[A2k] WIPO Broadcasting Treaty - SCCR 14, Day 5 Notes

[Gwen Hinze]

WIPO SCCR 14, Day 5, May 5, 2006 Notes.


The NGO Coalition's notes of day 5 are posted at:
<http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/index.php?f=sccr14_day5_am.txt>

Special thanks to Thiru Balasubramaniam of CP Tech for assistance
with morning notes.

Full text below.

---

WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, 14th Session

Day 5, May 5,  2006

Geneva

Notes taken by:

Thiru Balasubramaniam, thiru at cptech dot org, Consumer Project on
Technology [TB]

Gwen Hinze, gwen at eff dot org, Electronic Frontier Foundation [GH]

Jason Pielemeier, jason dot pielemeier at yale dot edu, Yale
Information Society Project [JP]

Rufus Pollack, rufus dot pollack at okf dot org, Open Knowledge
Foundation, [RP]


[NOTE: This is not an official transcript. It's our best effort at
providing a faithful set of notes of the proceedings. Any errors and
omissions are unintentional and regretted.]

-=-=-=-=-
Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law)

Except where indicated in relation to specific text in the following
material, the person or persons who have associated their work with
this document
(the "Dedicator") hereby dedicate the entire copyright in the work of
authorship identified below (the "Work") to the public domain.

Dedicator makes this dedication for the benefit of the public at large
and to the detriment of Dedicator's heirs and successors. Dedicator
intends this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in
perpetuity of all present and future rights under copyright law, whether
vested or contingent, in the Work. Dedicator understands that such
relinquishment of all rights includes the relinquishment of all rights
to enforce (by lawsuit or otherwise) those copyrights in the Work.

Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work
may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified,
built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial
or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not
yet been invented or conceived.
-=-=-=-=-



Chair:


How shall we deal with webcasting and simulcasting? Last evening I
posed you two questions.  Can we have one basic proposal with
broadcasting/cablecasting and simulcasting/webcasting in the appendix?

Many delegations think that it is premature to include simulcasting
in a treaty - i.e. broadcasting over computer networks. There was
objection to include even that element in next version of inclusive
working document or basic proposal. That led to discussions as to
whether to proceed with one or two documents - second dealing with
computer network transmissions. But there was a problem.

The traditional broadcasters need to be protected through
unauthorized retransmission through other means (simulcasting) over
computer networks [GH: i.e. Article 6's right of retransmission . But
note it's beyond traditional simultaneous retransmission because
Article 9 - right of transmission of fixed broadcasts - also extends
to transmission over computer networks - see Chair's explanatory
comments in para 9.02. Article 7 would grant broadcasters and
cablecasters the right to control who makes fixations of their casts].

Then I formulated the question whether delegations could show
flexibility on simulcasting.

Depending on how this discussion goes, there was a promise and plan
for NGOs to speak sometime today.

USA:
We've heard from 25 member states this week - including El Salvador
and Ukraine - for non-mandatory appendix on WC. China and Mexico
expressed support for separate instrument. India expressed
flexibility on computer newt wok transmissions.

The concept of technological neutrality has been welcomed by many
delegations.  We need to ensure this so that broadcasters and
cablecasters do not have an unfair advantage.

Delegations who opposed the inclusion in any Broadcasting Treaty text
are concerned about unintended consequences and possibility may
infringe on other existing rights. Yet this is a non-mandatory annex.

For US there are several critical issues of concern in alternatives
that currently exist in draft proposal which would be mandatory
articles. TPMS are mandatory for US. Yet, the current version of
Draft Basic Proposal (DBP) has  alternatives for no TPMS and Drums.
We are awaiting new language on this topic.  In the spirit of
inclusiveness we are willing to leave this in the provisions.

  We would urge the same approach on the issue of webcasting.  We are
committed to coming up w/ new concrete proposals on the issue of
webcasting and would be willing to do so on an accelerated time frame
so that progress on this important matter can be maintained.

Chair:

Thank you for elaborating on webcasting (that it should be maintained
on the principle of inclusiveness), TPMS, and other issues. I note
you referred to an accelerated timeframe.

South Africa: We have concerns regarding inclusion of webcasting and
we reiterate this. We would like to see a single proposal which just
addresses traditional broadcasting.

We tried to look at an approach that advocates inclusiveness, but as
much as we try to come up with different options, extending the scope
would give one player a bigger advantage over the others.  When you
referred to looking to webcasting in the future in a separate way, we
would have concerns on looking at webcasting separately because there
are other players who should be engaged in the process and I think
that if we keep talking about how it is premature to talk about
webcasting We need to be ensure that if we engage in discussions on
this in future, we engage the diverse players involved.  We still do
believe that we need to limit ourselves to the terms of reference
that were set out originally.

Chair:

Would that apply if you would consider that classical broadcasters
could have some rights over any retransmission of their broadcasts,
for instance using other non-traditional platforms?

South Africa:

Your question goes back to Article 6 which is of concern to our
delegation. If you are going to give such rights.... it needs to be
very explicit for us in the current draft it is not very explicit.

I would be reluctant to concede willingness that you are indicating.
So at this point I am afraid that we still maintain our concerns that
we indicated earlier.

Brazil:
we won't reiterate all of our positions. I  think we have expressed
them clearly and all of them remain on the table.  obviously this
includes the insistence that the draft proposal stick w/ traditional
broadcasters. We have a problem with the TPM and DRM clauses and we
would like to see them suppressed.

[TB: Yes!]
We are not in a position to commit to Art. 6 on transmission over
computer networks. We think that this raises several issues and this
needs further study as to the implications.
We don't see why one particular entity should have their
retransmission rights recognized and not others.  This is not tech
neutrality but entity neutrality

We think many unanswered questions that need resolution, yet clear
opposition to including webcasting in any new draft.

There is a majority position against the inclusion of webcasting. We
are not in favor of having a future draft include this issue or even
of having a separate instrument since whatever you propose will end
up being part of what is discussed at a DC and we don't think that
the issue is mature or ready for that.  we don't have a problem with
discussing these issues in the future, however we have a mandate and
the mandate of the General Assembly never contained a mandate on
webcasting.  It was a mandate to discuss and agree on a DBP. We do
not know at this point what the next draft would look like so we are
not  in the position to commit to a diplomatic conference.   I think
that this is a pretty reasonable position. You can not ask
delegations to sign a blank cheque. Dip Conf allow for very little
tech discussion and very little opportunity for drafting changes. If
Member States have any doubt, will likely be resolved by majority
vote and not submitted to a technical discussion. We don't think it's
appropriate to have these issues subject to a majority vote. We need
predictability and the chance to submit whatever document is prepared
to our authorities and experts for further study which is important
considering the complexities involved, as highlighted in recent
discussions.

Chair:  thank you for your very concrete comments.  Those who wish to
speak on all the extensions and dimensions that the Brazilian
delegate commented are invited to opine on these issues.

Argentina:

Along the same lines as earlier speakers we have expressed concerns
as to inclusion of webcasting and we would not be in a position to
agree to a basic proposal b/c we never had a mandate to debate
webcasting. As to the principle of inclusiveness, We defend
inclusiveness; it's important and all delegations must be on equal
footing. But normally we are simply speaking of amendments and
variants, mainly of a technical nature, to the main articles, however
we are concerned that when it is a matter of substance and deals with
the very scope of what is our mandate it is different. I think what
we have here are two processes, on the one hand these negotiations
have been going on for some years and we could perhaps improve our
working methods by having a more substantive negotiations on an
article-by-article basis, which would allow us to achieve consensus
before going to a dip conf.

