Centre for Internet & Society

Rough transcript of proceedings from WIPO SCCR on Day 4, November 22, 2012.

Plain Text icon 2012-11-22_sccr25_full-day.txt — Plain Text, 136 kB (140133 bytes)

File contents

Captioning test (microphone testing).
>> CHAIR: Good morning, colleague. Today as was agreed on
Monday when we adopted the schedule of this meeting, we have
decided to move to the question of broadcasting this morning and
on the exception and limitations this afternoon. So, programme
for this morning is on broadcasting. And as you recall, during
the last session, it's commitment to continue work on the
signal-based approach, consistent with the 2007 General Assembly
mandate towards developing an international treaty to abate the
protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the
traditional sense. And the assembly, last October, approved the
recommendation by the SCCR that the committee should continue its
work toward a text that will enable a decision on whether to
convene a diplomatic conference in 2014. So this is a decision
that the GA has to take next year. So now what we have on the
table is a working document for the treaty on the -- document
SCCR 2410 and I will just ask the Secretariat to introduce the
>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you, Madame Chair. A very good
morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. Yes, indeed I would like to
recall that the last SCCR, SCCR24, the committee agreed to adopt
the single text titled "working document for a treaty on the
protection of broadcasting organizations" contained in document
This text, which is now submitted to the Committee's
consideration includes the textual proposals from the delegation
of India which were contained in the footnotes and have now been
included as one of the alternatives in the relevant articles of
the working document.
The text submitted to the Committee's consideration now
constitutes the working basis for the further text-based
discussions to be undertaken on this topic of broadcasting. I
thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for the introduction, I would now like
to pass the mic to group coordinator if they have some statement
to make concerning this issue. And we will then pass to
individual delegation. So I recognize the delegation of Belgium.
You have the floor.
>> BELGIUM: Mrs. Chair, it's a pleasure to see you there.
So I'm taking the floor on behalf of Group B. Group B-- to see
an improvement in the international broadcasting organizations.
In this regard, Group B welcomes the progress made during SCCR24
on broadcasting and the decision of the last General Assembly to
continue work within this committee towards an international
treaty to update the protection of broadcasting organizations.
Our work should continue on the basis of the single text
adopted during the last session of the SCCR in July 2012 titled
"working documents for a treaty on the protection of broadcasting
organizations with the objective of reaching a decision on
convening a diplomatic conference in 2014.
Group B believes we should continue working towards
developing an international treaty to update the protection of
broadcasting organizations.
Group B notes, however, that the important tasks remain
ahead of us and believes that it is essential how we can bridge
gaps with different states with approaches with the protection of
broadcasting organizations. We think that offering a balanced --
in the digital area for broadcasting organizations is of key
Mrs. Chairwoman, group B acages the level of maturity of the
text and would therefore welcome further specific technical
discussions within the first half of 2013. Group B stands as
committed as ever to work towards a consensus that will enable
broadcasting organizations to be given effective protection at
the international level. I thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Belgium and I give now
the floor to the European Union.
>> EU: Thank you very much Mrs. Chair. The European Union
and hits Member States would like to thank the Chair and the WIPO
Secretariat for the work related to a treaty on behalf of
broadcasting organizations and in particular for having prepared
the document on the protection of broadcasting organizations
contained in SCCC/24/10.
The WIPO treaty on broadcasting organizations remains a high
priority for the European Union and its Member States. We are
keen to see the protection of international broadcasting
organizations but is meaningful and adapted to the realities of
the 21st Century while at the same time respecting the rights of
right holders in works and other protected subject matter carried
by broadcast signals.
The European Union and its Member States remain convinced
that WIPO is the right Forum for new international standards to
know set on this matter. We welcome the progress made on this
committee in July. We look forwards to continuing the
discussions on the treaty during this session and in future
committee meetings with the aim of progressing work on a draft
treaty and making a recommendation to 2014 WIPO General Assembly
on the scheduling of a diplomatic conference in 2014. The
European Union and its Member States stand as committed as ever
to work towards this goal and towards a consensus that will
enable broadcasting organizations to be given adequate and
effective protection at the international level.
Now that we have the working document on the table, the
European Union and its Member States are looking forward to
technical discussions on the substance of the proposed treaty
based on this text, including proposing amendments and making
textual comments.
Progress on this very important, urgent issue is necessary,
and we hope it will continue to be achieved at this meeting and
future committee meetings. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: I thank the European Union and I recognition the
delegation of Hungary. You have the floor, Madam.
>> HUNGARY: Thank you, Madame Chair, good to see you, as
well, at this seat. Hungary on behalf of the regional group of
central and Baltic states would like to thank the Chair and the
WIPO Secretariat for the preparation of the working document for
a treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations
contained in document SCCR/24/10.
In our view, the single techs is the a work in progress and
we continue it constitutes appropriate basis for our future work.
Madame Chair, as we are well aware, the protection of
broadcasting organizations has not been touched upon
internationally for decades or the technical developments have
significantly changed. The need for an update is clear for all,
negotiations still need to be achieved. In this regard, we would
like to recall the conclusions of the last SCCR where we agreed
to intensity our discussions with the aim to allow the convening
of a diplomatic conference in 2014. For that reason, we would
like to propose to have technical-level discussions in the spring
to deepen the understanding of the text on the tale in order to
prepare the ground for expedited progress at the next SCCR.
Finally, Mr. Chairman -- Madame Chair, sorry -- we would
like to give our commitment to work in an instructive and
conclusive matter on this issue.
>> CHAIR: I thank you for this intervention.En and I
recognize the delegation of China.

>> CHINA: Thank you, Madame Chair. The delegation of China
would like to thank the Secretariat and the Chair and the
delegations for their efforts on the protection of broadcasting
organizations. We hope that during the session, we will be able
to have technical discussions on the document SCCR 24/10, which
would enable us to go into greater depth in our understanding and
come to a consensus. The Chinese Delegation will continue to
support the work of the session in order to find agreement on
both the scope and the objective of the protection as well as
signal-based protection and we hope we will be able to get
progress during this session on this.
We also hope that we will be able to convene a diplomatic
conference on this as soon as possible. Thank you, Madame Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of China. I do not
recognize any other group coordinator who asked at this stage to
take the floor, of course they can intervene whenever they want
later in the discussion. And I will also now open the floor to
individual delegation.
Just to mention that the time this morning is not so big.
As you know, we just have until 1:00 to have this discussion. So
I would really ask you to focus on new input to bring to this
committee on if process, also on new idea. You can have reaction
based on the text we had so far, the working document we have.
But try to avoid to just restate position this is detail. I
think these positions are known. So you could just state your
opinion and what it is. But it would be interesting, really, to
have some new ideas, some new element while we know the position
of lots of delegations. So it will speed up the work on this
committee due to the limited amount of time we have to date. So
I will now pass the floor to the delegation of Venezuela.
>> Venezuela: Thank you so much, Madame Chair. Madame
Chair, for Venezuela, this is a topic this broadcasting topic was
outside the scope of our committee. We're trying to protect the
rights under article 26 of the universal declaration of Human
Rights. This is a topic protecting radio broadcasters. And we
understand that at stake there are really private interests;
nevertheless, Venezuela joins in GRULAC's statement of interest
for this topic being progressed because of the results that might
come out of that. But we don't think that it should be put on
the same level as the issue of visually impaired persons. And
people have asked: Why do we have three days on visual
impairment and only a morning on this topic? We believe that we
need to justify this because millions of people around the world
have visual disablement, particularly in developing countries and
therefore this is an issue which is along the lines of the
Millennium Development Goals. And we are proposing
intercessionals in order to resolve this. I think it would be
better if we actually spent the time during this week, because
obviously intercessionals mean more funds are necessary. There
are visually disabled people waiting for us to come to
conclusion, to have a result.
Now, this issue is not a social issue. No, of course, it's
an issue that we can work on. I would like to state that my
delegation may have reservations on any treaty that comes up on
>> CHAIR: I'd like to thank Venezuela. I think all of us
here are committed to see a result on the document for persons
with visual impairments and print disablement. We do certainly
want to have a solution on that this week. And we will do
everything possible to achieve that. I think that we are all
committed to that, and we will continue on that this evening.
I'd now like to give the floor to South Africa.
>> SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you very much, Madame Chair. South
Africa is committed to work on a signal-based approach towards
developing an international treaty to update the protection of
broadcasting and cablecasting organisation in a traditional sense
as per the mandate of the WIPO General Assembly in 2007.
In this connection, we have pursued discussion, Madame
Chair, that led to the adoption of a single text titled working
document for the treaty on the protection of broadcasting
