[A2k] Today's debate on Casting treaty
Wed Sep 28 06:45:03 2005
These are my very rough notes from this morning's debate on the
Equator, supports DC
Iran on behalf of the Asia group, raised questions about the
process..... there is a need for sufficient time for member states
at least two SCCR....., webcasting should be excluded, and not raised
in any form in diplomatic conference....
Members states will decide on a process...... opposed to any
diplomatic conference at this time.
Czech republic Baltic states...
Group B..... supports, 2006 diplomatic conference
1st regional consultation, Arab states.... new solutions for
webcastings.... secretariat would present this..... wppt.... not to
use illegally the signals. Likes the flexibility supports DC
Moldova, Eastern Europe group...
General support for DC.... June, consultations in Moscow
Work since 1998. Supports DC... 2006
SCCR, before DC
Southeast Asia nations
Asia Pacific consultations.... good basis discussions. However,
more needs to be done in discussions in the SCCR.
UK, on behalf EC.
EC ready to move forward on the issue. DC on 2006
SCCR could resolve outstanding issues.
Update and Modernize, support DC
2nd quarter of 2006.
Caribbean, approval of DC, 2nd quarter of 2006.
Big cricket event coming up, so urgent need for updated treaty...
Trinidad, I think, yes on DC.
Kenya. on behalf of the 14 member Africa consultation, mid 2006 DC
Says Casting treaty is Pro development
Promotes access to public information
Need to Immediately update broadcasters rights
Welcomed webcasting options, but more time to consider for making
Kenya=92s own statement, was horrible.
Urgent.... for DC
LCDs find no problem with DC, "but as usual," we need money to
Supports of DC
Urgent to update rights
Supports (strongly) DC
Reinforce broadcaster rights in digital environment
Strongly support diplomatic conference in 2006
Protect signals of broadcasters
Supports more discussion, give money for diplomatic conference
Egyptian delegation, opposes diplomatic conference
Brazil on behalf of 12 members of .....FoD.... No DC now.
Member driven organization. Webcasting should not be considered as a
matter of discussions.
At least two meetings... of SCCR. Also, more time to topic of L&E.
Importance of purported treaty is not in dispute. Something else.
2nd quarter of 2006 is too soon. Dissatisfaction about regional
consultations. Serious concerns about transparency and balance.
Invites were issued to people in individual capacities. Not through
diplomatic channels. No agreement among member states on duration,
scope of rights, TPM, DRM, webcasting, etc. Counter productive to do
now. No impact studies. No economic studies. Principled positions,
the GA should take a principled positions that development impact
studies based upon empirical studies. We don=92t support DC at this
time. It will not produce a productive result.
Chile.... Time not ripe for DC. Not consensus on content... what is
impact on users and copyright owners.
Cameroon, some technical details need to be addressed. Widest
possible participation... no objection
India, not sensitive to rights of content owners...new layer of
rights. Also, negative A2K, and right to information, the public at
large. Prefer TRIPS approach.... no rights in the content.
Broadcasters would obtain rights in both signals, but refixation,
reproduction, and redistribution. Mentioned the public domain. Any
attempt to bring in webcasting even as optional protocol. Ability
to access info key to dissemination and stimulating creativity.
Mentioned UNESCO, and asked for their active involvement. UNESCO has
been asked to get involved. Freedom of expression and universal
access not included in statement. Support the Asian group and the
12 members of the FoD represented by Brazil, plus Chile and some
US pleased to support prompt DC. Timely and appropriate. Urgent
China. DC conference when time is right.
Ghana. Supports DC, in 2006.
Kazakhstan, totally clueless. Supports DC.
Russia. A number of countries are opposed a DC. Rights holders
rights are suffering today. Broadcasting owners may harm right
owners. Should a DC for next year.
Venezuela. We had the private sector from industry, all supported
treaty, but no NGO invited in opposition to the treaty. To sum up,
Ukraine. Active in regional consultations. Want DC in 2006.
Croatia. Supports DC.
Morocco. Really Really loves DC.
Peru. Ask the Chair to give sufficient time to look through this
proposal. We would extend time frame, before we make a decision.
Chair. No country opposed to DC. Considerable support for DC along
lines. Opposition from some groups, for more time.
Would hesitate to seek a decision on paragraph 14. Informal
consultations. Will meet with regional coordinators around 2 pm in
Several countries clarified that some countries have are not ready to
decide if DC is good idea. Depends upon many things, including
further analysis, but also scope of treaty and possible substantive
James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org /
tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040