[Ecommerce] [Fwd: [WG MD] Report from UNESCO intergovernmental day 8, Monday, February 7, 2005]

[Manon Ress]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: [WG MD] Report from UNESCO intergovernmental day 8, Monday,
February 7, 2005 From:    "Sasha Costanza-Chock" <schock@riseup.net>
Date:    Mon, February 7, 2005 1:47 pm

Summary:

First, it was announced that the drafting committee made very little
progress over the weekend, so time in plenary this week will be kept for
the most part to half days to allow the drafting committee more time.
Today's plenary discussed articles 13 and 19, on "international
consultation and coordination," and "relationship to other instruments,"
respectively.

This issue, especially, as laid out in Article 19, is one of the keys of
the entire convention. There has been a move by some countries to
subordinate the convention to the existing body of international law, in
effect, rendering it useless. If one of the main points of the original
convention was to give states legal recourse to defend their cultural
policies in the face of the trade regime, then obviously adopting option
B of article 19, which reads "Nothing in this Convention shall affect  the
rights and obligations of the States Parties under any other
existing international instruments," would undermine that possibility  and
make an extremely weak convention. The other main option under
discussion, Option A, would give the convention slightly more force . .  .
except when it comes to intellectual property. Option A has two  clauses,
1: "Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting  the rights
and obligations of the States Parties under any existing  international
instrument relating to intellectual property rights to  which they are
parties;" and 2. "The provisions of this Convention shall  not affect the
rights and obligations of any State Party deriving from  any existing
international instrument, except where the exercise of  those rights and
obligations would cause serious damage or threat to the  diversity of
cultural expressions." Clause two sounds exactly like the  language on
relationship to other instruments contained in the
Convention on Biological Diversity, which is the exact kind of balanced
language that would make sense in that it places the convention on equal
footing with other bodies of law without superseding them. However, the
first clause would make it impossible to challenge existing IP law on  the
grounds that it limits cultural diversity - not a good outcome,  since
it's not hard to argue that this is exactly what is taking place.  For
more on this argument read the CRIS+ comments on Article 19,
published at www.mediatrademonitor.org.

The positions of the governments can be summarized as follows: there was
general consensus that neither article 13 nor article 19 should be
deleted, i.e., that it is important to spell out the relationship to
other agreements. On 13, the main debate is over whether it will
specifically mention UNESCO as the most appropriate forum for states to
discuss measures that impact cultural diversity, whether it will not
mention any preferred forum, or a compromise suggested by India: mention
UNESCO, but make it clear that states can choose the forum they prefer.

On 19, there is a serious split: some states (US, Japan, Jordan,
Ethiopia, Uruguay, maybe Australia and India, Bangladesh, and some
others) support option B pretty much as written or with minor
modification. Others (Brazil, Vietnam, Andora) support option A but
deleting paragraph 1 on IPR; this also is the CRIS+ position supported  by
progressive NGOs. Many (South Africa, Venezuela, Benin, Peru, Haiti,
Mail, Barbados, others) supported option A as written, while still  others
suggested a 'third way' or option C, but no specific language was
mentioned. Finally, a few support alternative wording that attempts to
place the convention on equal footing with other bodies of int'l law.

Needless to say, there is no clear mandate to the drafting group on the
relationship to other instruments, and this will be one of the most
heated political battles, probably to be fought first in the drafting
committee (if they ever get to it!) and again in plenary when it comes
back to plenary.

The plenary adjourned until tomorrow, so that the drafting committee
could work all afternoon and into the evening. We'll hear how that went
tomorrow morning when we return.

--

Full text available at www.mediatrademonitor.org



_______________________________________________
Wg-md mailing list
Wg-md@comunica.org
http://comunica.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-md_comunica.org