There is not a single article on webcasting that has agreement of any kind.
If we were to go to a DC all the articles would be unresolved. We
have to continue working as our mandate sets forth and continue to
work toward a consensus on a basic proposal. We can do it in
different ways such as in the present manner.
However, on the issue of Webcasting it is very difficult for us to
negotiate if such a proposal is in the basic proposal.  In basic
proposal, we cannot justify the inclusion of webcasting since that
process is in its earliest stages particularly when compared to the
matter of broadcasting.  We can agree that this could go to the SCCR
agenda so that we can undertake a technical impact of such
negotiations.  Then can decide whether we need to negotiate a treaty
on this particular matter. Very difficult to move forward if we
continue to hold broadcasting hostage to protection of webcasting. We
won't achieve either of the aims.

Chair: Tentatively seems that as more work is needed on the level of
the committee that  at least the work done at the next working
document should not be the final basic proposal. from where we are
now it would not be possible to jump to a final basic proposal.
Has to be a middle station, in order to be able to further develop
the ideas we have on the table.

Senegal: Let me point out that webcasting is of great interest to my
delegation.  there is something that we need.  we need capacity
building on technological building And webcasting is a new area for
my country and we have questions about this.

How is this activity structured? What is covered by digital
technology?  What are the legal and material conditions for carrying
this activity.? All of these questions have to be studied so that we
can have clear answers to them. Also, important prerequisite. We have
to create conditions for capacity building.

As regards simulcasting, we think it's much easier.  It's the same
signal carrying program carrying programs w/ content. It's the same
legally responsible and technically responsible entity.  It's an
extension of analogue broadcasting in digital domain. if we don't
take this aspect into account here will be imbalance. We need more
information about webcasting. We think that there is a risk b/c there
is a legal lacunae b/cc can't provide protection to broadcaster,
whether transmission is by analog or digital means.

Jamaica:  We have a mix of concerns  similar to those of Argentina and Senegal
We are interested in webcasting but it is clear from discussion that
this is issue not mature enough to take it to a DC. So we would
advocate setting some timelines on when we take things forward.

We would want to set some timelines where this issue could be
addressed separately so we can come to some basic agreement on the
text.

As it concerns a DBP, we have same concerns of Brazil that this
process is still an interim process and what comes out of today will
not be what goes to a dip conf.  We would want to ensure that we have
the text out of this meeting

As regards, Article 6 we do not have any problems with the language
with "over computer networks" or "by any means". Our own national
legislation is just as broad as terms of providing protection in a
media-neutral environment. On simulcasting we have similar view to
Senegal, however we are minded that we have tied web and simulcasting
together, which is why I think we may need separate timeframes for
webcasting and simulcasting to be discussed in this forum.


Japan: I was astonished by Brazil's intervention. In the last general
assembly the Brazilian delegation raised the procedural problem. They
said that procedure lacks some due process in the regional context.
However, some of their provisions could be extended. They don't like
extension for extension's sake. We compromised by allowing 2 more
SCCRs. Now we have had that due process  of 2 more SCCRs as Brazil
requested last year. We must have all the due process of two SCCR's.

  I feel betrayed by listening to today's intervention by Brazil. This
time, Brazilian delegation changed procedural point to substantive
matter. We all share the principle of inclusiveness so that all
proposal should be included in next final basic proposal.  In
conclusion, our position is that a middle step to final basic
proposal is not necessary.  We want to go to a DC as soon as possible.

Kenya:
We've come a long way.  We believe it is now time to put the food on the table.
We are of view that we should have a DC to specifically deal with
issue of traditional broadcasting.
On the issue of webcasting we need to make an informed position.
We don't want to engage in exercise of futility. So that we don't
endorse this and then not be able to fulfill our obligations and then
we don't want to be pressured and blacklisted and to be told we are
not fulfilling our obligations.
We therefore support Senegal and others who have supported a dip conf
on traditional broadcasting.  Tech is changing and one way or another
we have to address them, so we would want to treat webcasting and any
other tech that will come, in separate instruments.

Chair:  One small question, You support the notion that traditional
broadcasting should be the first step. what about the defensive part
of the defensive part of the broadcaster's rights against
simulcasting?

[GH: "Defensive", meaning the right of retransmission in Art. 6 and
Art 9's right of transmission of fixed broadcasts, apparently
extending over computer networks?]

Kenya:  We are willing to negotiate and listen and be convinced in
this regard. We already have language similar to that ("by any
means") in our own copyright act.

Chair: So you have a position similar to that stated by Jamaica.

Indonesia: We would like to express our concern into the inclusion of
ANY reference to webcasting into this draft treaty.  To the extent of
our knowledge there is no domestic webcasting protection anywhere in
the world.  It is our understanding that this is not yet an
acceptable norm. In light of this we are of the view, protecting
webcasting is not ripe for protection.  We are NOT in the position of
any document (DBP) containing references to webcasting.

Chair:  We could at some stage pose the question how many there are
whose legislation already protect web-originated webcasting.   I am
aware of many countries who already do because they are
technologically neutral, so they can cover non-Hertzian wave
transmissions. so for some delegations it's not that hard to consider
webcasting, it's just another form of delivery for broadcasting. That
is the abstract notion of broadcasting. Traditional definition is by
Hertzian waves, by cable, the same is cablecasting.  Over other
platforms we have called it webcasting but we could just call it
broadcasting over other platforms. Broadcasting by webcasting.

[GH: Note that broadcasting traditionally involves the point to
multipoint transmissions, as noted in WIPO's Broadcasting Technical
Background Paper, whereas webcasting as defined would cover
point-to-point transmissions by multiple disassembled packets, not
based on a signal (cable) or Hertzian waves. Many technologists might
take strong issue with the statement above.]

Venezuela:  The work done in this meeting has to result in a decision
on broadcasting, which does not infringe upon any other domain. This
is our initial mandate to which we must keep.  Different opinions
have been expressed, especially about art. 6. Webcasting is not
acceptable to us at this stage.  S. Africa, Brazil and Argentina have
already argued and put forth points which we have fully endorsed.

Chair:  I'll ask you the same question I asked Ghana.

Venezuela:  For the moment we can't answer I'm afraid.  I'd have to
consult my authorities at home.  I don't have an answer just now.

Colombia:
we are against webcasting but we are very enthusiastic about updating
Rome.  We have many reservations about going beyond this.  However,
given the current environment we do think there is merit in taking
account of the needs of broadcasters, but we cannot do this until
we've finished the work we've already begun in 96.  We can't protect
a new category of broadcasters when we haven't even updated
protection for new categories. As for Art. 6, we support the terms of
this basic proposal.  We think that the traditional broadcaster has
to control his transmission not only in the traditional but in new
manners as well.
We think that if this were to become the subject of a Diplomatic
Conference we would answer in the affirmative. All elements on the
objectives that we have set ourselves, we have discussed now at
length. Think we should now go to a DC. We should offer broadcasting
orgs the possibility to use all the media that they would wish to use
and this should be discussed during the three weeks of a dip conf.


Bangladesh:  General comments and observations.
Would like Secretary to record our observations. Some leakage with
issue of webcasting. As we have said previously, we are against the
inclusion of webcasting in this Treaty. We are not against the
holding of a dip conf.  We would like it to be held as mandated by
the GA in 2007.

However, if there are differences in proposals, and alternatives,
then nothing is agreed on which we could discuss at DC. Regarding
national treatment, we do recognize that LDCs are giving the
principle of non-reciprocity.  and we are of course in some
agreement.  We are not in the position to take higher commitments. We
also see some discussions yesterday on MFN on non-discrimination, we
realize that LDCs are given exceptions on treatment. Strongly take
issue up in DC and would like enabling clause to be in treaty, It can
be a part of the treaty or in the form of a declaration, we would
need to discuss it further.