organizations contained in the document SCCR/24/10.
We are happy, Madame Chair, to have this working document
which constitutes the basis of further text-based discussions in
this committee. And the WIPO General Assembly recently added
further em pet us by deciding that this committee continue its
work towards a text-based whether to convene a diplomatic in
2014. This means, therefore, that Madame Chair, we need to work
tirelessly that the working document on the treaty on the
protection of broadcasting organizations is ready for the 2014
diplomatic conference.
South Africa does not see our efforts of developing an
international treaty to update the broadcasting and cable
customer organizations in isolation from other international
For an exam, Madame Chair, the International
Telecommunication Union in 2006 agreed that analog television
frequencies will not be protected from signal interference from
the other countries by June 2015. Therefore we encourage
countries to roll out relevant infrastructure that would be
supportive of migration from analog television to digital
television broadcasting systems.
One of the challenges with this development is that this
migration system from analog to digital will free up spectrum in
order to facilitate creation of other television channels. The
question is where will be the done tent to feed the new
television channels that will be open up. We think that Madame
Chair that this will then encourage the signal piracy and
facilitate and exacerbate the problem that we are having at the
present moment.
Madame Chairman, what we would like to say in conclusion in
order to accelerate our work on the pro tension of broadcasting
organizations, we'd like to agree with the earlier speakers that
we need a three-day intercessional meetings before the next
SCCR in order to deal with the difficult issues that are
contained in our working document. I will end there, Madame
Chair. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of South Africa and I give
now the floor to Mexico.
>> MEXICO: Thank you, Madame Chair. Our delegation is very
please today see you presiding over this meeting.
I would just like to recall that this topic has actually
been on agenda for more than 14 years, and I think that perhaps
14 years is sufficient. When women reach the age of 15, we have
a big celebration in our country. Are we to wait to next year
and then have a celebration for 15 years of discussing the same
topic? I'd just like to recall that signals here, we're not just
talking about signals for signals sake. Signals have content.
What is the content of the signals, their interpretations?
What we're doing here is not protecting one broadcast
organisation, we're protecting the artists, the authors, the
speakers because this content is transmitted through these
Now, if you think the country, the signals that -- through
these signals we also have important signals such as from
emergency services, firemen and so on. Also commercial signals.
I think that we are on the right tracks here in order to ensure
that we are protecting all of authors' rights. We've got 14
years of discussions, and during that time we've got more and
more piracy. We've been discussions exceptions and limitations.
I think that in order not to get to 15 years without achieving
anything, then we need to have intercessional meetings on this
prior to we have the next SCCR session. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Mexico and I give now
the floor to Japan followed by Egypt.
>> JAPAN: Thank you, Madame Chair. Japan would like to
endorse the statement made by the Distinguished Delegate of
Belgium on bee of of Group B and we also welcome the decision of
last General Assembly. The 2007 mandate and encouraged us to
reach the decision on convening a diplomatic conference on the
protection of broadcasting organizations in 2014.
Since our further work should be on the consolidated text
SCCR/24/10, Japan would like to make some corrections so that the
text reflects our own proposal appropriately. I will submit all
our corrections in written form to the Secretariat, so I will not
mention the tiny typographical errors here. But I would like to
introduce some of really substantial collections in this primary.
First, regarding Article 8, Alternative B, this provision
has become different from what Japan intended originally. So the
end of this sentence, the phrase of this treaty should be
replaced by -- of Article 9B1 iv and iii.
>> CHAIR: Sorry, if you could repeat this point. Because
we have missed where we are. I'm sorry, Japan if you can restart
on which article you are making this comment.
>> JAPAN: Sorry, Madame Chair, I start with Article 8,
alternative B. And the correction we need to amend is the end of
this sentence. The phrase of this treaty should be replaced by
Article 9, Alternative B, Paragraph 1, iv and iii. I will submit
these corrections in written form, but I'd like to share the
information in primary. Can I move on to the next?
The next one is regarding Article 9, Alternative B, first
paragraph, v. At the end of this part, Article 9, Alternative B,
first paragraph v, we would like to put the following phrase
which existed in our original proposal. The phrase is, "in such
a way that members of the public may access them from -- and
individually chosen by them."
I'll repeat the additional phrase is, "in such a way that
members of the public may access them from appraise and at the
time individually chosen by them.".
The next one is on Article 9, Alternative B, vi. Though
this paragraph is moved bodily from Paragraph 11 of Japan's
proposal, correspondence relations between the light of
transmission and its reservation is awkward here, so the second
sentence must be deleted for correction since the second sentence
can be integrated into Para 3 later. So please delete the second
Next, on the Article 9, Alternative B, second paragraph,
there was not such a paragraph in Japan's original proposal, and
Japan is in favor of deletion of this paragraph.
Next Article 9, Alternative B, Paragraph iii. Japan would
like to give corrective addition that the Roman numerals of this
paragraph are not correct. The Roman numerals ii, iv and
vi should be replaced by ii, v, vi and vii. In other words, we
suggested deletion of iv and addition of v and vii.
And next one is Article 9, Alternative B, iv. This is a
really tiny one. This article should be replaced by the word
this paragraph, not article but paragraph.
The last correction is on Article 16, first paragraph. At
the end of the first line, the words, "to any fixed or" seems to
be inserted mistakenly. So they should be deleted. The words
'To any fixed or "should be deleted.
Lastly, we believe an intensive discussion among parts many
fundamental issues is a key to make progress towards a treaty.
So regarding future work, I'd like to express our support, the
idea to have an opportunity of additional discussion within the
first half of 2013. Thank you, Madame Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Japan and would like to
make some comments in regard to the intervention you have made
and correction you have asked. Just concerning Article 8,
Alternative B, we thank you for the clarification you have put
here. Just to mention to the full committee the sense of what we
have put in records. Because when it was requested during the
consultation that we introduced in the text, the element proposed
by Japan, and wait agreed buy the committee to have this, we had
reference to several provisions but in the original proposal of
Japan which make no sense in this document. So we think it would
be more useful to have a general idea explaining what was meant
by Japan in this proposal. So the possibility to send
notification to the DG on certain obligations that will perhaps
be put in this treaty.
But now with the clear reference to specific element put in
the document we have here in the alternative, it will make it
more clear. So this kind of modification I think should be taken
into account.
Concerning some of the other modifications, we note that
there were an junctions that were not adopted during the
committee and the text was put as is as adopted by delegations.
So there is some parts new elements proposed. Like in Article 9,
B, 1, v, the committee adopted the text and also we discussed it
with Japan when we had this consultation. This element was not
put forward at that moment. And we re-visited the text twice in
the consultation. So here I'm a little more puzzled to introduce
For instance also your demand to delete para 2 in this
article B, just to mention that here wait not the idea when we
produced this text to have just proposal by delegation but also
this para 2 was put in the original text by the Chair. So we
cannot delete it so easily because it was an element put for
consideration by the committee and adopted by the committee.
So this alternative B is not just the proposal by Japan.
It's really a mix where we take into account the elements you
proposed during the last consultation.
So I think for the next committee, it would be good to have
correction on the document where there is mistakes, where we have
not correctly reproduced some point, perhaps in Article 16. But
I will refrain by adding at this stage new element or deleted
elements that were accepted by the Committee last time.
So just for consideration also by this Committee and as a
reaction from the part of the Chair on this point. But I think
we can definitely enter into discussion with Japan to finalize
this text.
I would like now to pass the floor to Egypt.
>> EGYPT: Thank you, Madame Chair. Firstly, my
intervention is regarding several general comments. And I will
not get into detail on the articles on music and on broadcasting.
We will discuss these articles when the Chair gives us an
opportunity. First I'd like to extend my thanks to the
Secretariat for having put together this document, 24/10.
This document does seem to be the most advanced document
since the very beginning of our discussions on this subject for
10 years ago as the colleague from Mexico pointed out.
We support progress that has been made on this document, and
we hope it to reach an agreement on a treaty that will enable us
to achieve our objective, which is the holding of a diplomatic
conference at the date that is being put forward.
I would like to point out that it is crucial that we abide
by the recommendation of the General Assembly, that the whole
basis of this document must be protecting the signal. And as not
mentioned any wording about the protection of rights and
objectives. We believe that the protection of signals might lead
to protecting objective rights in an indirect manner. However,
we know that these rights on the content are being -- are looked
at, are other international instruments in one way or another.
So in conclusion, I'd like to thank the Secretariat for
having put together this document that we are currently
reviewing. We would have liked the Secretariat to make a brief
statement on the comments and developments and comments from
delegates on this document to know what has been the feedback and
where there is consensus and where there is a lack of consensus
so that our comments are constructive. And we haven't all
managed to follow the discussions, after all, which has taken
place over the last 14 years.
Finally, I honestly hope that we will produce concrete
results when we come to the details of this document. I thank

