re very much — we appreciate very much the views given by Member States and NGOs and we look forward to more constructive engagements in the future meetings of the Committee.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much.
Greece has the floor.

>> GREECE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In our turn we would like to express a word of thanks to you and to your Vice-Chair and the Secretariat for their hard work during this week and for the preparations of the side events, as we have already stated, they shed light on the various issues that copyright face in today’s world.
Last but not least, many thanks to the Secretariat, to the interpreters for their hard work also.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for sharing these closing remarks with us.
Nigeria is requesting the floor.

>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I realized I omitted to thank the NGOs, all those that deepened our understanding in this Committee. Thank you very much.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much.
We don’t have anymore requests for the floor.
I would like to finish thanking all of you for defending strongly, passionately and firmly your positions. That’s a way that it reflects that you have the knowledge and the sense of urgency and importance to define those principles that you’re following and, of course, in trying to understand each other is that we could probably find common grounds.
We have done some exercise in previous International Treaties. We could do so here. We’re starting to do so in the context of some of the topics on the Agenda. If we succeed it will be because we will respect others’ views and we try to understand and we find some ways to tackle not only our concerns but others concerns and we get to that point and I think that we can really succeed. That’s what we did before.
I think the world is watching us and expecting us to find the solutions to the challenge and topics we’re dealing with. I would like to thank all of you, all Regional Groups, all leading people here who are engaged in this discussion.
I also would like to thank the team of the Secretariat excellently led by Michelle Woods, all of them you see here every time working with us as Raphael, Carol, Paolo and other members, they’re working, making it possible to be in the room. To my vice Chair whose dealt with complex issues in the meeting was the E.U. The interpreters, thank you for the strong, very important help on this issue and all of the staff that’s part of the conference which as you see, they’re still here, and some that were before and it is really — I would like to thank especially to them for the hard work they make.
I only want to close the session, but before I will give the chance to Michelle if she wants to add specifically something.

>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you so much, Chair.
Everybody has been said, I won’t repeat it. I will note that in addition to our excellent colleagues from conference services and interpretation there are many others here at WIPO who help us keep these meetings running on track, on time, assisting everyone, including, for example, security, for example the catering services that provide the coffee breaks, many other colleagues, the translators that waited for us tonight, all of the others that support our work here. There really are many colleagues that do that.
We do appreciate all of their efforts and finally, Chair, I would of course like to thank the Vice-Chair and yourself on behalf of the whole Copyright Law division team and perhaps conclude by congratulating Chile for the eradication, the deposit of the eradication instrument for the Marrakech Treaty and to thank the Member States that made reference to the efforts they’re making to be ready soon to ratify the Beijing and Marrakech Treaty and we’re standing ready to assist in the efforts, including helping to arrange the ratification procedures here at WIPO. Please don’t hesitate to call on us as we’re really excited to work with you on bringing those Treaties into practice and bring tangible results to the beneficiaries.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. The Thirty-Second Session of this Committee is over

>> CHINA: Thank you, Chairman.
I would like to thank the Vice-Chair man, Secretariat, all of the hard working staff for this meeting. Everyone played an active part in this meeting in spite of differing points of view on the Exceptions and Limitations

Printer-friendly version Send by email Send by email