Chair: in basic terms you would be ready to go to a Dip Con to
negotiate on the basis of what we have.


El Salvador:  on your question about existing domestic legislation
for protection to broadcasting orgs and w/ respect to modern computer
networks, in our legislation rebroadcasting on Internet is mentioned
in the new decrees on traditional broadcasting and it is authorized
that there could
It is authorized that there could be rebroadcasting on networks that
are wired or not wired, including by digital means. thus, we have
provisions concerning the liability of operators who rebroadcast in
this way.

[Ben Ivins (National Association of Broadcasters) is talking urgently
to Tilman Leuder, head of the European Commission delegation]

India (Mr. Arora, Secretary, Information & Broadcasting):
responding to some of the queries that you have made let me reiterate
our delegations points.  On proposal of webcasting and simulcasting,
or any other variant of webcasting, needs to be fleshed out in the
basic text. As we saw in the last few days, the delegates from the EC
had a different take and were interested in restricting it to
simulcasting, whereas the delegates from the US had a wider
definition that would include even the webcasters. Therefore
premature for us to negotiate on inclusion of webcasting in current
draft.

We are ready to engage in a constructive dialogue of webcasting and
simulcasting with the demanders of such a proposal.  Would be
interested in seeing draft proposal, and finding appropriate
language, perhaps through aegis of Secretariat.
once a draft formulation is ready, it could perhaps be taken up by
the SSCR for further discussions.  Our understanding is that much
more work needs to be done on the larger issue of webcasting and
webcasting orgs.

Second question that you have posed regarding Art. 6, our standpoint
has been that while we can sympathize with concerns of broadcasting
organization about signal piracy or unauthorized retransmission over
computer networks, the problem that I mentioned is that this becomes
an obligation on member states to enforce that law and on the
internet enforcement of that law is a very, very difficult
proposition b/c of several other factors involved, largely b/c of our
limited knowledge of enforcement on the Internet.

Difficult to know where source of digital transmission is, so to be
effective enforcement would amount to effective regulation of entire
Internet. we therefore find it very difficult.  while it seems
attractive conceptually, it is fraught with many practical, legal
uncertainties.  Article 6 needs to be cleansed of the words "by any
means" and "over computer networks".

We would very much wish that this should become an integral part of
the dialog that is proposed to be continued on webcasting and
simulcasting. Simulcasting or transmission by computer networks
should not be contained in DBP on traditional broadcasting and
cablecasting. You have also mentioned that many of member states
already have domestic laws, and even Rome mentions technology-neutral
provisions.  I would remind many that we often have tech neutral
goals but in actuality many member states have much more specific
laws relating to the Internet and other forms of digital transmission
and case law on the subject is extremely limited. therefore better
and more appropriate for all of us to hasten slowly and not plunge,
until we know the consequences of what is involved

This is not an included mandate for us to push through for the
Diplomatic Conference.  The last point, is about the procedures for
the basic test. You have just said that next draft may not be the
final BP. I would only seek your response on the subject as to how
you would like to proceed further w/ the DBP for conventional
broad/cablecast protection. the point I'm trying to make is that we
have had much discussion over last few days, week, on range of
issues. We've all given our views, all clumped together, some of us
agree and some disagree.  It is not known to us as to how the next
text would express the views expressed by such a variety of
delegations here.  I would therefore urge that a fresh DBP in
whatever form you would like might be put before all the delegates
and we need one more meeting in which that DBP is considered clause
by clause, as I previously suggested.  Once you clump clauses
together, we are not able to understand how they necessarily relate
to the entire text.  My strong suggestion is that once the
secretariat and chair are able to reconcile some of the views and put
them together in a fresh DBP we would urge you to convene one more
SCCR limited to conventional broad/cablecasters and considered clause
by clause, decided which proposals agreed, and which could then form
basis of DC


Chile:

We agree w/ proposal that it is premature to go to dip conf.  I
believe India's proposal is very reasonable. We need at least one
more meeting. We have to free ourselves of the burden of the
diversity of opinions concerning the issue of webcasting which is
currently an area  where we are not clearly enough informed as to
particular peculiarities and issues which it would merit..  I think
we should  set aside webcasting and leave it to future work of this
Committee.


Egypt:  At this very critical stage, it may be useful to reaffirm to
major beliefs.  Speaking in English is an attempt to convey these
elements clearly to as many delegates as necessary.
1) Our understanding is that our mandate is only to deal with BP for
conventional broadcasting.  This DBP should have no reference,
directly or indirectly to the issue of webcasting for the reasons
that we have previously mentioned. It is not just that, that we want
one DBP delinked from Webcasting.
we are not ready at this stage any legal text or any DBP that
includes webcasting.
The dip conf that we are all aiming for should only be dedicated to
traditional broadcasting orgs.  We would join and cheer ideas of
India on feasibility and appropriateness of having another SCCR to
discuss proposal on conventional broadcasting.

2) We should consider interests and concerns of all delegations. My
delegation would consider joining an emerging consensus to initiate
or create process to discuss the issue of webcasting.

Brazil:

Just a few comments on Japan's intervention. Japan appears to think
that there has been a change of Brazil's position on convening of a
DC.
[TB: The Japanese delegate noted that had "felt betrayed" by Brazil's
intervention]

I would like to clarify that Brazil's position regarding webcasting
and convening of a dip conf before documents are mature enough for
that sort of meeting.  Brazil's position's are well known and have
been for a long time and Japan can read the minutes if they want.
The decision of the GA was a big decision and it wasn't a Brazilian
position. No where does it say that we are committed to convening a
DC.
We are committed to convening 2 additional meetings to agree and
finalize a DP on the rights of broadcasting orgs (not webcasting
orgs) "in order to facilitate the convening of a dip conf."

It doesn't mean that we are a priori opposed to convening a DC but it
means that a decision to that effect requires a consensus on a DBP.

So, I indicated previously that we had flexibility to consider
alternatives so long as all countries have a chance to examine that
txt b/c at this point we don't know what that text would look like.
During this meeting we had a considerable divergence of views on
number of issues

We did not go through an article-by-article procedure as suggested by
India, which could have lead to some kind of language negotiation, so
we actually do not have language on a DBP that we can agree on.  It
would not be prudent to put this organization's credibility at risk
by convening a DC without agreement on a BP.
If it fails it wouldn't do anybody any good, it wouldn't do good for
the organization, the members or the interested stake holders.

[JL: Brazil responded well to the Japan intervention, which was very
aggressive, and seemed to suggest that countries had agreed to more
than they did at the 05 GA and which implied at that is unreasonable
to know what a treaty would do before a diplomatic conference.]

European Community and its member states:
[Tilman Lueder]
We have made considerable headway w/ regard to the proposals.  I have
had positive feedback that the proposals are not as radical as they
may appear, or may be made to appear by some in some quarters, and
certainly are not as radical as expressed in some quarters of the
general procedure.  We should be very grateful that we have this
forum to clarify these issues and now we should go out and convince
the world on what we have learned.  This delegation has done its
homework before coming here and last night.   One element that came
to fore last night. Retransmission is important in broadcasting. all
of those territories must have a retransmission because the signal is
too weak to travel from coast to coast.  This is true for Canada,
India, Brazil, US.  Same signal can't go coast to coast, needs to be
relayed. That is why we have this broadly defined right of
retransmission.  In Europe we are not that familiar w/ that concept,
but larger territories are and have this.  Retransmission is the
lynchpin to make the signal more perceptible over long distances.