>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Egypt for your
comments. I would like to pass the floor to the United States
followed by Russia.
>> U.S.. Thank you, Madame Chair, the United States is
committed to moving the discussions on broadcasting forward. We
believe that the key to doing so is seeking a better
understanding of the Member States' differing positions as
reflected in the working document. We need to understand the
reasons for each other's approaches and the concerns about
different approaches. As a result, we think the most productive
way forward is a technical discussion of substance. And for that
reason, we support the call by SEBs and South Africa and Mexico
and Japan for intercessional work in the spring to focus on
exactly that kind of technical discussion.
And just to add in our view looking at the working document
at 24/10, there is a real possibility of finding consensus on at
least a core area of protection. If we can focus on the central
needs of broadcasters, particularly with respect to
retransmissions of signals to the public, this could allow us to
produce a result of real value while avoiding any negative impact
on other rightholders or consumers. This would require Member
States to be flexible and find an approach that may not mirror
any of our own national approaches but would set out an
international core norm and lead each of us to adopt it and build
on it as appropriate in our own legal and cultural contexts.
We are optimistic we can make progress if we follow this
approach. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of the United States for
their comments. I would like to pass the floor now to Russia,
followed by South Africa. But I'm not sure you are still
requesting the floor. So it will be followed by Argentina.
Russian Federation, you have the floor.
>> Russian Federation: Thank you, Madame Chair. The
Russian Federation also supports the efforts of Member States and
the Secretariat made to prepare a text or a treaty of protection
of rights of broadcasting organizations and bringing it to a
diplomatic conference in 2014. We would like to assure the
Secretariat and colleagues that we are established on the same
positions already established by our committee, the signal-based
protection. And also we would like to say support to the
colleague from Mexico who said that talking about protection of
the signal, we mustn't forget the fact that this is also
protection of authors' rights. In other words, the protection of
the content carried by the signal we also need to remember and
we've heard this today about the current realities we've already
gone into the digital age quite a long time ago now. And
documents on the digital issues also need to be
We'd like to make the proposal for having technical
discussions on this document in the intercessional period, thank
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Russia and give now the
floor to Argentina.
>> Argentina. Thank you, Madame Chair, the delegation of
Argentina would like to say that it has followed this working
process and the work of this committee to make progress with
regard to the protection of radio broadcasting organizations. I
would like to add that this is of high relevance to Argentina
because of audiovisual for public and private has developed a lot
of content format that is being exported throughout the world.
On this note, Argentina is prepared to work closely the
technical matters to get with other delegations and to
participate in any sports formal or informal exercise that is
developed in the future where we can submit comments and textual
proposals. I thank you, Madame Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Argentina for their
comments and -- followed by Kenya.
>> Thank you, Madame Chair, I'd like to take the opportunity
to thank the Secretariat for preparing this document and also to
thank the Member States for working together to come up with a
singular document. I would like to make a statement with the
delegation of South Africa. The delegation of Kenya is committed
to working towards seeing a fruitful conclusion to this
particular process. It is important as stated by other
delegations to have a proper legislative framework. The
dedication the single text SCCR24/10 forms a good basis for the
technical discussions which will he ven fuelly lead to the
negotiations towards the diplomatic conference in 2014. The time
spent on the discussions as stated by the distinguished
delegation of Mexico has been quite long and there needs to have
definite results in in process. We therefore support the
proposal by South Africa and other like-minded delegations to
have a three-day intercessional working session which will
facilitate further work and expedite the process. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Kenya and I would like
to pass the floor to India followed by Brazil.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Madame Chair. The hard work done by
the WIPO Secretariat preparing this single document concerning
the last year and the delegation also thanks the Secretariat and
the Chair for inclusion of Indian legal textual-based comments as
alternatives in the working document, SCCR24/10.
Miss Chairperson we reiterate our commitment to -- the
signal-based toward developing an international treaty of
protecting broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense,
in consistent with the 2007 General Assembly mandate which was
agreed during the last SCCR, as well.
India also reiterates its opposition to inclusion of any
elements of webcasting and simulcasting issues under the
framework of the proposed broadcasting treaty which is being
discussed with the help of this working document.
India also opposes any attempt to amend the eye mandate of
the General Assembly to include retransmission of computer
networks -- retransmission of any other platforms because these
activities are not broadcasting at all in the traditional sense.
However, we are flexible in supporting the issue of
unauthorized live transmission of signal over the computer
networks because this is causing a lot of economic loss to the
broadcasting organizations, not only in India and our member
countries but this should not be understood that any webcasting
or simulcasting by the broadcasting organisation should be
allowed in this treaty.
Miss Chairperson, the framework of the proposed treaty,
protection of broadcasting organizations, is based on the
signal-based approach in the traditional sense. Therefore,
ippeddia opposes inclusion of any elements which are akin to
rights-based approach. We will be submitting a suitable
alternative proposals to strengthen the mandate and also the
working document in future. And we look forward to constructive
discussion on all the alternatives incorporated in the working
document, which is a good basis for the further discussions to
conclude this treaty. Thank you, Miss Chairperson.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of India for its comment,
and I would like now to pass the floor to Brazil followed by
Morocco. Brazil first, sorry.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Madame Chair, I'm taking the floor on
my national capacity. Our delegation thanks the Chair for having
prepared SCCR/24/10. Firstly my delegation with like to state
how we view the process we are following. This understanding
much Brazil that the work being carried out in the Standing
Committee on copyright and related rights, SCCR, should not
depart from the guidance provided by the General Assembly in year
2007. The General Assembly's mandate should orientate the work
that is being carried out by WIPO. We should first agree on the
objectives, the specific scope and object of protection.
Consistently with the mandate, Brazil favors the adoption of
a signal-based approach and to define the scope or the future
instrument to broadcasting organizations in a traditional cents.
During the course of these negotiations, Brazil has made the
actual suggestions which are now part of the working text and
have to do with public interests, such as article 2, general
principles, article 3, the promotion of cultural diversity and
also regarding limitations and exceptions. Brazil has also
supported a proposal made by Chile, which is now Article 4,
defense of competition.
In addition to preliminary comments and suggestions that our
delegation may provide in the discussion of the working document
SCCR/24/10, we reserve the right to provide further textual
suggestions and comments over the course of the negotiations.
The Brazilian delegation would like to reiterate its
willingness to continue participating in a construct Imanner the
discussions regarding broadcasting. I thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Brazil. I pass now the
floor to Morocco followed by Iran.
>> MOROCCO Thank you, Madame Chair. My delegation would
like to begin by extending its sincere thanks to the Chair for
the excellent way that you are steering the work of this
We'd also like to thank the Secretariat for having prepared
this document on the work of this committee.
The discussions on the protection of broadcasting
organizations have gone on for quite a number of years before
producing this document 24/10, which is the outcome of many years
of work by delegations; however, we haven't managed to crown the
success of the work much this committee yet.
We believe that our work has been full of many challenges,
particularly concerning piracy and piracy of signals. It really
does constitute problem for the work much artists because signals
have literally artistic content because of the technological
developments that have developed and facilitated pirates' access
to these works and creations in signals. And over the course of
the negotiations and the long discussions, we all agreed that the
protection has to be based on signals. And the principle of
protecting broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense.
And this is why we would like to accelerate the work of our
committee and we'd like to see in 2013 that this be a priority
subject so that we can properly protect broadcasting
The delegation of Morocco has said that its audio visual
industry has been liberalized, and we have a number of
broadcasting organizations -- and this is why we would like to
see an international instrument so that we can protect these
signals and protect the content which is rich in artistic and it
willerrary works. And this is why we would like to see this
committee adopt an action plan for 2013 in order to step up the
pace of the work on a technical level either via intercessional
meetings or else regional meetings so that we can produce some
agreement between all Member States and bring together points of
view, pending issues in order to be able to hold a diplomatic
conference in 2014. I thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Morocco for its
comments and I'd like to give the floor to Iran followed by
>> IRAN: Thank you, Madame Chair. I'm also happy to see
you as the Chair of the delegation and thank those for providing
a single document and also the WIPO Secretariat.
Madame Chair, fortunately we have spent first three days of
this SCCR to discuss the VIP treaty very constructively. It
seems to my delegation that we would not be able to consider the
new working document, SCCR24/10, in depth and with a technical
approach in this SCCR.
Iran would like to say that to achieve convening of the
diplomatic conference in 2014 on this document, it is inevitable
to have an intercessional meeting on broadcasting.
We have a good experience regarding an intercessional
meeting on VIP. Finally, Madame Chair, we join the suggestion
made by the Distinguished Delegates of Mexico and South Africa
and others to have an intercessional SCCR meeting before next
regular session of the SCCR. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Iran. I pass the floor
to Switzerland, followed by the European Union.
>> SWITZERLAND: Thank you, Madame Chair. The protection of
broadcasters is -- impossible --
>> INTERPRETERIt is not a Freudian slip. Switzerland is
glad to see an emerging con says us on technical discussions.
Switzerland would also support the U.S. position, especially the
need to identify core issues. The present document is truly
comprehensive but Switzerland fails that if we do -- feels that
if we do not arrive at the more focused document, we do not be
able to reach a more needed result in time. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Switzerland and pass it
to European Union which is the last on my list so if other
delegations are interested to take the floor, please let us know.
European Union, you have the floor.
>> EU: Thank you, Madame Chair, in view of the time during
the prev SCCR and the time we have during this SCCR and also in
view of the technical and very complex nature of the working to
be ument that we have as a basis for our discussions, and in
additional the need to progress in order to make the
recommendation to the 2013 WIPO General Assembly, the European
Union and its Member States would support conducting further and
very focused technical discussions in the spring of 2013. We
agree that the way forward is to identify the core issues and try
to understand our positions and try to understand various
approaches before going into very detailed discussion on the
At the same time, we would like to emphasize what our
understanding is that when we have these discussions, all
amendments and textual comments will be possible to be made, like
it was also mentioned by other delegations. We certainly will
have comments to the text and amendments that we will propose.
We treat the working document as a basis for discussion and basis
for identifying the core issues, but this is not a closed text.
We will have textual comments. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of the European Union.
Since I do not see any other delegation who ask for the floor, I
would like to propose concerning NGO, I know you are numerous at
the back of the room, but due to the time we have now, I would
like to propose that we will not have declaration by NGO today.
But if NGO would and observer would like to send their comments
to the Secretariat, this could be included in the report of this
committee. And I would rather propose after we conclude on this
point to give time to delegation to continue their informal
discussion within group or -- into group even better on the
question of VIP. Because we really need to have people with new
idea tonight at 6:00 when we resume this consultation.
So if it's fine for NGO, I would propose to proceed in such
a way. And during the meeting in July where we will have more
time also to discuss in the substance broadcasting, you will have
your opportunity to present a view on this issue. But you have
the opportunity to send in written, your statement to be included
in the report of this meeting if it's fine for you.
So I recognize now the delegation of Venezuela perhaps
before I conclude on this point.
>> Venezuela: Thank You, Chair. I'm sorry to object, but
we're not in a position to adopt intercessionals. We think it's
very early Thursday. We still don't have the outcome of visual
impairment. We think that this committee should focus on an
outcome of VIPs. And if we don't get an agreement in its
committee, these intercessionals will have to be on VIP. And I'm
very sorry to object but we're simply not in a position to adopt
an intercession at this stage. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Venezuela for their
comment. Just to mention that definitely the final conclusion of
the committee will be taken tomorrow. But I think we need on
this point try to draw the common sense of the committee on this
point. But definitely, as I said before, it is really we need to
have finished this VIP instrument treaty this week. So we really
hope that we can, after this meeting, look to the other issue
more into details.
So, really, we need to think and work as we finish
everything on VIP this week.
So in order also to be able to have preliminary result based
upon the committee this week, what I've noted concerning the
discussion we had this morning, so I would like to mention the
following point. We take note of the request of Japan to make
correction to the document. And I propose that the Secretariat
will issue a revised corrected version of the document in order
to take into account your correction based also on the comments I
made just after your intervention.
I also recognize from the intervention we had this morning
very strong interest and confirmation of the commitments of the
committee to confirm also last time concerning his engagement to
work towards being able to have a decision by the next Assembly
concerning a diplomatic conference in 2014. But in order to
arrive to this result, it was also highlighted the need to
intensity our work and have also technical discussion in order to
better understand each other's position and also to see where
there is consensus emerging on this position.
So there was a very strong request to have intercessional
meeting in spring in order to have this technical discussion. As
mentioned, we took note of your intervention, Venezuela, so this
will be seen also taking into account the result on VIP. But at
this stage, it is what I see as a conclusion for this meeting,
that there is this request and this decision to have possibly
consultation and next spring technical-- intercessional meeting,
sorry the word I took. So intercessional work on this issue in
spring in order to move on with the technical discussion. So
this is a conclusion I drew for the discussion we had this
So if I do not see any other requests for the floor, this is
the provisional conclusion we take now. (gavel).
So the Secretariat may have some further announcement to
make. So I would like now to suspend the meeting and to allow
the delegations to continue to work on the -- have the informal
on VIP. But I recognize the delegation of Brazil.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Madame Chair. Just a logistical
matter, can I make it right now? The development agenda group
will have a coordination meeting today at a quarter past 2, so
2:15 at 13th floor. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Brazil. I recognize
European Union. You have the floor Madame.
>> EU: Thank you, Madame Chair person, the European Union
and its Member States will meet, an EU coordination at 1:30 in
room Uchtenhagen.
>> CHAIR: Is there any other announcement for group
meeting? I do not see any so I will pass the floor to the
Secretariat for some announcement.
>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you, Madame Chair. First we'd like
to remind everyone that there is a lunchtime programme today.
The association of note wood core producers in with the
association of film -- associations has invited you to note wood
at the crossroads. Africa's most prolific -- industry. This
will be from 1:15:00 p.m. to 2:30:00 p.m. and a light lunch will
be available starting at is p.m. outside room B.
Second, in terms of the schedule for today, we understand
that this afternoon at 3:00 p.m. we will reconvene here in the
plenary for discussion of other exceptions and limitations,
including libraries and archives and educational and research
institutions and other persons with disabilities.
Then at 6:00 p.m. tonight, we will convene informal
discussions in the new building, room 3, to continue discussions
on the text of a visually impaired instrument or treaty.
We have arranged to have the cafeteria in the new building
open this evening until 6:00 p.m. instead of 5:00 p.m. so that
delegates can quickly grab something to eat, some coffee,
something to power them through the meeting this evening. The
Chair has indicated that well go until 9:00 p.m.
We of course would be delighted tomorrow if we finished by
6:00 p.m.; however, we have actually made the same arrangement in
case it is necessary to have the cafeteria open for an extra hour
tomorrow evening.
And well also have the new building consultation room
available to us all day tomorrow should we have the need for it.
I think that concludes our announcements, Thank You, Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the Secretariat. So I wish you good
consultation among yourself and see you at 3:00 here. Thank you.
(meeting adjourned)


