[A2k] Comments on end of the SCCR meeting - (Treaty dipconf is not scheduled, and unlikely in near future)

[James Love]

http://www.keionline.org/index.php?option=3Dcom_jd-wp&Itemid=3D39&p=3D71

KEI Policy Blogs - WIPO Casting Treaty
Comments on end of the SCCR meeting - (Treaty dipconf is not
scheduled, and unlikely in near future)
June 23rd, 2007 by James Love

Here are some additional observations, the day after the demise of
the Jukka Liedes non-paper and the indefinite postponement of the
diplomatic conference.

The process run by the longstanding SCCR chair Jukka Liedes and
supported by Michael Keplinger, the WIPO Deputy Director General for
the Copyright and Related Rights Sector, was (as is increasingly the
case under Jukka Liedes=92 leadership) highly erratic and disconnected
from the messaging plainly sent from delegates. When Jukka Liedes and
Michael Keplinger circulated the draft chairman=92s conclusions on
Friday at 1pm, jaws dropped. It was as if a meeting that for four
days tore up his non-paper, and exposed the deep divisions in the
room on all of the most substantive issues, was a huge success. The
"conclusion" was a recommendation for more meetings on the broadcast
treaty, including one organized outside of the GA mandate by WIPO DG
Kamil Idris, a diplomatic conference in 2008, and the reintroduction
of webcasting into the process. Once again people began to ask
questions about the judgment, temperament, and reliability of the
SCCR leader(s). It was an aggressive "in your face" slap directed at
the critics of a diplomatic conference, even as support for the
conference had collapsed in the room. Why be so aggressive? Did Jukka
Liedes really think they could ram the Diplomatic Conference through,
when nothing had been settled? Was he too emotionally involved in the
treaty project to let go?

The coalition of countries opposing the diplomatic conference then
sat by quietly as the Asian and African groups presented the specific
amendments that returned the text of the document that gave the
meeting=92s conclusions, back to reality. Jukka Liedes ran the meeting
until 5:02 pm, when the interpretation services were over, finally
reaching the predictable conclusions that no, a date for a diplomatic
conference would not be set, and it could only happen when the key
issues were resolved.

Is this type of management of the SCCR really in the interests of the
SCCR or WIPO? Can there be a more mature and graceful way to
acknowledge a lack of support for a norm setting exercise?

The treaty itself increasingly looks like an example of the older way
of thinking about WIPO, as an institution that rewards persistent
lobbying by right-owners, without evidence of the actual need for the
expanded rights, or consideration of the impact of the rights on
other stakeholders, in this case, creative communities and consumers.
What does this say about the next few years of the SCCR?
Increasingly, SCCR members are beginning to ask some obvious
questions, and reaching some obvious conclusions.

Michael Keplinger is now in his first year as the top copyright
official in the United Nations system. He may want to consider taking
a look at the emerging requests that WIPO deal with the practical
problems facing the public, and the role that WIPO could play in
helping countries deal with the needs of the disabled, libraries, and
educators, as well as problems facing the new Internet services, like
Google, that cannot operate without robust limitations and exceptions
to exclusive rights. If done correctly, such efforts could actually
enhance the prospects for enforcement, as the rules are perceived to
be more fair and realistic, in terms of the needs of the public for
access to works.

Below was the KEI statement from the end of the negotiation on the
broadcast treaty.

     "Today the WIPO SCCR decided against scheduling a diplomatic
conference to create a new treaty on broadcasting, and set a high bar
for doing so. Technically, the subject of the Broadcasting Treaty
will continue to be on the agenda of the WIPO Standing Committee on
Copyright and Related Rights, but with a fairly tough hurdle before
it can move to a diplomatic conference =97 after there is agreement on
the objectives, scope and object of protection, topics for which
there is no agreement in sight.

     "The negotiation over the broadcast treaty has mirrored and
sometimes driven the larger changes in the culture at WIPO. When the
negotiations began, it was simply about responding to demands from a
powerful right-owner group =97 the broadcasters, for expanded
commercial rights. As the discussions continued, civil society NGOs
criticized the treaty, for its potential harm to the Internet.
Several country delegations began to ask deeper questions about the
rationale for the treaty, and examined ways to limiting the scope and
nature of the treaty. In the end, the broadcasters demanded too much,
and made too few concessions, for the treaty to move forward.
Delegates at WIPO were no longer willing to ignore issues of access
to knowledge, or the control of anticompetitive practices.

     "Next, there has to be a change of conversation at the WIPO
SCCR. Chile has proposed a work program on limitations and exceptions
for the blind, educators and librarians, and there will be other
topics presented as well. India called for a new focus on the
socially important issues such as access to knowledge and education.
This will be the way forward, at the SCCR, if things go well."

----------------------------------------------
James Packard Love
Knowledge Ecology International
mailto:james.love@keionline.org
tel. +1.202.332.2670 / U.S. mobile+1.202.361.3040, Geneva mobile
+41.76.413.6584

"If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks." Bill Walton"