This is why Article 6 is so important and why I want to say one more
thing about "by any means". "By any means" isn't really an issue of
whether this is computer networks or other networks. It's an issue of
hertz waves vs. digital.  One clarity, digital transmission and
retransmission is not the same as computer networks.  Cpu networks is
only one method. "By any means' should not be restricted to Hertzian
waves.

Senegal and Jamaica have pointed out that what happens if technology
evolves and TV is only transmitted by digital signals and the
hertzian waves are turned off. This radio spectrum is valuable. [GH:
Yes billions of $US.] There is increasing tendency to free up the
spectrum and increasingly large countries are looking to switch off
the spectrum and give access through digital means.  There are
programs under way to switch off analog signals in many jurisdictions
between now 2008 and 2009. Now TV goes on, but not through analog
means, but through digital means. Especially if this happens in those
large countries that I mentioned, those digital signals need to be
protected.  Then this is why important that any digital transmission
is protected.  We are committed to having protection for digital
transmission of educational and scientific knowledge, but also let us
not forget entertainment, b/c sometimes over the last few days we
were in a scientific seminar and let us not forget that TV is mostly
about entertainment. TV has a larger scope than education or science.
EC would like to seriously suggest to all delegations that we move
forward  in an accelerated way

DBP for protection of broadcasting in all ways it reaches its users.
A proposal that protects the broadcasting orgs in the ways that it
reaches its end user should move forward.  We have had significant
clarification and there is a nucleus of consensus that these orgs
need to be protected.  There would be an enormous vacuum if analog
switch off and move to digital transmission, then there would be no
protection for those transmissions.

If we don't protect that, the  programming will dry up and then there
is nothing left to steal.  Programming content doesn't assemble
itself, somebody has to create it (who we already protect) but
somebody has to assemble and schedule it at a considerable cost and
if we don't protect them it will dry up.  I don't want to say
anything more regarding procedure, I leave that to the chair.  I do
believe that the rapid consolidation of the text or several texts
would be highly relevant b/c we have made considerable advances.

We are willing to assist any delegations to further clarify any of
these issues, including TPMs and our experience with them and how to
ensure efficient access to beneficiaries of exceptions. We have very
satisfied stakeholders. To help reach consensus, we will flesh out
our proposal on why TPMs will never override the right of groups and
their beneficiaries.  prior to September this year.

China:

In light of the decisions made by the 32nd GA, the purpose our
session is to reach consensus on the basic proposal to protect
broadcasters. After 2 days of discussion, we feel that on the
question of webcasts there is a large difference of opinion.
Therefore, in order to meet the requirements of the GA this
delegation believes it is wise to have separate documents on
webcasting, including simulcasting. Although we are not against the
non-mandatory appendix, this delegation realized that it is very
important to resolve the webcasting issue and we need to have more
experiences on the national level.  So under the WIPO framework we
would like to see more in-depth discussion of webcasting.

On the question of Article 6 on (retransmission rights)
in light of the technological evolution, our task is to update the
protection of the rights of broadcasters.

We believe that we could consider Article 6 in the DBP (SCCR14/2). On
the question of a dip conf, we believe that this should be decided in
the context of whether we could reach a consensus on the above
mentioned issues.
and that is why this delegation cannot propose more specific opinions
on this.  In addition, we support what has been proposed by India
regarding holding another session of the SCCR.  Taking into
consideration our discussion at the present stage, many issues have
to be consulted further in order to reach a broader consensus.

Philippines:
Our discussions and debates at the SCCR have been quite productive
both for those in favor of passing the treaty and those who are
against it.  We saw in fact an almost dramatic consensus towards the
original treaty as discussed. However we have seen there are
significant reservations on webcasting.

We have taken a strong position against the inclusion of webcasting.
However, we have been enlightened that it might be limited to
broadcasters.  Still, we are convinced that there is a need for more
serious study on webcasting
especially in the view of the 'digital divide' that is the reality of
the world.
After nearly 10 years of work there is now a nucleus of consensus
regarding traditional broadcasting. In our opinion it is more
productive to focus on issues that bind us together rather than those
that take us apart.

This delegation adopts the position that we should focus on issues
that bind us together.  We support the positions expressed that maybe
it would be more prudent and practical to pursue two different tracks
on these matters.

Croatia (on behalf Central European and Baltic States):  we believe
there is an urgent need to protect broadcasters rights especially
given changes in modern technologies.  Our conversations have been
productive, thus enabling us w/ the level of maturity necessary to
proceed in a constructive manner.  DP needs to include simulcasting
and need this to be produced and sent to GA so that we can have a dip
conf in 2007.  As for the proposal for another SCCR, I guess we could
be flexible, but the most important thing is that members agree to
convene a dip conf next year on the protection of broadcasters.

Iran: As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, there is very limited support
for webcasting. this issues needs more study. Take account of the
GA's mandate to accelerate our work and to get a final text. To do
this we need to focus on traditional broadcasting with a clear
timeframe. Transmission over computer network should be discussed in
relation to webcasting and "by any means" should be deleted from Art
6. We support an inclusive process within its own context.


New Zealand: We agree with many other delegations on the need to move
ahead with a Dip Con in 2007. We should not consider webcasting as it
will not fit within the timeframe we have. As regards to Art. 6, we
could support the article as it stands as the rep of the EC has
outlined in detail

Republic of Korea: We are dealing with an important issue: giving
appropriate rights and protections to broadcasters so they can
protect themselves. After having participated in these discussions,
we are confident that the time is ripe for these issues to be
discussed at a Diplomatic Conference.

Japan:
Thank the Brazilian delegate for their response which shows they do
understand what was agreed at the GA.  I want to clarify, that my
question, the maturity issues is just about webcasting or the
substantive issue you raised here includes some new proposals?  If
you are raising just webcasting, then should we separate the
processes? Shall we separate process or just mix in one basic
proposal, but if Brazil wants to discuss new proposals, the
discussions will never mature because Brazil and other delegations
keep putting forward new proposals -- and we will never finish. So I
want to ask, whether you want to discuss issues other than webcasting?


Nigeria:
We lend our support to this discussion in so far as the many concerns
were expressed.  This delegation as this time can not support
webcasting in the treaty and supports more in depth research on that
matter. Nigeria agrees with the text and context on the general
principles, cultural diversity and the defense of competition with
necessary modifications. "Retransmission by any means" seems to
include webcasting but we would be willing to discuss further on this
issue [?is that right] We are in agreement with the terms of
protection as proposed and are not opposed to convening of more SCCR
and discussions.  Our view on the pulse of this discussion is that it
has not been unsuccessful. We would be keen to know how we proceed
from here.


Senegal: As regarding digital broadcasting organizations we can't
sign away a blank cheque, we need to look at eligibility of
protection for IPRs and we need to be assured as to their actual
status vis a vis being a legitimate broadcasting organizations.   For
traditional broadcast, we can easily identify traditional
broadcasters. Following procedure: First, draft treaty provisions
should be provided for traditional broadcasting in the analog and
digital field.  Secondly, for webcasting: there must be appropriate
consultations so that we could have draft protocol to be submitted to
the GA when the time is right.

Chair:  Your question deserves a reply, and I will try in a short moment.

India:
I'd like to respond to the EC. We are indeed gratified to be educated
on the distinction between analog and digital signals provided by the
European Commission. This only proves our point: that some of us less
educated on the technicalities need more time to get educated on
these issues.
However, I would only like to place on record my perspective on the
technical aspects.  It is one thing to say that content is now being
digitalized, but the difference is that the content may be
digitalized but it may still be transmitted over analog waves.  That
is not what we are talking about here.