Is raw transcript

22 November 2012

Raw transcript

World Intellectual Property organisation
22 November 2012
SCCR 25 meeting
Standing Committee on copyright and related rights Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights
PM session

Services provided by:
Caption First, Inc.
P.O. Box 3066
Monument, CO 80132

This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.

Limitations and exceptions and ris
>> Testing. Testing.
(SCCR 25
22 November 2012
PM session

Services provided by:
Caption First, Inc.
P.O. Box 3066
Monument, CO 80132

This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.

(Please stand by. The session will begin momentarily) .
>> Good afternoon, colleagues. As announced this morning, we are back this afternoon to discuss agenda item 7 and 8. So exception and limitation on library and archive and limitations and exceptions on education and research. And persons with other disabilities.
What I would like to propose to you in order to organize the meeting today is to have a first round of intervention of delegation concerning the first document and the first topic on the agenda for this afternoon. So the Question on exception and limitation for library archives and then we will pass to the second document.
And since we received requests from observers to take the floor on this issue, this afternoon I will also give the opportunity of such intervention, if it's fine for everybody.
So I will now give the floor to the group coordinators if there is an interest for them to start making some comments on document 23/8 and more generally on the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives.

I do not see any group requesting the floor for this issue. Yes, Belgium, you have the floor.
>> BELARUS: Thank you very much, Mrs. Chair. So on the issue of limit -- BELGIUM: So on the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, I take note of the interesting discussions of the past sessions. We also would like to highlight that the current International leg instrument framework, so that it is the TRIPS agreement, the burn Convention, the Rome Convention, the WIPO copyright treaty tanned the PPT Treaty leave a flexible margin for limitations and exceptions. And we also think that we should therefore continue our discussion of national experiences and best practices, and in this regard we also should leave the door open for the addition of new topics or background to the ongoing discussion, if necessary.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Belgium and now I pass the floor to the delegation of Egypt.
>> EGYPT: Thank you. I'd like to deliver the points on behalf of the African group. The avenue Dan group as expressed in the opening statement of SCCR/25 that we welcome and support the spp 2012/2014 work plan and we recall that for the issues related to limitations and exceptions on libraries and archives, the ACR shall work towards concluding a treating on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives, to be recommended by SCR -- SCCR 28 to the 2013 General Assembly. In this regard, like we expect that during the session of SCCR, that will be discussions and progress achieved regarding the document SCCR/23/8, which contains the working document containing the proposals made by different Member States.
We would like to -- I mean, submit two important remarks for the way forward on this important document.
The first remark is that we not -- that the document is structured in terms of topics and clusters. In this regard we would appreciate if we retain the textual proposal that was submitted by Member States, as part of each cluster, and then we compile the comments or opinions with a written order, as part of an annex to this document of
And in this respect we can have a meaningful document to ad vabs the -- advance the work on and try to make some progress.
The second request is that we note that this time, Ltd. Time has been allocated to discussing the issues related to libraries and archives, and we think that it would be important if ACR is to meet the work plan approved by the Assembly is that there is an importance and need to organize an intercessional meeting for SCCR during the second half of next year * perhaps after the conference on the WIP and for the SCCR in November or December. And this meeting for around three days should be located on the issue of advancing the discussion and the tox you'll proposals on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives.
So we look forward with these two recommendations be accepted as part of SCCR conclusion this time.
Thank you so much.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Egypt for these comments on behalf of the African Group and this proposal and I give now the floor to the European Union.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you. Libraries and archives are por tar for the dissemination of information. The creation of works that could be subsequently consculpted in the libraries are preserved in the archives. Exceptions to copyright for the benefit of these institutions can play an important role for the achievement of public objectives and they are possible under the existing International Conventions and treaties. The European Union and the Member States attach a great deal of importance to the flexibility in the application of these exceptions because it allows for the incorporation of exceptions in the Member States legal system, for needsp legal condition markets. A lot can be done under the current framework. We are reluctant at this stage of our discussion to engage in any drafting exercise which would limit the openended nature of the exceptions to the benefit of libraries and archives. The European Union and the Member States consider that the way to make further progress on this file is to first have a debate as to what the Committee needs to discuss, and to concentrate debate on selected topics. Second to work on the do you care document SCCR/23/8, the working document. In doing so the EU and the Member States want to leave the door open in the forthcoming debates to add new topics or backgrounds to the document as necessary. The Committee should strive to adopt a balanced approach and the UN and Member States stand ready to make constructive proposals to this end.
With regard to the proposal made by the delegation of Egypt in view of the position of the EU and its Member States, we would find it rather premature to now enter into discussions about possible intercessional work on this topic. Thank you vich.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of the European Union. And I give now the floor to the delegation of Brazil.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Madam Chair and I'm taken the floor on behalf of the Development Agenda Group.
First our group would like to express our appreciation for the fact that SCCR has reached a single working text on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. This is a good step forward and it will be without any Question a very important step in which -- in reaching an instrument for this purpose.
We reaffirm the importance of moving forward to the basis of text based work in a global inclusive approach. In that sense, we stimulate and we urge Member States to concentrate on text based work.
With regard to the structure of the document SCCR/23/8, I would like just to make some comments on it.
We are of the view that this document, although it's very helpful and complete, can be significantly enhanced if comments should be compiled -- if comments were compiled in an annex to the working document. This would make the document much more user-friendly, and the discussion that we have nowadays cop toured in comments and within comments they can be helpful as supporting material that provides more context to the discussion, but for the purpose of the work that you have at hand, to have the textual suggestions isolated from comments would make much more easy the task to analyze these provisions and to make further contributions to it.
So I will request this for separation of proposal text from comments. All comments could be grouped in an annex to this document. So we feel that this would preserve what has been said by different delegations, but allowing for enhanced treatment of the text on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.
I thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Brazil and now I give the floor to India.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. The Indian delegation thanks the WIPO Secretariat for inclusion of the legal textual comments and all topics in the working document SCCR/23/8, regarding the proposed WIPO trot tea and limitations and exceptions on libraries and archives. We hope that this working document will form the basis for the future text based negotiations. The Indian delegation reiterates the support for a WIPO Treaty for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. Madam Chairperson, in order to make substantial progress towards meaningful text based negotiation, we need to have a document, a working document contains legal, textual proposals only, from the Member States. At present, the working document, SCCR/23/8 contains three kinds of proposals. One is the legal textual comments. And there is the specific comments topic wise. And the third one is the general comments.
So it will be very difficult to make any progress in negotiations if the structure of the document is like this.
Therefore, we request, Madam Chairperson, to fix the deadline for the Member States who would like to send their legal textual comments on the topics, to replace the specific and general comments.
Then, the Secretariat should at least one month before the next SCCR, they should revise the document and include only the textual, legal textual document. And then reusing the specific and general comments to the annex.
Madam Chairperson, we look forward to constructive discussions and
>> ALL:Ter national views incorporated in the working documents on the WIPO Treaty for limitations and exceptions. Claire Chair now I pass the floor to the delegation of Nigeria.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you. The delegation of
>> NIGERIA: noyj would like to thank Madam Chair for this session at this SCCR, and to support the proposal of the distinguished delegate from Brazil regarding the importance of having a document that is workable, one that Member States can look at, that simply contains the text without comments, so that we have something to work with.
As the distinguished delegate of the European Union noted, there are those Member States who are interested in understanding and having some background information, much of that background information as discussed at the previous SCCR is actually contains in some of these comments, but it's really hard to access them the way the document is.
So we would support the distinguished delegation of India and the distinguished delegation of Brazil speaking on behalf of the Development Agenda Group to have a single working text.
We have gone through carefully the text, trying to separate what is actual text and what are comments, and I think if everyone makes that effort we will see that, indeed, the cluster topics are quite narrow, so that the concern expressed by the distinguished delegate from the European Union would also be able to be addressed by having the single working document. Because actually, once you take out the comments, I counted about 10 or 11 issues. So we have quite a narrow set of principles to deal with, and it would just be helpful, I think, for people to see that it is, in fact, ready for the next step of the discussions over a proposed Treaty on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Nigeria and I would like to give the floor to the delegation from Senegal. Senegal has the floor. You have the floor, Madam.
>> SENEGAL: Thank you very much for giving me the floor. The delegation of Senegal fully endorses the comment made by Egypt on behalf of the African Group and reiterates all the interest and attention that it bares on this topic that our Committee is looking at this afternoon, the interest for LDCs, such as mine, which have to be able to include limitations such as an International Treaty for archives and libraries as well as teaching and research goes beyond the right to education and the right to information information and education. So it's essential for our Committee to be able to progress substantially on this issue and to do this, my delegation strongly supports proposals made by Egypt on behalf of the African Group first to have a document which is separate, a working document, that is document 23, that we on the one hand have legal provisions included and an annex of comments made by I have the different delegations.
And so as to have an intercessional meeting to make better progress in our work. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, the delegation from Senegal. I'd like to give the floor to the delegation from Belgium.
>> BELGIUM I wanted to come back to this proposal to organize intercession at work. So we would like to state again that we think that at this stage the text is really not yet mature, contrary to other negotiations that were worked on this morning. We said we would welcome of course further discussions on the topic.
Also, I think we have to be mindful of the fact that the calendar of WIPO meetings of next year is not entirely clear.
I also wanted to briefly react on the fact that we think that this should remain an openended discussion. That would mean that you could both include new topics, which would be contrary to the facts or to the proposal of having a clear format at the beginning. And I think that would also be contrary to the fact of sticking a clear deadline on it, the fact that it would be an open discussion would mean any Member State would be able to add any topic they would like to do at any moment of time it would like to choose.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of
>> BELGIUM bling and now I pass the floor to Kenya.
>> KENYA: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The delegation of Kenya wants to reiterate of importance of having the limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and we do welcome the proposal by the delegation of Egypt to have a separate -- the document separated so that you can have a distinctly good text. And also endorse the proposal by India, so that -- to allow other people to make their comments in terms of the text, so that we can have a clear document to do that.
And I do believe that this is something taking into account the calendar that we have at WIPO next year. We have two intersections and then also other activities that the various delegations par taste pit in that. That probably this document should be prepared and made available during the next session of the SCCR.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Kenya and now I pass the floor to Nigeria followed by Hungary.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you, madal Chair -- Madam Chair. First let me reiterate the commitment and importance of this issue for the Nigerian Government. In ad gition, we have to remember both the role and importance of libraries and archives. While the distinguished delegate or several distinguished delegates have mentioned that this should remain openended, I think it's important to recall that libraries only have a specific set of functions. So this is a limit that how openended this can be.
Libraries lend and they provide books on a noncommercial basis. There is not really much more that we could add to this that doesn't reflect the core architecture of what libraries do.
And for that reason, I think it's important to respond to the concerns of the distinguished delegates, those who are wanting either more study or more comments, that this is precisely why an intercessional would be helpful because it will facilitate getting more comments, new ideas, it will help to identify what is the narrow scope of issues that require or necessitate an International instrument.
The intercessional would really clarify the basis for going forward in a way that is based on the vast amount of research that has already been done and on the existing state of the art.
So I want to urge our colleagues in good faith to recognize both the importance of this but also the distinct narrowness of this based on what libraries and archives actually do and to reiterate the support of the Government of Nigeria for the intercessional as proposed by the African Group by the distinguished delegate of Kenya, the distinguished delegate of India and the distinguished delegate of Brazil. Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Nigeria. And I pass now the floor to Hungary followed by Nigeria.
>> HUNGARY: Thank you very much. We also believe like the European Union and as the other groups stated that the existing International framework allows Member States to introduce exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. So we would like to focus our work on the existing models that already are in the International fora. And we believe that the -- it would be best to have it during SCCR meetings and not intercessionals.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Hungary. I pass now the floor to Algeria forward by Argentina.
>> ALGERIA: Thank you very much, Madam. My delegation ising the floor first of all to support the statement made by Egypt on behalf of the African Group and Brazil on behalf of the DG. I want to express all the importance that Algeria gives to the issue that we're dealing with today, regarding exceptions and -- limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. My country has a legislation. I suppose that most of the WIPO Members have legislation which deals with limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and therefore I think that perhaps we have gone beyond the stage of just a simexchange of information rashding national experiences. And that we should at this juncture of our discussions truly begin to work to be able to set up International standards in this regard.
And this is why I thank them, or at least my delegation thinks that an intercessional session is more than necessary to be able to make * headway in discussions on this issue. Because I would like to remind the Committee we still have not had a real substantial discussion on this issue.
And since here I can understand the arguments put forward by the European Union, by Group B, who say that at this stage they have not yet had the discussion which is going to go into depth and which is going to examine this issue in-depth. And I think that the intercessional would be necessary not just to use it as an argument, the fact that at this stage it's premature. For me that is not a relevant argument, because on the contrary it's an argument which should play in favor of the proposal to have an intercessional meeting, to enable all the Member States and the Committee to focus on this issue and to discuss it in-depth and to see where and how we could be working and what we can do on an International point of view regarding this issue.
And I would also like to support the fact that the document which we have as a working basis on this issue could be improved upon. It would be useful for other countries to have a document which separates the legal proposals, I was going to say, and the comments, which are more general and which would be annexed. Thank you, Madam.
>> CHAIR: I thank you and I'd like to give the floor to the delegation of Argentina.
>> ARGENTINA: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Argentina would like to express its support for the continuation of this process through which we wish to establish limitations and exceptions on copyright for the better functioning of libraries and archives.
Just as for certain issues which are being discussed as is the preservation, the lending, library lend, the responsibilities of libraries and archive, and the technological protection measures, or the technical measures of protection.
So there has not been headway on all of these topics in the documents. There are several issues which continue being discussed and which continue being reviewed, analyzed amongst the interested sectorness our country.
So as to carry out an internal consultations and to make our work progress, we think it's important to have a more clear text and easier to work on, and therefore we support those interventions which have come before me from previous speakers who are requesting that the legal text be separated from the comments.
We understand that this is an issue which would not require a great work and discussion and we ensure that we would have a more clear text and we continue working on it both internally as well as here in Geneva. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Argentina and I recognize the delegation of Kenya.
>> KENYA: Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry for taking the floor once again.
I wish to reiterate the del dead gaition of the Kenyan delegation to this particular topic. But I think we need to be practical. There is an issue of giving equal treatment to all the issues that we have dealt with and the limitations and exceptions, but at the same time we have to look at whether we are going to be exhausted or whether we are going to add value if we have an intersectional between now and July next year, taking into account that we have proposals for two intersectionals and then we have the diplomatic conference if the text that we're working on for VIPs goes through. And then you have those dealing with the TK and TCE, will be the same delegations who are coming in. So the Question is are we going to be able to give our best? So we might ask for the three extra days before then, but we might not be able to do that. We can still have an intercessional later. But I -- it's important that we look the at calendar.
Secondly, the whole issue of going back into the national experience, I think now we are basically going back 100, you know, 100 years. Because this is something that was done. It was raised. We have the study gone by Kenneth cruise, which covered most of the national experiences and I think we have moved beyond that point of look at national experiences and it's time to start working on the text.
And I still emphasize on the point that was also raised by India, and other delegations, let's separate and have a concrete document for which we can we able to work with, and then we can allow other people to go ahead and have the national or regional consultations but let's have a, would go document. As long as we don't have the working document I'm not sure what we will be doing during the intercessional session. But I would just like to state that for the Kenyan delegation it's going to be quite exhausting to have three intersectional meetings, and the diplomatic conference and the SCCR, within the span of one year. So we need to be a bit realistic in terms of these things.
So I don't oppose the fact that we need extra time to deal with it, but we need to look at the calendar and see what would be the best time to allocate this particular time.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Kenya for her comments.
And now I pass the floor to the United States. United States of America thank you Madam Chairman. The United States would like to reiterate the concern expressed by the distinguished delegation of Kenya. It * we are open to Crafting the right kind of package of meetings and discussions on this, when those packages and those meetings seem sensible.
But as the distinguished delegate of Kenya said we have to be practical and we do have to look at the calendar and a great many of us have absolutely no desire to live in Geneva.

