[A2k] quick notes about the non-conclusions (Day 3 at WIPO SCCR S1)

[Manon Ress]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
http://www.cptech.org/blogs/wipocastingtreaty/

Friday, January 19, 2007
After the non-papers, here come the "non-conclusions" (to quote Jason
Pielemeier)

My quick notes from DAY 3 of SCCR Special Session 1 Geneva January
19, 2007

The plenary started right before lunch break. (I know, sounds funny)
The Chair provided us with his "draft conclusions". He instructed the
delegations to talk about his conclusions during lunch and to come
back at 3pm with reactions. However, Columbia, Brazil, India, the EU
wanted the floor. Brazil and India made excellent interventions.

Brazil stated that now they wanted to be on the record (since
yesterday nothing is on record!) that they want a blanket reservation
on their position on non-papers and informal sessions. They had
additional comments on the draft conclusions: there should not be
reference to a revised 15/2 since there was no agreement on what was
revised. They asked that the conclusions reflect that by replacing
"revised 15/2" by "revised non-papers".

Also somewhat inappropriate is the list of matters in paragraph 2 of
the chair's draft conclusions. Since the previous meetings were
informal and not on the record...there is no record of where each
issue (objectives, relation to other treaties, definitions,
beneficiaries, rights, L&E, term and TPM/DRM) stand and thus no way
to see a trend. Finally, the last papragraph amended by the chair at
the beginning of session looked like a re-writting of the carefully
crafted mandate that came out of the GA. I found also very
interesting Brazil's request that there be a "process", a "member
driven process" by which member states could provide input (non-
papers?).

So far, only the chair is contributing with non-papers and I heard
yesterday a "non-slide" about the objective of the treaty.

The chair did not want "too many to speak" but had to let India make
its statement. Asking for clarification, India describe how the list
of matters did not reflect agreement and was just a list of matters
that have been discussed for years. According to the mandate, only
matters where agreement was reached should be listed.

The plenary ended on that note. People here are puzzled. If you only
point to agreement (on or off the record it seems), the non-
conclusions might end up very very short. Would that mean that this
meeting did not really happen? Like a non-meeting?

However, some people seem to be happy and are sure that the tanker
(that is one of the image used to describe the treaty here!) cannot
be sunk.

More later.

************************************************************************
***
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673

Consumer Project on Technology
1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology
24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607