We are talking about retransmission on the terrestrial network where
signal does get abated and needs to get 'boosted' and retransmitted,
whereas digital signal does not abate - Satellite carriers  carry
digital signals in a more efficient manner.  Therefore
'retransmission' has a very different meaning today.  Notwithstanding
this issue as to what retransmission exactly means from a tech point
of view, what we are talking about is the IPR over those
transmissions.
  1. We need to define the broadcast clearly so that we know who has
IPR over that broadcast.
  2. When we talk about the internet we are talking about something
outside of traditional broadcasting.

My understanding of Berne and TRIPS is that even the content owners
don't have full rights over their work on the internet. To then
assign a new right (which does not yet exist) to broadcasters in
relation to the internet is insupportable.  What we are really
talking about is the IPR over those transmissions and as I mentioned,
the broadcast itself has to be defined to understand who has the IPR
over the content. Copyright owners do not have full and adequate
protection themselves on the Internet, therefore to give broadcasters
rights over the Internet becomes even more untenable.  "Broadcast"
needs to be defined with respect to its relationship with IP.

The second point I wish to make: I want to reclarify that the next
meeting of the SCCR that I was suggesting should take place before
the GA so that an agreed text, that has been reviewed  clause by
clause, can go to the GA.

Chair: pity that Senegal left the room and missed that good
explanation by India.

Norway: (first time speaking this meeting) For Norway it is important
that a DC is a success. What is essential is that we get a treaty.
Having said this we would like to see a DC as soon as possible.

We support Article 6 as it stands and we agree with what was stated
by the delegation of the European Communities. Regarding webcasting,
we are flexible on whether this question should be tackled at a
separate time or not.

Mexico: We feel we have made considerable progress. We've got the
language for a treaty based on agreements in other international
treaties. Much of the protection existing in this treaty already
exists in the domestic legislation of many countries. For example in
Latin America many countries provide considerable protection to
broadcasting organizations. It would be unwise to let this
opportunity to update the rights of broadcasters pass by. We have
already updated the rights of other rightsholders (WCT, WPPT) so now
it is time for the broadcasters. We think we must protect
simulcasting.


Australia: We have already made our position known.  We don't object
to the convening of a Diplomatic Conf subject to the availability of
a suitable, revised DBP.  Presumably all the views expressed will be
taken on board. That revision will then need to be considered so we
wouldn't object to another SCCR before the Deacon.

Morocco:
We are pleased by the progress made by this Standing Committee; we
have achieved satisfactory results thanks to you and the flexibility
showed by all participants.

I think we are very close to achieving our goals - that is the
convening of a dip conf.   We believe that now we have a solid
framework and a draft which protects the rights of broadcasting orgs
in order to allow them to face technological change and to deal with
progress in the digital area.  This is why we think we need to have a
Dip Con [TB: I think he means SCCR] before GA. That it would be held
w/in the time frame established by the GA in its mandate.

El Salvador: We have made clear both in this committee and in the GA
how important this debate has been.  We consider that we should call
a dip conf.  We also feels that is useful to have a non-mandatory
appendix concerning webcasting which will facilitate our future work
considerably.


European Communities [Tilman Leuder]:
Intervene only on two very targeted issues raised by India and I
think that this is exactly the type of debate that we should be
having here.

  1. Switchover to the digital signal.
It is especially b/c analog signal occupies valuable spectrum and is
not the best possible way to communicate that there is an impetus in
large countries to switch to the digital signal because it's
stronger, because the suboptimal way of analog transmission will be
replaced over time b/c the digital signal is stronger.

  2. Underlying right holders

We have never in our history had the situation that a broadcaster had
stronger right than the creator whose works were being broadcast.
That has NEVER occurred in our jurisdiction.  We grant the authors,
performers, creators a broad right to communicate to the public.
This is reflected in the update of the Berne in WCT Art. 8, which
specifically addressed the issue that India raised - notably that
some of the rights there (Berne) are not strong enough, which is why
authors will enjoy an exclusive right of authorizing ANY
communication to the public of their content by wire or wireless
means.  The same regard is given to performers in WPPT art 15 with
respect to an equitable remuneration right if their work is used for
broadcasting or any other communications to the public.  Those
creator and performer rights will always be stronger than broadcaster
right.  And under the relevant WIPO treaties this will always be the
case.

[TB: How many EC Member States have implemented 96 Treaties? France
is last to EUCD which is WCT and are nearly done]

United States: Two issues to address:
  1.  We appreciate the suggestion that an additional meeting of this
Committee could be used for further discussion.  For two reasons we
would support this.  One, in order to consider a narrower scope of
the issue of webcasting.  And also to consider the various
suggestions regarding the main body of the agreement b/c as we said
some of these are of grave concern to us.
2. React to suggestion that our mandate is limited to updating
protection for traditional broadcasters. broadcasting organizations.
We do not believe that is the case and in explaining why I hope to -
and I confess that we have not been very good at explaining what we
mean when we talk about webcasting.  Seems clear that most are
comfortable w/ updating protection for traditional broadcasters (who
deliver through hertzian waves).  Should note that there is also
provision to protect satellite companies.  There doesn't seem to be
any discomfort w/ covering those orgs though  there is no prior
treaty that handles satellite transmissions direct to consumers.
There is also comfort w/ extending protection to cablecasting to
consumers and again those are not covered by Rome convention or TRIPS
or any other agreement that I am aware of.

What we mean by webcasting is that we recognize there may be other
providers who are none of the above who invest in scheduling etc and
who create program carrying signal and invest in transmitting it over
computer networks. To us it is a very small step to make this
extension.  We are committed to providing this in more concrete terms
which is why we believe that it may be helpful to have another SCCR.
We want to keep the window of opportunity open so that we update for
everyone else we also include those who use computer networks to make
those transmissions.

Egypt:
We support India's proposal to have another meeting of the SCCR
before the GA. This would allow us to discuss further the issues with
relation to the protection of broadcasting. Following the excellent
statement by the US the question of webcasting I don't think we can
deal with webcasting in a single session and the inclusion of this in
the current proposal would likely delay the adoption of a treaty.
The important issues raised by the US does require some thought on
our part.  We recognize the possibility that the treaty mention
cablecasters, since these orgs do not simply retransmit, but
according to the clarifications at the last session they also produce
programming.  With respect to technical issues related to webcasting
or simulcasting, this treaty protects signals, a signal is that which
is emitted by a traditional conventional broadcasting organization
whereas webcasting does not have a signal in that conventional sense.
So that if we were to include these organizations we would need to
change the scope and change the broadcasting treaty so that it covers
both traditional and other types of transmissions.  The appendix
defines webcasting through its reception that the webcasting is
through computer networks.  I believe that this is a very technical
question and indeed quite ambiguous.  We have no objection to
protecting broadcasting over the internet, but we should like these
issues to be clearly defined so that we can make informed decisions
as to another future treaty.

Chair:  This has been very useful.  We are so near to the end of the
morning session, so I think we should break for lunch.

I will propose a tentative proposal before the end of the afternoon.

Adjourned - lunch break.
----

Resumed: 15:25

Chair: Suggested conclusions for the meeting:

A. On protection of traditional broadcasting organizations:
   1. One more meeting of the SCCR before the General Assembly.
   2. The agenda of that meeting will be confined to protection of
broadcasting  in traditional sense (broadcast and cable)
   3. A revised basic draft basic proposal will be prepared for the
meeting and all efforts will be made to make it available to the
Member States by August 1 2006. It will be made on the basis of
documents SCCR/14/2 and SCCR/14/3 and now-existing  proposals and
taking account of the discussions of this committee.
   4. There will be a recommendation to the General Assembly  to
convene a Diplomatic Conference at a suitable time in 2007.