So as the distinguished delegate of Kenya said, we have a tendency in this room to say let's have an intercession A. It's been getting to be a worst tendency in the past couple years. And we should make that decision when it's appropriate and we aren't opposed to that decision, but we should really be cautious and conconvenient should say of our existing commitments, and as the distinguished delegate of Kenya said, for many people in this room, those commitments also appear my to other Committees that are trying to do good work at the organisation.
So in addition to that general concern, which in the past we have called "Meeting fatigue" and I think that's an excellent phrase for it. I do think that in planning for what we're discussing, what we might be doing in the future, the distinguished delegate of Kenya said the possibility of a diplomatic conference next year. Ladies and gentlemen, we should also consider the amount of time we will need to devote to the visually impaired should there not be a diplomatic conference next year. Because if that effort we are embarking on this week fail, there willly enormous pressure for us to increase our resolve and dedicate the time of this Committee to try to cross the finish line on that effort.
As to the work plan and how wi should proceed, this delegation -- we should proceed, this delegates stands behind the conclusions that we agreed to in previous SCCRs, and we are here to work in good faith to do text based work. We find in listening to this room that we are back to a topic we have struggled with so many times in this Committee and so many others, and that is the organisation of the document. And what is in the document and what is not?
And we have been here many late nights with that. And we would implore everyone in the room to perhaps think of this in other terms. As we and other delegates in the last SCCR mentioned and as the distinguished delegate and our friends from Argentina just mentioned, it might be visible for us to decide on which topics we want to work on, and to focus our debate on particular topics that we are sure we can work on together.
If we work on topics and decide on the topic we want to discuss, then the form of the document that emerges probably would have a greater level of confidence for all delegations.
We recognize the concern of delegations who feel that the existing document is too cumbersome, but we also ask everyone to look at the historical record of documents of this Committee and find that those documents, even whatever pathway they were on, including pathways to legally binding instruments, have included substantial comments of other delegations and the whole reason that there are frequently comments in these documents is that we have not yet reached consensus among ourselves on which topics we should be working on and how we should be working on them.
We recommended in the past that we would really profit and spin our wheels less if we focused on some low hanging fruit. Had a discussion of a topic like preservation issues for libraries and archives. Had a discussion of a top lick of limited liability for librarian, perhaps we can identify more issues like that, where we could have an emerging consensus working together on the topic and struggle less about the nature of the document.
So we are open to all -- considering all ideas in this respect, but what we really want is an effective plan to continue the discussion without prejudice to the nature of any future instrument, and to really determine the issues where we could work together -- can work together to improve the copyright norms that apply to our libraries and archives globally. Thank you Madam Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of the United States and would I like to pass the floor to Brazil followed by Ecuador.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm taking the floor in my national commath capacity at this -- national capacity at this moment.
I want to reflect on what is being proposed by the distinguished delegate of India and it's helpful for planning for the next session. So having a fixed thing for Member States to send suggestions of legal texts based on what they have already expressed as comments we think that would be helpful, especially if we have this deadline set before the next session of the SCCR. So that this information or these suggestions can be compiled and used in the -- by the Committee in its next session.
So we support the proposal made by India in this regard. I thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Brazil. And I pass now the floor to Ecuador followed by Egypt.
>> ECUADOR: Thank you Madam Chair. For the delegation of Ecuador the work which we are carrying out in this Committee is of the utmost importance. As regards libraries and archive, you have to take into account that they are a historical pillar for the lement of education that supports both the authors and the public. We think it's essential on this point to remove barriers and legal omissions which might prejudice its legitimate work. Therefore we think we should in this which I tell knee continue to make headway and based on text, text based work and we think it's highly timely to look at the proposal of the African Group and other delegations to facilitate the analysis of the proposals of the legal texts, consolidating them in a text made for this. And we think that to make headway we have to ensure in the agenda of this Committee and in formal meetings if necessary, to have spaces and fix ambitious deadlines but also be realistic ones. Be able to achieve an instrument or Treaty of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Ecuador and I pass the floor to Egypt.
>> EGYPT: Thank you, Chair. I would like to recall the conclusion of SCCR 24, which States that the document before us will be the basis of future work for the discussion on -- taken by the SCCR for the discussion of limitations and exceptions. In this respect I'm giving that this document is our base acesis of work and given the fact that it already includes several of the comments made by all WIPO Member States from different groups, whether Group B or African group or that group or even individual delegations, so it has a comprehensive and inclusive nature that cap pureed, I think, every experience and every best practice from all over the WIPO Member States. And therefore the Committee assumed that the wisdom of agreeing to this text to be the basis for future work.
In -- in this regard we find it a little bit strange and disturbing to find out that there are perhaps other best practices that have not yet been shared in the Committee, despite the fact that this issue has been on the agenda of SCCR for quite some time. So it's really, like we wonder, and of course we encourage every Member State to share his best practices. And to -- I mean share what is national law -- what his national law says about the issues so it can be of benefit for our exercise here.
The second instant to I would like to make is that hearing this a little bit pessimistic tone from our dear colleague and friend, professor just continue, on the VIP future. We don't share this pessimistic tone. We would like to say that we are optimist take, and that we are making good progress in the discussions in the SCCR and we believe that we can hit the target actually next year for having another conference. And we hope that this feeling of confidence in our abilities to make progress is shared by all of us.
Having said so, we also would like to recall that we have a clear work plan and this work plan invites us to work hard to meeting the timeline, giving to us regarding the limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, wishes to provide specific recommendations to the General Assembly, actually, as indicated by SCCR 28.
In this respect, and bearinging in mind that the U.S. Delegation and perhaps other delegations are open to continue to work on this issue, we think that we can continue to work on the basis of textual workings and this will not affect the instrument. Because the instrument has to be a legal text and then we decide upon the nature later on the date exactly as we have been doing with the issue of VIP.
So these two issues are not mutually exclusive, but actually they are mutually inclusive. In this respect, we would like to recall the statement given by the delegation of Kenya to look the at calendar and I'd like to conclude by inviting the Secretariat to look at calendar for next year and perhaps advise us on the best timing to have intercessional meeting for three days during the second half of next year, and after we celebrate the conclusion of the VIP Treaty. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Egypt for their comments and I think we all share your, at least I will say optimism, I would say engagement in arriving to a solution of VIP by the end of this week. But definitely lots of works R work still needs to be done so we have to work a lot to arrive at this achievement, but we have all engaged to the same.
Now I'll pass the floor to the delegation of Canada.
>> CANADA: Thank you, Madam Chair. The delegation from Canada would like to thaivrping the wipe bow Secretariat for the assistance provided to this Committee, notably the development of documents that assist discussions here. We invite our fellow delegations to consider numerous copyright reforms that just recently came into force under our domestic Copyright Law. The reforms in Canada's copyright modern zailtion act were developed in order to address the challenges and opportunities of the digital era. A number of these reforms pertain to uses of copyright material by educational institutions, students, researcher, librarians, persons with perceptual disabilities and others.
These reforms include new provision permitting technology enhanced learn, including distance education shall the digital delivery of course materials, of the digital delivery of interlibrary loan materials, and the use of publicly available Internet material in the education context.
We would also like to take this opportunity to express our support for the development of a Treaty to facilitate access to material by persons with print disabilities. Thank you Madam Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Canada. And I recognize the delegation of New Zealand. niz niz niz the delegation recognizes the importance of the work on limitations and exceptions as rooe they relate to other exceptions. We believe there is great value in look at copyright limitations and exceptions as an essential part of the overall evolution of the International copyright system. At this point in time, however, we do not support an intercessional taking place in 2013 for the reasons given by the delegation of the U.S. And Kenya. In addition, we also would like to remind the Committee that intercessionals pose a serious resourcing issue force a number of delegation, including my own. And should therefore remain the exception. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of New Zealand and I recognize the delegation of Mexico.
>> MEXICO: Thank you Madam Chairman. I've been listening to the distinguished delegates and their comments on this document, this long document, where there are 11 topics that we can discuss in relation to libraries and archives. How can we make progress on this document? What can we work on?
I also heard, for example, some delegates like India suggest a date for legal texts, and I'm sure that will be of great assistance to us. But I think the important thing, too, is, and we could use this situation now to work on a plan of work.
I think the interesting thing is to pick out which of the -- are the most important of these 11 topics, using a methodology to be applied by each country to all of the 11 topics. All 11 of them are of course important but perhaps we can concentrate on certain topics, where I'm quite sure we would find something in common.
And if we were to have an intercessional session, then we would be able to work the best possible way on those.
so I propose that we could identify which of those 11 topics are the most important. We might start with, for example, by reproduction and the safeguarding of copies and classify all of these topics in order of importance.
I think it would be very important to identify those topics where we might find common ground and then work on those.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Mexico for their comments.
And I do not have any other delegation who asked for the floor on this topic. Brazil, you have the floor.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you mad ad Chair and I'm take the floor in my national capacity again. Just quickly reacting to some of the interventions just made on this issue of the topics that we have at hand and how to deal with them.
Just to say that for the
>> BRAZIL: brzn delegation it's important to give attention to all 11 topics that we have identified. They were not selected randomly, so there was some prior discussion for us to reach this list of 11 topics.
So even with -- if we tackle this sequentially, from our perspective this does not mean that we are favoring the discussion of some and selectively discussing some of them and disregarding some others.
So in this regard we prefer to have a comprehensive discussion of all 11 topics, because it has been a process to reach those topics and all -- they all merit attention and it's not -- they're not here without a reason.
So it's important for us to continue the discussion on all 11 topics. I thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Brazil for this comments and clarification. So I do not have any other delegation on my list concerning this document, and the general conclusion, or a preliminary conclusion at least at this stage, what I can draw is a strong interest of many delegations to try to reorganize the text at least, to try to put some textual proposal in some part of the text and having the comments in an annex I heard. I heard also the idea of having a deadline for submitting textual submission, but also the idea by some delegations to try rather to identify the issue on which we should work. Consentual issues was mentioned or important issues was mentioned by another delegation.
We have already identified the Question of preservation as being the first topic to be discussed on the list, just to remember colleagues what was decided at the last Committee.
Concerning the idea of restructuring the document, I didn't hear at least whether it was to to separate it, clear opposition, and whether it was mentioned as a discussion that we already had. So I'm wondering whether it's part of the conclusion that this Committee can take, at least to have the different kinds of text separated in the next comments.
Concerning the idea of a deadline, there was some opposition concerning it, so it's something to discuss it if really we have to push. But I have not a clear consensus concerning this idea. Of a deadline.
Concerning intercessional meetings, there was a strong request to have it. I understand the idea is to have it in the second semester but there was a request to have some idea on the possibility to have this meeting. I heard other delegations saying that it's perhaps premature to decide it. I haven't heard a clear no at this stage, which is always good for what is going towards consensus.
So at this stage it's difficult to have a final conclusion on this element, but there might be some way of finding a compromise on this issue.
I recognize the delegation of Belgium, you have the floor.
>> BELGIUM thank you very much. Just a small comment, which we would like to make. So yes, this is an interesting idea to do some priority setting within the topics, but on the other hand I think we also had very interesting presentation just made I think it was by Canada about new reforms. So we would really like to keep it openended. I think also looking around in the room we have a couple of delegations present, I couple of other delegations, I think ninl
>> NIGERIA: Sying that they needed substantial debate on other topic, and other delegations mentioned that they would like to further consult on certain topic, that is on an internal basis. So if we could also keep the openended nature of the discussion * and, yes, of course, we could also look a little bit into some of the low hanging fruit as to what would be higher on the list or lower on the list. But I think it should be and it should remain really openended.
And we also are still interested to hear what other delegations have to make in terms of presentation on best practices at this point. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Belgium.
Yes, I recognize the European Union, I will give you the floor. What I would propose, because of divergence at this stage to preliminary tea stop -- to stop the discussion on this point and move to the other document and then we will come back to see what conclusion to take on this agenda. So you have also some time to reflect and to see what is the direction.
But first off, moving to the other document, I'll pass the floor to the European Union.
>> European Union: Thank you madal Chair. Just to reiterate our position on this. We very much support the debate on some selected topics. We think that that is the way forward. So in this respect, we support the delegations that proposed this approach. And this is also what we propose.
At the same time, we find very important, like Group B mentioned already, but to have a possibility to add new topics and background to the document if that is necessary.
Thank you very mu
>> CHAIR: I thank the European Union. So now I propose to move to the second document. So it's document 24/8. And it's a provisional working document. To what is an appropriate International legal document on limitations and exceptions and educational abd research institutions contextual.
So I open it to group statements and then pass it to individual delegations. And we will at the end of this discussion pass the floor to observers on the two documents.
Who would like to take the floor on this issue. So is there some group who wants to start the discussion?
I recognize the delegation of Brazil. You have the floor.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Regarding -- I'm taking the floor on behalf of the Development Agenda Group. Regarding SCCR/24/8 Prov. Limitations and exceptions and educational abd research institutions for Persons with Disabilities, we have two comments. The first comment is pretty much the same, the comment that we had regarding the previous document, which is to have it also restructured in a manner that to have textual suggestions as a first part of the document. And then an annex with comments and -- with comments or statements made by the delegations on the topics identified.
And the second comment, the second point I would like to make on this document is that it's a provisional working document, and so we suggest that this document be adopted by this session of the Committee, in order to continue working on this issue.
I thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Brazil.
And I pass now the floor to Belgium.
>> BELGIUM thank you very much, Mrs. Chair. I take note of the interesting discussions of past sessions. We also would like to underscore the fundamental role of copyrights as the basis of education and research. And we also stand ready to further engage in a balanced debate. However, this should remain focused and not deviate from the core educational and research objectives of this discussion.
Thank you. They're they're I thank the delegation of Belgium. And I recognize the European Union. You have the floor, Madam.
>> European Union: Thank you Madam Chair. Quality of education and vibrant research are priorities in all countries. This is clear for I think everyone here. Educational and research institutions play a crucial role in our society with respect to the dissemination of knowledge, culture and information as well as the progress of science. Education depends on copyright protected content, such as textbook, and journals, using he had indication as the basis of teaching. Copyright is fundamental and a key factor in stimulating the education and reevrm. We have to keep this in mind when discussing in this Committee the various practices every education and research.
In this conduction, the EU and the Member States are ready to continue the debate started in the 24th SCCR on education and research, and to have a further exchange of views on all relevant aspects of this file. We are concerned, however, that there are a number of issues on the table that seeming to beyond the topics of our discussions. Many different issues were raised in SCCR/24, we have to understand better the relevance for the discussions and see to what extent we should try to advance by identifying those issues which are directly linked to education and reevrm. Naturally, different countries may have different view us of which issues are those and we are interested to hear from other countries.
The EU and the Member States considers that first of all, we have to have a debate as to the scope of our discussions. Second, we believe as discussed by this Committee already, that the document entitled provisional working document towards and so on, for the International instrument, the document SCCR//24/8 Prov should be restructured in a similar manner to document SCCR/24/8 on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archive, with textual proposals and comments separated under each topic. In doing so, the EU and the Member States want to leave the door open in the forthcoming debates to add new topics or background to the document if is in. This could -- if necessary. This could lead to, for example, licensing schemes. The EU and Member States look forward to discussing the national experiences and the implementation of limitations and exceptions for educational abd research institutions, teaching purposes and scientific research and how they are used in practical. The EU has on several occasions indicated that in our view, the framework we currently have in the International levelal allows for the next flexibility, and taking into account the legal discussions et cetera. We are ready to contribute to the discussions and to access whether we should engage in civic recommendations or, for example for instance, model licensing clauses. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of the EU. Is there any other group who wants to take the floor at this stage?
I do not recognize any. So I'll pass to -- China. You have the floor, Madam.
>> CHINA: Thank you Madam Chairman.
China has noticed that progress has been made on this topic since the last session of the SCCR. We are grateful for our proposal having been included in the provisional document. We will continue to support these efforts on limitations and exceptions for educational abd research institutions. We call for a spirit of flexibility and openness so that we can continue our discussions. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of China for their comments. And I pass now the floor to Egypt.
>> EGYPT: The African Group would like to recall its opening statement in this regard to highlight the importance of adhering to the work plan in the Committee, according to which the SCCR/30th is asked to knit to the digital Assembly the recommendations for limitations and exceptions for educational abd research institutions and people with other disabilities. And with respect to the African Group, they have made several proposals that is contined in the provisional working document before us now. And it is of utmost importance that we try to streamline this document to make it more useful and meaningful by separating the legal text contained there in, from the comments presented by several members States. Again I would like to ask to -- to request to -- that this document be structured in a way so as to have the legal text and then an annex of the comments contained by Member States.
It would also be important, according to the agreement that we had last time, that we will -- the SCCR will be adopting this working document to be the basis for future work for the Committee, regarding this issue of limitations and exceptions for education, teaching and research institutions. I thank you, Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Egypt and I pass now the floor to Nigeria.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you Madam Chair. I want to just register the support of the comments made both by the distinguished delegate of Belgium, the European Union and the African Group, altogether.
I don't think that any of the comments made so far have actually been in conflict, but rather I think they are all consistent with efforts toward a stable International environment in which the movement of digital files in particular, but also print material, can be done in a transparent, efficient, and affordable way.

Let me just say that in the last year the Government of Nigeria has been dealing with an increase in shipments of educational materials, just recently impounding shipments up to the tune of 20 million dollars in value of educational texts and not being sure whether these were made under an exception in the exporting country, whether they were allowed into the country under an exception in our country, or whether it was a regional agreement that allowed them to be shipped in. But this is the third multi-million dollar shipment of educational texts that the copyright agency has had to intercept and hold, creating a lot of confusion.
Now, in a country of 1 30 million people, this is not a situation that is tenable. So we are extremely desirous as the major education centre, following South African, on the African continent. We are concerned that this situation of uncertainty will simply facilitate infringement, and we need to get a better sense of what is acceptable for cross border shipments and uses of exceptions and limitations for educational materials.
The second point I think that is important is the fact that we do have an existing International instrument. The Berne appendix, which has not been updated for the digital age, but which continues to make available the specor of compulsory licensing which as a community we do not believe is the best way to address this issue. I think the combined interest of publishers, of Governments, of copyright holders, and the ministries of education worldwide is such that we must have some sort of an honest and fair and palled discussion -- and bald discussion about what needs to be done, how it should be done. But I think that there could be no Question that it must be done and that this is the appropriate forum to consider these issues.
Thank you very much. Madam Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Nigeria. I do not have any other delegation who asks for the floor on this topic.
So -- I recognize the delegation of India.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. The Indian delegation joins Nigeria in supporting the statement made by the Brazil and Egypt delegations regarding the claims.
It is fundamental that for negotiation progress that the provisional working document should contain the legal textual proposals, and the general comments, specific comments, are to be delegated to the annex, so that the work in progress will have meaningful negotiations. Hopefully the Secretariat and under your guidance will set a deadline for this countries providing the legal textual comments and then realize and then make it available for the next SCCR. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of India and I recognize the delegation of Ecuador.
>> ECUADOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The delegation of Ecuador would like to express its support for the proposals that have already been made by Brazil, Egypt and India; that it's necessary to separate the text of the legal proposals from the comments. This is essential if we are to achieve the objective of making progress on text based work, which will lead us to the International instrument, which can deal with the various different problems affecting education, caused by inconsistencies W or inadequacies in Copyright Law at work level.
One of those is, for example, the one expressed by the delegate of Nigeria.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Ecuador and then I recognize the delegation of Russian Federation followed by Algeria. (I thank the delegation of Ecuador)
Russian delegation: thank you. The Russian delegation supports the idea of drafting a document on limitations and exceptions for educational and reern institutions. And here we would like to support the words by the delegation of the EU this afternoon. This is an extremely important task, particularly for school books. We support access for all sectors of the population, and existing national laws and existing International agreements require new approaches, precisely because of exceptions and limitations.
We spoke before and talked about the need to perhaps bring together in one document the proposal that was made before about libraries and archives, but specifically exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions, because those proposals are very similar to the ones made for libraries and archives.
So we would like to adopt this ideology and have it supported and it should of course be the subject of examination by our Committee.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Russian Federation and I pass now the floor to Algeria followed by Belgium.
>> ALGERIA: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My delegation is taking the floor to support the statement made by Brazil and Egypt, by the DAG and the African Group on behalf of the DAG and African Group. In other words, in we want to make progress on this important issue, we need to have a document that allows for such a discussion. So I think we could agree to review the document which is being examined by the Committee, and ensure that the document sets out the text proposals, the ones already made, and then in an annex perhaps or in another part of the same document we could have the comments.
I do understand and I take note of the concerns expressed by some delegations who are saying that perhaps at this stage they can't adopt the document as it is, based on the principle that some topics included in the document can or in fact do pose problems for them.
Nothing in the document says that such categories will be soon adopted, and nothing would oblige these delegations to work on these particular categories. So I think we want to make progress in the Committee, we should press on, and adopt the document that would be just a basis for our work. It wouldn't be the conclusion of our work, it would be a basis for further work and it would enable us to make progress. And if I may, Madam Chair, I'd just like to come back to a comment that was made by the European Union, if I'm not mistaken. They said that their delegation did not see at this stage any need to have an International instrument that would establish limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions. And the point of view of my delegation, and in an environment where we are seeing borders between States disappearing for some Member States of WIPO, differences between national legislations relating to limitations and exceptions might create a discriminatory access to research and development. And so it's therefore limitation on the right to access to knowledge. So on the basis of that principle, I think we could start discussing the possibility of drawing up an instrument that would take into account that particular fact.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Nigeria for the comments.
And I give the floor to the delegation of beling bell beling followed by the United States of America. Belgium thank you very much. --
>> BELARUS: Thank you very much the I think wi want to express that we may have some concerns with regard to this progress and the way forward. I mean, for me, it sounds a little bit problematic to try to separate the legal proposals from the comments. Since we have different legal culture, different legal systems, wouldn't it increase the readability of the text if we keep them as they stand? I don't know whether just deleting them, whether that will increase the way forward or whether that would help us to move forward.
Also, I think that with regard to the pay forward, we have to philosophically ask the Question whether we should not adhere to complete equality. I mean, you can speak about different exceptions and limitations. We also discussed other copyright topics this morning. But as to the way forward I think we can move on certain topic, and I don't know whether -- certain topics, and I don't know whether it would be completely right at this time to go further with regard to this specific discussion here.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Belgium and I would like to pass the floor to the United States of America.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you Madam Chair, we listened carefully to what all the delegations have said and we are concerned that of course we are repeating our discussion from the last SCCR, and spending too much time focusing on the format of the document and the name of the document.
For us, as we were at the last SCCR, there are large elements in the present document that make it very difficult if not impossible for this delegation to discuss the document as a working document of the Committee.
We appreciate the sensitivity of the Algerian delegation and we appreciate the desire expressed by our friend from Egypt for a way of streamlining the document.
One way to streamline the document, instead of being concerned about comments made by Member States, would be to focus on what topics all of us can agree deserve to be in the working document. for example, a step toward making it comfortable for our delegation to treat this as a working document would be for the broader topics with implementations -- implications for education to be put into a separate document.
But for us, we don't think that the fruitful path for our Committee, whether we are in plenary or informal sessions or are working together in smaller groups is to worry about the structure of the document, what we think is the most fruitful path is to identify those topics and those topics that we all can work on together, meaningfully with progress, and to focus on those and to make it clear that we are focusing on those. For example, we feel that the topic of distance education is a topic that we think we all can have a fruitful focused meaningful discussion. And this delegation reminds everyone that there is no reason that we have to have just one work can document for everything. We could have a working document on distance education. One on preservation for libraries. We could have a series of working documents, which over time could be brought together. And that might reduce some of the tension we have. SCCR after SCCR, over the nature of the document, the organisation of the document * the name of the document.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of the United States for these comments. Is there any other delegation who would like to take the floor on this issue at this stage?
If not concerning the second discussion at this stage, I do not see a consensus from this Committee on the adoption of the document or on the restructuring of the document.
I think we need to think about it, and also to identify issues, perhaps on one from which we can start to work together. But it's difficult for me to conclude at this stage the discussion. So I would like to invite you to think about where we can find a compromise auto this issue and we need to have this compromise by 6 o'clock tonight. Because this is the time we have at our disposal to finalize discussion on these two topic, concerning limitations and exceptions. But perhaps in order to let delegations think about this issue, I would propose now to open the floor for observer, if they want to make -- observer, if they want to make comments, so please make nem brief, in order that we can also then relaunch a discussion on how to conclude on these two points. Because it's important that we have conclusions on these two points during this meeting.
So I will stop after some point, by the NGO, in order to come back and have the conclusions. And also if the delegations could start discussing together, especially regional coordinators to see if we can try to come to some compromise on these two topics. It would really be use follow for me.
And I would like to say that NGOs can always send their comments in written form to be put in the report.
Now, the Secretariat would make the list of NGOs who would like to take the floor.