B. A proposal on protection of webcasting and simulcasting:
   1.The deadline for the proposals foreseen at 14th session of SCCR
concerning these webcasting and simulcasting rights, will be August 1
2006.
   2. A revised document on protection of webcasting and simulcasting
will be prepared on basis of document SCCR/14/2, and the proposals,
and taking into account discussions of the committee.
   3. Consultation will be taken on the matter of an agenda of a
meeting of an SCCR to be convened after the 2006 General Assembly.

This is according to the consideration and tentative hypothetical
proposal I made one evening early in the discussions, on the scope of
the treaty proposal. I have gone through the proposals and this is my
consideration. The floor is open.  Let's have questions for
clarifications first and then opinions next.

Colombia:  I'd like to have the following clarified.  First part
would be a committee whose agenda would be based on traditional
casters and that there would be another agenda only for the
discussion of webcasting.  Is this two committees or have I
misunderstood?

Chair:  This would be a single committee dealing w/ ALL castings and
all related issues. The same committee would be convened to discuss
broadcasting and cablecasting (i.e. over hertzian waves or via
cables), then the same committee will meet later to consider the
broadcasting over computer networks.

Chile: What is to be the scope of Item 4, because as regards 1-3 on
traditional broadcasting that is on the understanding that the
General Assembly would be authorized to convene a diplomatic
conference.  Does this mean that the dip conf agenda will be adopted
at the general assembly, or will that agreement be adopted at a later
meeting.

Chair:  The understanding is that the SCCR before the General
Assembly  would make recommendation to the General Assembly to
convene a dip conf on traditional broadcasting business.  Any more
questions?

Mexico:

Though we don't have any questions we'd like to make a comment.  We
give your proposal our full support.  It's very relevant.. It's a
praiseworthy effort. It's very helpful, so we give it our support.

Bangladesh:  Seek clarification on two points.
1.  You say deadline for proposals would be Aug. 1, 2006.  Would this
be limited to traditional casting?
2.  You also said there would be a SCCR before General Assembly,
which would be devoted to traditional aspects only and that based on
this a revised draft would be presented to the GA.  Some countries
had made some general recommendations that were not in the form of
specific articles.  How would you handle this?

Chair: Revised document would be prepared on basis of documents we
have now - existing proposals and discussion, so no new deadline for
proposals in that area b/c time would not allow for creation of new
proposals.  This doesn't exclude any proposals to be made, but in
this part of the process such an invitation would destroy the time
line.  All efforts would be made to make the revised working document
on traditional broadcasting available to countries by Aug. 1.

[JP: SO YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE THE TRADTIONAL BROADCASTING PROPOSAL
BEFORE THE DEADLINE FOR THE COMMENTS ON THE WEBCASTING (BOTH ARE DUE
AUG. 1)]

El Salvador: We are very pleased with the proposal you have made Mr.
Chairman. As we have said before we have a great interest in a
diplomatic conference being convened. We think having 2 sessions one
before the GA and one after is a good idea. One important component
throughout which is goodwill.

India: One point of clarification: Under item 4 of part A of your
proposal you say there would be recommendation to the GA to have a
DipCon by 2007. Presumably this would be in relation to the DipCon
confined to traditional broadcasting organizations.  In the off
chance that the DipCon takes place subsequent to the SCCR on
webcasting, it would still not include webcasting.

Chair:  Yes, that is how it is understood.

Kenya:  We agree w/ the proposals, and we also found proposals by EU
and India quite useful. In next SCCR mtg dealing with webcasting,
would be useful to get a technical presentation, so Member States
could ask questions and put fears to rest.

Benin:  Your proposal corresponds to a proposal that I made yesterday
to the African Group so I welcome this proposal.
In response to India's question, you have just indicated what work
will be given to what committee. We support your proposal.

United States:  For clarification, so we have a proper understanding
of what this entails:  Can you give us any more info on what the
expected outcomes or conclusions would be from this second meeting of
the SCCR addressed to webcasting?

Chair:  In light of what we have learned and if the delegations who
have concerns in the area of web/simulcasting, if they would allow
the work to continue in this area, we may guess that there would be
quite a job to be done.  There will be a lot of awareness building
and training to be done on the nature of webcasting.  And we should
abandon the name 'webcasting'.

On the work that you [US] are going to do on the level of rights [GH:
on day 3 the US stated that the treaty should focus on signal piracy
- a very welcome development - and indicated that it would be open to
flexibility in the scope of protection]  on nature of rights [Right
to Authorize versus Right to Prohibit, exceptions and limitations,
etc] you will have that done, but others are still in a different
conceptual framework.

Others should have the opportunity to participate in the learning
process.  We would need to start w/ some information sessions w/ some
tech experts.  There would be hard work to be done - at least two
tasks: 1.  education and awareness; and 2. preparation of the draft
text.

Brazil:  I think your proposal sets us in the right direction and I
think that in general it reflects the majority of views expressed in
this meeting.  I have no difficulty w/ the agenda as you presented
but a few specific comments.

First, important to indicate in point 2, that in next mtg we would
examine new proposal on article by article or clause by clause basis,
as India suggested. Necessary for to leave the next meeting with a
known text. The agreement is not that long that we cannot go through
it in the amount of time allotted for the meeting as long as we are
efficient in our work.

Second, regarding convening of a dip conf.  I would not be in favor
of prejudging that.  I would suggest that you could formulate this w/
the same language that was used in the GA decision.
"w/ the aim to agree and finalize a DP for convening a DC in December
2006 or early 2007." I think this would be the safest and least
controversial manner in which to proceed.  The important thing
regarding this dip con is not convening it but rather agreeing to the
draft proposal.

Proposals that would be of interest to Brazil: EU's proposal on
exceptions and limitations and  relationship b/w TPMs and e and l's.
I understand that there would be a possibility for these to be
included even though we didn't see them in writing.  Not suggesting
that we keep the whole thing open for additional proposals, but those
that were mentioned during this meeting could be brought forth in
precise, written form.

Finally, the issue of webcasting and simulcasting.  It's not clear if
this SCCR meeting would be convened exclusively for that purpose or
whether it would be a regular meeting that would include
web/simulcasting as an item of the agenda.  I think that the latter
would be better.  Like India, we understand that there would be no
linkage b/t the consideration of this issue and the items considered
at the DipCon.

  In the realm of education and awareness, some expert presentation
would be of value especially for developing countries. I would only
propose and place a lot of emphasis on this - that consultation be
held so that we can have a diversity of perspectives conveyed, so
that this would be a success like was done with the Open Forum in
relation to the SPLT but more modest.  We would also support some
kind of study that could support some in depth analysis of this
issue, that could help w/ definition of terms and elaboration of
potential impacts or some kind of substantive background document to
be prepared by someone.  We do need additional levels of analysis to
allow us to move forward in regard to these two areas.

Chair:  As I announced deliberatively concerning traditional
broadcasting, our basis would be on the existing documents, yes we
could take into consideration the EU proposal b/c it seemed to be of
interest to many delegations.  So if the EU could prepare a proposal
on the relation b/w the L&E and TPMs that would be very much welcome.
To formulate Item 4 on what is expected from this SCCR, indeed we
made a very good proposal.  The meeting is aimed to agree and
finalize a basic proposal in the same language of the GA decision.

Philippines:  WE fully support your proposal and we commend you for
your patience and exhort you to continue in your great work.

Iran:  Clarification:  First, duration of next SCCR and also
formulation you may allocate to the first and second part.  Second,
the date of formulation of the documents to be prepared before the
SCCR.