>> SECRETARY: Thank you, IFLA, IFLO, COC, something that looks like DOVB. STM. IVF. SEEECESAC. FIAP. CIA. Others? Please hold your flag up for us if there are others.
, That looks like it. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: So the list of NGOs is closed. I would really request you to be as brief as possible on this issue in order to save time and so forth for further discussion.
Now I pass the floor to IFLA and as mentioned. I invite regional coordinators to have discussions together in order to help us to move on and have conclusions.
So IFLA, you have the floor.
>> IFLA: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm speaking on behalf of the International federation of library association, the electronic information for library, and the Canadan library association. We thank all Member States for their proposed texts and comments contain pd in the document. SCCR/23/8. In particular, we acknowledge the added proposals from the distinguished delegation of India, on each of the 11 topics.
These substantive proposals, together with the extensive written comments, illustrate engagement by Member States in the issues facing libraries and the confluence of copyright with access, public policy and private licensing, and evolving digital technologies.
Every day libraries in all parts of the world provide information services to people for their work, study, research, and leisure needs. Buy libraries require the ability to properly fulfill their man Dade in the digital environment in order to meet the information needs of library users of tomorrow. We note with appreciation the document SCCR/23/8 includes topics essential to aiding this outcome as digital preservation and permitting the removal of digital locks for noninfringing use.
The Committee agreed at its last meeting that SCCR/23/8 shall constitute the basis for future text based work. In order to maintain progress and to achieve the target of submitting recommendations on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archive, to the General Assembly by SCCR/28, in 2014, we call on Member States to engage in a text based discussion, approaching each topic in a sequential manner according to the agreed structure. This will appear Lou a deeper analysis of each topic, the use of limited time available for libraries and archives for substantive discussion, and keep the two year timetable on practical.
We support this suggestion of the distinguished * delegate of Brazil to make operate the -- to separate the proposed text from the comments, in order to facilitate the text based work.
We also urge Member States to maintain the overall sequence asset out in the conclusions of SCCR/ 24, limitations and exceptions for Persons with Disabilities, and then libraries and archives, followed by education and research institutions. We believe that SCCR/23/8 is a good basis for moving forward on libraries and archives, and an exercise to mix discussion with different topics in SCCR/ 24/8 Prov would not be productive. From the IFLA and others are conscious of the role of copyright protection and fostering creativity and are respectful of the rights of rights holder, according and managing copyright content is what libraries do every day and they enjoy the highest reputations for compliance with the law. Here we are asking for a clear framework that establishes a basic minimum standard of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives that is consistent with International law, it is a positive way to implement the Agreed Statement to Article 10 in the WCT, taking us forward in the 21st Century.
We do not seek harmonization or a single solution, because we recognize that nations have different needs and priorities. We remain ready to assist with any questions or concerns and look forward to substantive discussion and timely progress.
Thank you for your attention. Chair Chair I thank IFLA and I would now to pass the floor to IFLO.
>> Thank you for giving the floor again to IFLO. We refer to statements regarding limitations and exceptions in the SCCR/in July and note that the issues are, appropriate ak test to copyright works including teaching materials ils a question of building up positive infrastructures and sustains the development of good teaching material and other copyright works. Materials found in local culture and practice decisions must be available to adapt to user needs. It is therefore ind Spesible that care fallly framed narrow exceptions to life limit the use to libraries and education are complimented by access to materials with rights shoulders and the representatives, supplemented by collective rights management. As Democrat freighted at the side event at the SCCR/meeting in July of this year, seamless ak test for agreements with rights holders is what most efficiently needs the needs in terms of providing ak test to content in constantly changing environments. In a fast changing world, where technology moves with unprecedented speed. Laws and other regulations don't alone have the ability to offer the required flexibility. And as outlined by inter alia, the distinguished delegate of the EU, licensing agreements do. Rewant to share best practices to how to provide ak test to works to allow other countries to give expertise so the countries can establish their own mechanism, including management struing tours adopted to their needs and tradition, to build and maintain a sustainable national copyright industry. Thank you. (That was )

>> CHAIR: I thank you for the comments and now I pass the floor to CSC.
>> CSC *
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to make some observations for further work in limitations and exceptions for education and research institutions.
First of all, an appropriate text on limitations and exceptions for education should promote as a principle the recognition of publicly funded works as public goods. That is society should have a right to widely distribute cope and use.
-- cop and use. Regarding this, out of print titles means that reproduction, translation, kiss play, dissemination and distribution of out of print works for educational and research use should be completely allowed.
Limitations and exceptions must also prevail the whole copy for noncommercial purposes or at least for users inside classrooms and for scientific purposes.
The exceptionality of the scientific purposes is not derived only from the social importance of these activity, but also from the fact that the public sector has historically supplied without demanding anything in return a great part of the contents for the private/public lishing sector. In the absence of an arm allowing the books for a noncommercial purpose it would be convenient that there were specific limitations for copping important books. That costs are much more expensesive than the national works.
For public universities and other scientific institutions it should be defined in the working contracts that books resulting from research and development from an institution should be published with license alone and the full reproduction.
Finally, p the criminal liability for the circumvention of technological protection measures, with access works to the -- in the public domain and open access and works are those that are permitted under national copyright exceptions and limitations are otherwise buyer -- are recognized by national law.
We want to separate the proposed text from the comments in order to facilitate the text based work.
Thank you. *
>> CHAIR: I thank CSC and now I pass the floor to DBEU. DBEV. Sorry.
>> DBEV: Thank you, Madam Chair. DBV, the German library association, is grateful to have the opportunity to take part in this SCCR meeting for the first time as an official observer. *
Many people depend on libraries to access the information they need to live their lives, especially those who need to make significant use of research materials, use of rare documents or unique works that are no longer available commercially available.
In a digital world, while we have access to many free information resources, on the other hand access to the most relevant materials is usually subject to often restrictive license terms and technical protection measures.
The first sale doesn't apply to digital works, libraries and archives. A number of proposals made by SCCR/24/8, the working paper on limitations and exceptions for libraries and air khoovs seek to address this problem. These topics all have clear International dimensions and therefore need an International framework not whole flexibility to Member States.
We support the idea to separate the text proposals from the comments in order to make this document better to work with.
We ask the distinguished delegates to start text based work on the proposals in SCCR/23/8, from the top beginning with topic number one, which is preservation. Preservation is important. Libraries and archives in every country need adequate exceptions to enable them to make preservation copies of both digital and analog materials before they deteriorate and they become unusable. Otherwise future generations will have no access to their history, their knowledge, and human memory.
Thank you for your attention.
>> CHAIR: I thank the DBV and now I pass the floor to STM.
>> STM: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The STM association follows with great interest the discussions on exceptions and limitations, and has since 2008 had a position on exceptions and limitations in the public interest.
Many of the headline topics discussed here coincide with the headlines in that paper, which has on previous occasions been made available to the Secretariat. We have five general principles that kind of underscore individual topics such as preservation that we are perfectly ready to discuss and also make practical progress in many forera around the world.
Number one is the respects for the Berne Convention three step test is absolutely fundamental.
Number two is that special markets and how they are served by specialized rights holders must not beer rodeed by too broad or general exceptions. And specifically recognize must be recorded to the development by publishers of an online scholarly resources that are beneficial to researchers and society.
Three, licensing * is the smart route to provide access to knowledge and preferred over exceptions and limitations, especially in the 21st Century. This goes hand in hand with some of the experimentation on open access models of delivery of content.
The cloud, the social wave, analytical tools will necessitate an understanding on licensing and the remarks by the European Union delegates that licensing models may be a suitable subject for discussion here is very timely.
Four, exceptions and limitations must take account of the increased risk of digital dissemination. We are aware that a risk exists also in the print world as illustrated by the interception of large shipments of infringing goods from one country to another.
But in the digital world, these infringement risks are even more accentuated.
Number five, exceptions and limitations must take into account cultural diversity and legal traditions.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank you for your comment and I pass now the floor to IVF.
>> IVF
: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The International Video Federation a preach yaits developing countries's legitimate request for assistance in adapting their Copyright Laws to the global online environment.
We are supportive of practical solutions taking advantage of the existing International copyright frameworks flexibilities and balanlimitations and exceptions as well as corresponding exclusive rights.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank you for being so brief and clear.
I pass the floor now to CESAC.
>> CESAC: Thank you Madam Chair. I'm making this intervention on behalf the the International Society of Authorities and publishes. We have over 2 30 organisations coming from is 20 countries. Through our membership, we represent over 3 million authors of literary, artistic, musical and infomatic works. Access to copyright works and collective management cooperations play an important role in respect. This is noted by a number of delegations (inaudible) and other interests.
For these principles, countries have efficient flexibility in introducing limitations and exceptions that meet domestic needs and reflect local policies. This includes the possibility of introducing exceptions for libraries ash chives and educational establishments which exist under many countries laws. It's therefore our position that the balance between rights and exceptions is already established under the existing International copyright framework should be maintained.
Thank you, Madam Chair. *
>> CHAIR: I thank CESAC and now I pass the floor to MPA.
>> MPA: Thank you very much. As I mentioned yesterday, the Motion Picture Association is a trade association that represents major International producer, and distributors of film and other audiovisual work.
The proceedings and distribution takes place throughout the world. The companies that we serve devote substantial effort and resources to developing indeed a wide range of entertainment content and services in a variety of formats and on a variety of media, including on the inter.
We a preesh -- Internet. We appreciate the calls that we her for focus. We strongly believer in licensing. Licensing of legal content around the world is the best way to address the various challenges facing the second, to the best way to address those challenges that are posed by piracy and from those that want to work -- weaken copyright for their own personal reasons, but usually turn out to be about competing business interests or political agendas.
The basis of our Members' business is copyright. And we have always supported a balanced and workable system of copyright, including not only strong exclusive rights, but also exceptions and limitations in the field of education and indeed others. We have significant experience in working with relevant bodies in the AV sector, such as film archive, museums, film schools. Their work is critical to promoting media literacy and ensuring the preservation of cultural heritage, something which is very, very important to film producer, as well.
-- producers as well. We know there is a need to facilitate access to AV content for users with disabilities. Special tub titling and audio description tools are increasingly made available on AV content.
However, in dealing with such issue, we must be careful not to upset the balance that is inherent in copyright. Copyright is also a fundamental right that, as I said yesterday, incentivizes creativity and the investment in new works and we welcome the recognition of that by several of the speakers that preceded us. We recall the importance of the International framework as others have done, including the tlooe step test.
This framework provides already flexibility to introduce a wide range of exceptions and limitations. The test applies broadly across a wide praing range of Treaties and is found in many national laws. It's not about constraint straint, it's about flexibility. Parliaments and courts around the world, the beauty of it is that Member States can already fashion solutions to address the issues being discussed here today. And as I mentioned yesterday as well, exceptions don't exist in a vacuum. Exceptions in the digital environment come along with rights in the digital environment.
It is vital to implement the WCT, the WPPT, and indeed the new Beijing Treaty. during the session today at lunch we heard the Nigerian film producers calling for implement taivtion the traets as well and we support their call and their work in their industry in Nigeria.
So with that, I would also mention of course that along with the framework comes protection for technological measures. We have heard concerns raised about them and as I have said before the International framework means that Member States maintain flexibility to fashion solutions to deal with the interface between limitations and exceptions on the one hand, and lek logical measures on the other.
And so -- technological measures on the other.
I wish you peace, law and copyright. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank MPA and now I give the floor to FIPF. *.
>> FIPF: Thank you. I'm speaking my own language this afternoon because I'm tired and I it gives me pleasure to do so. On the subject of limitations and exceptions, particularly for educational abd research institutions, we do note that there are a great number of people (Audio fading out)

It is in our interest to innovate (Audio fading in and out)

On the standards platforms with the (Audio fading in and out)