Chair:  I could not say anything about the duration of the meeting,
b/c this has to do w/ the availability of the facilities and staff.
If there was an article-by-article discussion it might have to be
more than the two days that we used this time. Three days might not
even be sufficient.  My previous experience indicates that it might
take even two weeks, but let's say somewhere between two and five
days.

On nature of the documents - the first would be the inclusive
document on the traditional broadcasters rights (to be produced very
quickly), no proposals would be invited (except EU).  Next document
under second part would be on webcasting and time frame for this
would ask for proposals (US, EU) would arrive by August 1 and then
reporting would be made to the GA on that issue.  When the subsequent
SCCR is scheduled, then clearly before that meeting a new document
would appear.  And there would be much less connection b/t the
traditional broadcasters document and the webcasting document.

This second document would be considered  a self-standing document,
w/ some connections.  No references in the first document to the
second.  Except of course, the 'defensive element' on the protection
of broadcasters sending their signals over the web.

[GH: As currently drafted, these rights are beyond mere defensive
rights. The current draft of Article 7 (Rt of fixation) together with
Articles 6 and 9 would appear to create a system of rights that go
beyond simulcasting meaning simultaneous retransmission over the
Internet. The question is whether this well create backdoor
webcasting -- it will all depend on the nature of the rights granted,
and whether they are framed as right to prohibit unauthorized
retransmission, or a fuller right that would enable a new licensing
platform.]

Much less connection in the new webcasting document than is currently
involved in the annex (appendix).  If you look at the model protocol
from 2 years ago in the summer you can see the kind of thing we might
do.

United States:  For reasons which we have stated on several
occasions, we remain concerned about the missed opportunity that we
were probably undertaking to create now under the proposal by the
Secretariat to separate consideration of webcasting from the
consideration of broadcasters/cable/satellite.  We feel it will be
very difficult to continue that work in a fruitful way without, at  a
different time , including the more recent organizations [new
Internet transmitter entities].

But we have heard very clearly the concerns of those who have a
sincere desire to improve the situation of traditional broadcasting
organizations -- that is, in protecting their interests in the new
technological environment. We do share the concern that that not be
hampered by discussion around the scope and degree of protection for
new entities.

So we have heard those concerns and we do want to see this committee
and this organization make progress on improving protections for
broadcasting organizations in the new environment.  So somewhat
reluctantly, we would accept the chair's proposal but with one
suggested addition to it.  That would be, in an effort to continue
and conclude the progress that the majority of delegates would like
to see concluded on protection for broadcasting organizations, our
one inclusion would be that if the General Assembly  does not make
preparation for a DipCon on broadcasters only, and there is further
discussion on broadcasting after September, then at that point, those
discussions should include a consideration of new organizations
(perhaps with a new name as webcasting does not seem right) those
orgs can be considered for the protection that can continue to be
discussed for the protection of traditional broadcasting
organizations.  So that if we are still discussing traditional
broadcasters after 2006, that those considerations will be broad
enough to incorporate the work on webcasting.  With that in mind we
could proceed down that path.

Chair:  You are referring to a possibility. Indeed, if the GA would
not decide on the DipCon, then we would have the two items being
processed in the same committee and there would be a possibility to
proceed w/ the two together.  I think this is how it should happen.
What you are suggesting is rather logical.

What has now been proposed is just a reflection of the interventions
and proposals from the house and it has been my duty to propose
things in this way even if it would not be completely acceptable to
everyone.  This emphasizes the procedures of this member-driven
organization.

Bangladesh:  You said SCCR that would convene before the GA related
to traditional broadcasting would have a revised draft that would
include proposals included at SCCR 14, but a point of clarification -
since we made a not new proposal we'd like the opportunity to put it
in written form so that it can be included.  [not sure what he's
talking about here]

Chair:  I could not object.  you interpreted my idea not to allow
this process explode now.

Chile:  I'd like to refer to a point behind us now.  We have a
proposal on how to structure the next traditional broadcaster rights
SCCR.  It would be important to structure it in such a way that NGOs
can participate.  We would be grateful if you could make sure this is
taken into consideration.

[GH: Thank you Chile! The NGOs have not had an opportunity to make
statements this week. All of us are sitting in the back row,
listening to every word. but we have not been idle. We've produced a
Joint NGO Statement on Recommendations for a Signal-based approach to
the Basic Proposal, together with joint and individual briefing
papers for delegations on webcasting and TPM issues, which we've made
available on the table outside, on the A2K email listserve, and our
various websites.]

European Community:  I only have two questions and they both concern
bifurcation that you have proposed.  First, the bifurcation approach
raises the issue of material reciprocity which would then come to the
fore in the first SCCR.  The EC feels compelled to point out that in
many of its laws there is a very wide definition of the notion of
broadcasting and there is a neutral definition that doesn't make
reference to the medium of transmission. While we understand that we
are working in the int. treaty making framework where specific
wording has been adopted in Berne, Rome, 96 treaties, we pointed out
yesterday that a treaty that is not formulated in scope in a
medium-neutral matter will cause problems for our member states
regarding national treatment. As we pointed out, that first SCCR
would need to address material reciprocity and I'd like you to note
and opine on this Mr. Chairman.

Second, on the EU proposal on L&E and TPM - as we set forth in an
outline, this is a paper that would address both branches of your
bifurcated approach.  and I dare say that it affects the 2nd branch
more acutely than the 1st branch.  I'd like clarification of where
this should be presented?

Chair: national treatment has to be considered at each point and your
considerations have been duly noted.  No need to have proposals
before that meeting. It is ok to bring your analysis to the meeting.
[GH: Does that apply just to the national treatment issues, not the
EU proposal on E & L's and how TPMs related to E & L's?] . We note
that national treatment is usually one of the last items settled in
these processes.  Second, the L&E - if you could make it clear if
there are separations regarding which apply to traditional vs.
webcasting.

India:  Let me compliment you on finding the right balance. We
strongly and sincerely support your proposals both in the first and
the second part. We hope in the spirit of mutual cooperation, that we
will be able to reach agreement on traditional broadcasting, but also
make progress on the webcasting issue.

Also like to take this opportunity to refer to point raised by US and
through you make an appeal to their delegation to reconsider the
conditionality that they have sought to attach to their proposition.
We are extremely appreciative of their delegation's accommodation and
willingness to move forward in this parallel manner.

The reason why I make this fervent appeal is to again highlight the
issue of the matters getting exacerbated because of the mixing of the
two issues.  You have noticed since the last several months in
several SCCRs and the GA that concerns and apprehensions regarding
webcasting have cast a very long shadow, even on the non-webcasting
issues.  Having spent so much time to work out a parallel track for
activity, let us see how the two track approach proceeds, rather than
condition work with possible remixing of two issues.

I can only make this request w/ all the words at my command and
request that this may be kept in view that it has the potential of
again taking up a lot of time and effort and generating a lot of heat
w/o necessarily a lot of light.

Jamaica:  I support the proposal that you have put forward.  I also
support the calls by Kenya and Brazil that the webcasting SCCR must
include experts that express the divergent views in this unregulated
realm.

Russia:  We would have liked to see more of what we had asked for but
obviously we can agree w/ the views of our respective chairman and
see this as a reasonable compromise.

Colombia: We support the proposals that you've submitted this
afternoon. Like India, we would like to request, through you, that
the US delegation reconsider its conditional proposal.

European Commission:   [Tilman Leuder]

Everyone in this room must realize what an important turning point we
have reached if we are going for a bifurcated approach.

I think this is partly reflective of the debate we have been having
here, nevertheless it is not one of the alternatives that we had
envisioned or discussed with our Member States, and you understand
the reasons why.  At the risk of being very unpopular, we must
consult our member states on this before we can agree.  So we must
request a 10 minute break to consult.

Mexico:  [Point of Order]  I find confusing what the EU is saying.
In some occasions he has been speaking on behalf of the EU - when I
would have thought that would be Austria [GH: holding current EU
Presidency]; on other occasions he has communicated on behalf of the
Commission.

Chair: The representative - well he shall speak.

European Community:  The European Commission sits here in this SCCR
and represents the European Community, its (25) members states and
the (2) acceding states Bulgaria and Romania and speaks on behalf of
these nations.  It is this group that is asking for this brief
intervention.  Austria also has a role play, b/c it is the Presidency
of the EU, which is granted to one of our Member States on a 6 month
rotating basis. The Commission speaks on technical matters, including
calling for 10 minute breaks.

Chair:  I should give a ruling.  A break in session, not disappearing
from the room.  We have avoided hundreds of interventions by allowing
EC to speak with one voice.

Mexico:  I should just like to recall that the EC is not a group
recognized in this body.  So if the EC is going to make a decision, I
would hope that it will make its decision through the EU or its
member states so that it is clear who is stating what.

Chair: This is justified.  There are special rules that apply to the
SCCR [citing from SCCR Special Rules]- "in addition, the European
Community shall be a member of the SCCR provided that it will not
have the right to vote."

Special status given to European Commission.

Mexico:  I was not referring to the Commission but to the EU, it is
not a regional group that is  recognized, so if the EC is going to
convene a meeting and take a technical opinion then the EC will make
its technical opinion afterwards and would not represent the EU as a
Community. I hope I have made myself clear.

Chair: I understand this friendly clarification.
For the work of this Committee this has been quite useful and has
allowed us to avoid hundreds of other interventions.  I rule that we
allow for 5 minutes in session here for that consultation to take
place after the last couple of interventions.

Morocco:
Would like to express our support for your proposals. And express our
support for India, which encouraged US to show flexibility on
webcasting issue. My delegation would like during next meeting to see
a revised BP that would go to the heart of our discussions and on the
basis of which the Assembly could affirm the decision of the Assembly
about the convening of two meetings of the SCCR after which there
would be a DipCon to adopt the intl treaty on the protection of
traditional broadcasting organizations. We are not at all opposed to
webcasting, like other delegations, however, we have indicated that
we need to further analyze this matter so that we can better
understand the mechanisms underlying this new form of broadcasting,
so we are not putting an obstacle in the way of protection of
webcasting, but we should be able to work more quickly on traditional
broadcasting, whereas we think that webcasting needs more analysis.
We think that the DipCon should not be subjected to conditions and we
are open to the assembly be open to all matters.  A new Draft Basic
Proposal should be made available by the next meeting of this
committee, which would be agreed on by all delegations so that we can
comment on the new draft.

Chair:  Break for 5 minutes.
16:58

[15 minutes later]
5:15


Chair:  Consultation about how to channel the NGO positions that were
not able to deliver this time.  We could not for technical reasons
give them time and there was an agreement that there would be
facilitators who would deliver a compilation of NGO statements to me
and I would deliver them to the secretariat and they would then be
passed along to all governments.  If that is ok, then we would
proceed in this way.  The same goes for intergovernmental
organizations that are present.

European Commission:  We consider that the debate that we had over
the last 4 days revealed considerable consensus to protect
traditional broadcast activities and to protect traditional
broadcasting organizations in their dissemination of knowledge, of
content.  We should give them as complete as possible protection.  We
can go along w/ the bifurcation if this is w/o prejudice to
simulcasting.  B/c this is how they will reach audiences all over the
world.

We have talked about traditional Hertzian wave broadcasting being not
very strong - that the signal cannot go very far, and needs to be
boosted, and this is why there is a tendency to move toward digital
transmission and we would think that it is logical that if the aim is
to disseminate knowledge, education and entertainment as widely as
possible then we should include protection for the use of
transmissions that have stronger signals than what they have today.

  If the GA should not decide to move to DipCon, then the discussion
on the second package should be reintegrated in the future work plan
of this committee and the proposal.

Chair:  Thank you, there is no need to discuss or debate this.  We
have come to the end of the proceedings, deliberations and debates.
We arrive at Item 6, other matters.  No other matters have been
raised by members of the committee.  Now we arrive at the moment of
closing of session.

United States:  I apologize for continuing the debate on Item 5, if I
have your permission, I'd like to do so just to clarify and to try to
understand what exactly we will be considering at the next SCCR given
the EC's suggestion that there's a possibility of including
simulcasting in the materials in preparation for a Dip Con.

[GH: Yes, let's clarify if the EC just said that they believe
simulcasting is part of the "traditional" broadcasting package that
is on the fast-track to a Dip Con, since that seems to contradict the
Chair's two-track proposal, which listed webcasting and simulcasting
in Part B.]

We heard from many delegation that the concern was w/ respect to new
technologies like the internet and computer networks and its our
concern that if that's the case and the original proposal from the
chair was to separate simulcasting and webcasting together from
traditional broadcasting. If those technologies are so complex that
they need a separate track and further work, we are confused as to
how the work for traditional broadcasting organizations will proceed
if there's the possibility that protection for broadcasting
organizations will extend for their internet activities, which we
have long considered to be important for protection.

And so our support for the chairman's proposal, the one that we
thought was most appropriate should proceed along the lines that the
chairman originally laid out,  with only the additional clarification
that we expressed to prepare for the eventuality which we hope will
not arise - because we hope to see real substantial progress on the
traditional broadcast treaty at the next SCCR - that we need to have
an appropriate work plan going forward, and that seemed to be
addressed by the EC statement. But we are now confused as to what
exactly will be addressed and what the scope of the discussion would
be.

Chair: I'll try to make this clear and short. The next SCCR will deal
with - by almost a clear majority agreement of delegations - will
deal with the protection of traditional broadcasting

Now there are in our records, three wishes:

1) US - if the 2006 GA would not decide to convene Dip Con for
traditional broadcasting activities, that parallel treatment of
traditional broadcasting and webcasting/simulcasting would take place.

2) India - that you [US] would reconsider that position.[GH: Also
supported by Colombia]

3)  EU - exactly similar parallel wish to you,  does not go to
web-originated broadcast, and its the same as yours that simulcasting
should be reincorporated if the broadcasting DC does not go forward.

EC: Our wishes are two fold. (1) We can go along with bifurcation on
traditional broadcasting and new media package if without prejudice
to simulcasting, if next SCCR that would imply - that if it would be
seen in the next SCCR  - that parallel transmission over the Internet
that this should be seen as simulcasting and many delegations could
agree on that.  (2) Should decision not be taken by GA in 2006 to
move to DC on traditional broadcasting , that new media package would
be reintegrated into this proposal and work plan of this committee.

Chair:  That unilateral wish is documented in the report and is
totally subject to decision and consensus in the committee so there
is no need to prolong discussion on that.  We have 27 minutes to go,
and the discussion will be a long one.  If I allow one delegation to
speak, then of course, that prompts something.

India:  We recognize and appreciate the views expressed by the US and
EU.  They have worked long and hard on these issues, so have we and I
do not wish to take away anything from their positions. All I would
like to say, that in the spirit of compromise on which we are working
towards, I would only like to reassure everyone here that we should
all work equally diligently toward a treaty on webcasting.  It goes
without saying that every Member State would and should be able to
review their positions, should the GA not convene a DipCon on
traditional broadcasting.

Chair: This was a plea to concentrate our efforts on traditional broadcasting.
I should say my heartfelt thanks to the Secretariat who has been so
supportive, particularly to Rita Hayes, to the interpreters and to
all delegations who have been able to work in such a disciplined way
this week.

Meeting ended 5:45 pm

- END-