Essential place for copyright. Perhaps we should remained reremind you that copyright encourages creators to create but also promotes legal certainty without which people engaged in the industry would not undertake considerable risk (Audio fading in and out)

>> Made available to the public on which we all depend, including the -- for our identity and our quality of life. So we believe it's essential that a balance between the interests of the rights holders on the one hand and on the other hand the general public should be respected.
We note that this balance is at the heart of the discussions on copyright and it would be dangerous to Question this balance contained in the existing Treaties. So we call on Member States to have a substantive discussion on limitations and exceptions, but only do that if it is linked to the exclusive rights relating to copyright.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you FIPF
And it was a pleasure to listen to you speaking French. Which I don't hear very often.
And now I give the floor to the CIA.
>> CIA: Thank you Madam Chairman for giving the International council on archives the opportunity to address the Committee. The council is grateful to you and to the WIPO Secretariat for all of your work to promote the objectives of the Committee. The International council on archives heard with pleasure and grat tut the introductory remarks of the DG about the importance of an instrument in favor for visually impaired person and People with Disabilities. The council has been pleased to observe the constructive manner in which Member States were working towards a document suitable for a diplomatic conference.
The VIP Treaty is the first of three to be considered by the Committee in the programme set out at the 24th meeting in July. The proposed instrument in favor of educational institutions still has a long way to go. But an instrument in favor of libraries and archives has been under consideration by the Committee for some years now. And the target has been set to achieve agreement on the by the 28th meeting in July 20146789 we remain confident that Member States will achieve this target.
The libraries * and archives are an essential element in the life of all meb States of WIPO. They record and make available to citizens the culture of their country and other countries and cultures of peoples around the world. They are the primary source of education for citizens. They assist all members of society, including the visually impaired person and the disabled to participate in the life of their country. They inform Governments at all levels about the opinions and needs of the people, and in return they inform those people about the activities of Government and of their elected representatives.
In a digital world, the International flow of information between libraries and archives and from those libraries and archives to their users is especially dependent upon limitations and exceptions to copyright that are recognized Internationally.
Archives are especially dependent upon exceptions and limitations because for most material in their collections, such as unpublished letters or family films, there are no representative bodies to provide licensing and there is little prospect of new licensing models.
We look forward to seeing further progress by the Committee on an instrument for libraries and archives at this and future meetings.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
>> CHAIR: I thank the CIA.
And so the list of the speakers concerns limitations and exceptions is now finished and closed.
I have seen my colleagues original coordinator and other interested delegations working a lot, so I'm wondering if there is some result of the conulttation you have had so -- consultation you've had so far and I'll take point by point on what I ask you to have some consultation and see if we can draw some conclusion concerning this issue.
And I would really like to have this conclusion as we have done this morning by 6 he clock the latest today. I think wees good if we close this issue and then totally focus on the VIP issue, which is the most important thing we have to deal with this weekend to finish this week.
So I see some negative nodding. But I wonder if you have a few more minutes now you can continue our discussion. So I'll also be available to suspend the meeting for another 15 minutes so you can continue to discuss and then come back, I hope, with results. But I recognize the delegation of Peru. You have the floor.
>> PERU: Thank you Madam Chairman.
Our idea was to ask the Secretariat to give us some preliminary conclusions so that we could discuss them in our groups. So it would be a good idea to have these to discuss in our groups and then tomorrow morning we will come along with a group position.
So we would like to have these preliminary conclusions from you, take them back to our group, and then we could come back with some more precise ideas.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I recognize the delegation of Belgium.
>> BELGIUM thank you very much, Mrs. Chair. I think we also would love to support that. We heard a couple of proposals that I think we are ready to discuss a little bit further on, in detail. But again we would need to do so within our group. So I think we could go along with the idea of having preliminary conclusions as far as possible, but again with the understanding that we reserve the right to come back on it after consultation with our group which will be done by tomorrow morning.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Belgium and I think it's fair this Question. I recognize Egypt.
>> EGYPT: Thank you, Chair. I think during this discussion we have heard some proposals that are constructive and positive. And I think it should be important to capture those proposals. If the delegations would like to continue consultation on them, and perhaps we can get back to you with perhaps a clear way for the way forward.
So in this respect, and in this respect, you recall that the calf Dan group presented three concrete proposals -- the African Group presented three concrete proposals for libraries and archives. To have a streamlined structure of the document, legal text being separated from the comments, oral or written.
The second one is to have intercessional meeting on libraries and archives in the second half of 2013.
And as explained this, this is after we celebrate the conference on VIP and before the next -- the second SCCR in the second half of the year.
We also heard (ACR) heard a proposal made by India to set a date for Member States to submit legal texts and then we also can support this proposal.
So three concrete proposals for libraries and archives.
For education and research, the group has proposed to have stree lined document -- to have a streamlined document with legal text being separated from the comments. And the second proposal is that for our session, SCCR 25, to adopt the provisional working document as a working document on educational abd research institutions and as a basis for the future work.
So I would like to request the Secretariat to compile those proposals and make it available for Member States, to facilitate our discussion today on this issue. And perhaps we can come back tomorrow morning with some sort of clear vision for the way forward.
But at this stage, I'd be hesitant to actually have even preliminary conclusions, even at the time we didn't yet conclude our consultation.
Thank you so much.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Egypt. I just would like to react on your last point. I was rather favoring to try to have preliminary conclusion and understandings that each group will have to consult on it and come back tomorrow concerning their position. So any modification can be made on this preliminary conclusion and I would perhaps not say preliminary conclusion but say more where consensus may go on these issues.
I'm reluctant to have just a compilation of the proposal, because I feel it would delay the time of arriving to these conclusions.
So if you allow me, I would rather try to propose to you a compromise, based also on the ten Ken see of discussion -- tendency of discussion I've heard. And if it's fine we will try to put it as the basis for discussing the conclusion of this Committee on this issue. If there is a position we could go back to the idea of compiling the proposal. I'm under the I am prems, though, it will delay a lot the process.
Based on the discussion that we had this afternoon on the Question of limitations and exceptions for library and archives, I've heard lots of requests for reorganizing the document, even if some delegations here feel we are losing time. So I will, in the preliminary conclusion, put this element as a point. So having the comments in an annex, because it was what came more from the floor.
I heard some reluctance and not clear opposition, perhaps I will hear them now, concerning also the possibility much having intercessional. I hear -- of having speaker sessional. I hear lots of requests from delegations. I did not hear a clear no. I had the impression there was an openness so I would like to propose it as a point of conclusion on this issue. And as mentioned, it will be in the second -- but I will perhaps impose on the Secretariat at this point, so I understand in the secretary semester, between the the VIP diplomatic conference, because we are all committed to arrive to it. So let's hope we have it by the end of this week rkt and the second SCCR meeting of next year.
I will not go as far as speaking about the deadline, * for textual submission, because here I have the impression based on the reluctance of some people, also, to close also the discussions. So people wanted to have a general discussion still keeping it open. And if we restructure the document and we manage to have it, I think perhaps that's the best way not to go so far in this direction at this stage.
And concerning education and research, the vision and the view expressed had much more divergence. So at this stage what I may see but I'm not sure is perhaps the adoption of the document, but I heard clear refusal for it. So this is perhaps more problematic.
So perhaps the best way is to propose to have the same document on the agenda next time and we can continue to discuss it, when we will have much more time to discuss the document anyhow. It's a provisional document. It's on the table. So discussion can continue next time. We can see also how to reorganize it. Having it approved is a symbol. But it's important to have the working document on the table and being able to work on it.
So even if it's in its provisional version, I think we will have it on the agenda next time.
So I will tend to go in this direction to try to formulate some preliminary conclusions so we can bring to direction that Peru asked and also others in order to to try to have a package on these elements. So if it's fine for the delegation, I would propose the Secretariat to prepare this kind of conclusion. But I recognize the delegation of the United States.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you Madam Chair. I think there is a little bit of confusion here and we're trying to make sure that we understand the procedure.
But we think there is a need for more time for some group consultation before those conclusions are put before us in written form. And I think our listening to the room suggested that there was a lot more lack of clarity and lack of certainty about some of those conclusions than suggested by those conclusions.
And in particular, both in terms of the form of the documents, which we have debated at great length before, we would also want to see reflected the U.S.'s proposal that we identify particular topics on which we think we can make progress and prepare a series of separate working documents on those topics, as a way to avoid the lack of consensus in the room on the form of the documents, rather than continue over every meeting to have the same debate about the form. Because I don't think that debate has been resolved.
So we suggest that as the way forward. And I also think there is, in terms of both of the content and the form of the document, that is an ongoing problem, which this could be a solution to. I also do not hear that there is consensus on an intercessional at this point in time. It is quite possible that at the July SCCR we will either be faced with a situation where the work has been done on VIP and then there will be plenty of time for discussion and days devoted to the library exceptions issue at that point, or if the work isn't done on VIP then we will certainly need all of that time for that particular issue.
So I think it's a bit less clear and I know at least some delegations would like more time to consult before we move ahead. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank you for the clear comments and I recognize the EU.
>> European Union: Thank you very much. Would he would like to echo the concerns raised by the delegation of the U.S. We also think that what should be listed as a preliminary conclusion, whatever you want to call it at this moment, is over lack of agreement on the form of the document of libraries and archives. We have think there was no clear consensus on separating the legal solutions from the comments and the same on the intercessionality meeting. We ee he intercessional meeting. We have to think about the calendar of works and especially the VIP issue. * and only decide about it when the time is ripe.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you.
So based on this reaction, I think the best is definitely that groups meet. But also besides meeting by yourselves and having your position I think it's good. You try to discuss together in order to arrive to some compromise on some proposals the views are still divergent.
So at this stage, I don't think it's useful to continue the discussion here. I would be open to just put some element in paper if you'd like for your coordination and giving it to you tonight, and perhaps being a little more broad than what I put.
So having some alternative rather than having a pure compilation. So this is an option that I can offer to you to speed up the process. And without speaking about preliminary conclusion, but just a paper for reflection for the group to see how they can move on.
I recognize the delegation of Argentina.
>> ARGENTINA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Just to say that in order to speed up the process, you said that perhaps an alternative would be to have a compilation of proposals. I don't know if that is what you just said. But it might be interesting in order to speed up the discussions. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: That's definitely when I speak about this paper, it will be prodder than what I mentioned at the begin, because I'm hearing an interest of having all the different proposals.
So it might perhaps not be the full compilation, but we will try to put in writing the issues that we hear here. * definitely you can come back tomorrow with other points.
I want to warn you are that we still have lots of work to be done on VIP. So really we need to well organize our time. So to have this conclusion on this issue while having as much time as possible for VIP if we need it tomorrow. Hopefully we finish everything tonight.
Because this is the plan, by the wBelgium you have the floor.
>> BELGIUM I wanted to add that I think that is a very sensible proposal as to the way forward. No preliminary conclusion, but a proposal which we could use to discuss a couple of ideas that were discussed this afternoon.
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Okay. So if there is no other request, we will try to draft the document as soon as possible. And let it circulate to regional coordinators so you can have it tomorrow morning for your consultation.
Does the Secretariat have some comment?
sn sorry, just some final logistic discussion. Just to mention so that we suspend now the meeting at 6 o'clock we will start our consultation on VIP in the new building. In the same format as we did yesterday.
At 10 tomorrow morning, we will come back with the discussion, at least the result of the consultation on VIP. So this will be the first issue we will have tomorrow morning in the plenary.
And then we will see how to continue to organize the day based on the result of our discussion on VIP tonight. But the Secretariat has some final announcements to make.
>> SECRETARY: Thank you, Chair.
So I just want to make sure everyone knows that the documents for the VIP discussion in all six languages are outside the room. So you can pick up copies to take over to room A, if you are -- sorry, the new building if you are participating in those discussions. Also, just to remind you that we have arranged for the restaurant in the new building to be open until 6 p.m. they have provided additional sandwiches and sort of quick items that people could buy and eat before the meeting.
So we have hope that will be convenient for you. And as the Chair has said. We will finish our work tonight so we won't have to go there tomorrow night but should we have to be there tomorrow night we will provide that same service.
Thank you.


(spp session suspended at 5:25)

Services provided by:
Caption First, Inc.
P.O. Box 3066
Monument, CO 80132

This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.

Filed under: ,