[DMCA-Activists] Notes from WIPO General Assembly (September 28, 2005)

[Seth Johnson]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [A2k] Notes from the WIPO General Assembly (September
28, 2005)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:13:02 +0200
From: Thiru Balasubramaniam <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden,
address@hidden,address@hidden,
address@hidden


**WIPO General Assembly: Day 3**
September 28, 2005 (Wednesday)

Notes by:
Thiru Balasubramaniam, thiru at cptech.org, Consumer Project on
Technology Ren Bucholz, ren at eff.org, Electronic Frontier
Foundation Teresa Hackett, teresa.hackett at eifl.net, Electronic
Information for Libraries

[NOTE: This is not an official transcript. Any errors and
ommissions are regretted.]

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

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 (Ambassador Enrique A. Manalo. Permanent Representative of
the Philippines): Opens proceedings, asks if we can agree to here
a speaker from last night who couldn't make it. No objections.

OEB (European Patent Office): [OEB is an IGO that works with the
patent offices of European countries.] Provides general
background on OEB and its activities/relationships with state
patent offices.

Biodiversity and traditional knowledge - Globalization has
exposed a differential between the needs of developed/developing
nations. As a result, progress depends on each party being
sensitive to the demands of the other. OEB is deeply involved in
this, and we're happy to answer questions on this.

We welcome the efforts made by WIPO in conducting this debate in
a fair manner. We will renew our support to WIPO in this forum.

The EPO is at the service of the WIPO and are willing to share
our technical knowledge with the International Bureua

We want to create a big database of traditional knowledge,
particularly using the "Epoch" tool, which will help protect
traditional knowledge from infringements.

We are very sensitive to questions linked to economic growth and
development. We take a balanced approach. We always try to
respond to the development needs, and we're always happy to share
our technical knowledge.

The EPO supports the patent harmonization process in a speedy
manner.

Chair: Wishes to introduce Agenda item 10: Protection of the
Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. Mrs. Hayes will introduce
the item.

Secretariat: Deputy Director-General (Rita Hayes)- Would like to
discuss the Broadcasting Treaty with a mind to move the
proceeding forward to a diplomatic conference in 2006.

At the last GA, members decided to request the SCCR to accelerate
its work on the protection of broadcasting organizations. Members
also requested the International Bureau to present a second
revised consolidated text of the treaty.

At the request of members states, WIPO held 7 regional
consultations. 16 proposals were put forward, and there were
extra meetings held for countries not in those 7 regions. Also a
proposal for another meeting - in Novemeber - to discuss
remaining issues. With this in mind

It is also proposed that this SCCR that the Chair of this meeting
draft another version of this consolidated text before the
diplomatic conference.

Chair: Let's avoid discussion of technical matters, let us limit
our discussions what has been proposed to the General Assembly.

<i>[Note: we recorded opposition to and enthusiasm for the
diplomatic conference with [A] and [F], respectively]</i>

Ecuador: [F] We took the position at our regional meeting in
Cartagena that a diplomatic conference is desirable. We reiterate
this, and urge the formation of a diplomatic conference as soon
as possible.

For convening of Dip Conf.

Iran (Asian Group): [A] The Broadcasting Treaty is one of the
most complicated issues before WIPO. With the cross cutting
nature of these proposals - effects on right holders, for example
- we would highlight its importance as well. In spite of the
insufficient time given to consider the draft consol

In contradiction with the decision of the SCCR, regional
consultations were held. And regardless of the legal
implications, many aspects of the current draft were infact
decided without consultation. According to the norms governing
the laws of treaties, there is need of sufficient time to
consider the consolidated text.

Need at least two further SCCR sessions in 2006. The committee
can then present its findings to GA.

The Asian Group is of the view that webcasting is a new and
changing environment, and it is our view that webcasting should
not appear in any version of this text.

There is a clear distinction between the process of negotiations
on the SCCR and Diplomatic Conference and the substance of a
proposed treaty. Member States decide the framework of Diplomatic
Conferences.

The holding of any Diplomatic Conference is premature.

Czech Republic (Speaking on behalf of Central European States):
[F] Supports diplomatic conference.

Switzerland (Group B): [F] We expect that the WIPO GA will be
ready to convene a Dip Con on a treaty on the protection of
broadcasting organizations in Geneva in 2006.

Morocco: [F] We're pleased by the progress shown in this document
for the protection of broadcasters' rights. We pushed for
regional consultations. We were honored to hold the first
consultation with Arab states.

The discussions took on behalf of the 2nd revised consolidated
text. We have found that the IB will present the result of these
regional consultations to the General Assemblies. Copyright law
and existing rights don't provide adequate protection for
broadcasters to protect them against signal piracy. The
participants were satisfied with the flexibilites provided for in
these proposals.

Moldova: We give the floor to Russian Federation which
co-organized the regional consultations in June.

Russian Federation: [F] Regional Consultations were held with 9
countries in our region.  The participants in the consultations
that broadcasting has developed very quickly. The structures
differ.

We should continue the work that has been happening since 1998.
The protection of the rights of broadcasters must be balanced
with respect for the holders of other rights. We came to the
conclusion that a diplomatic conference should indeed be held in
2006. We also support the convening of a SCCR prior to the
Diplomatic Conference.

Thailand (on behalf of ASEAN): We would like to thank the
Philippines for hosting the regional consultation in July 2005.
However, more needs to be done in the SCCR. We look forward to a
postive outcome on this issue in the GA.

UK : [F] On behalf of the EU and the accession states of Bulgaria
and Romania]. The EU welcomes the effort that has been invested
so far, and we're ready to move forward on this issue. It is
timely to move to convening a diplomatic conference to be held
2006. And we believe that any remaining issue can be worked out
in the remaining SCCR meetinga and in the diplomatic conference
intself.

El Salvador: [F] It is obvious we need to update the rights of
broadcasting organizations.

We therefore support the convening of a diplomatic conference in
Geneva. In conclusion, we are very pleased with the
recommendation for the support of 50 delegatiosn to attend the
Diplomatic Conference.

Antigua and Barbuda (on behalf of the Caribbean countries): [F]
Approve of the push for a diplomatic conference in Geneva during
the second quarter of 2006. We support the holding of an SCCR in
November 2005.

And since the World Cup of Cricket will be held here in 2007, we
see the urgent need to address simulcasting and other
broadcasting rights.

Trinidad & Tobago: [F] We also believe that all the general
approaches for the protection of broadcasters have been
discussed. It seems to us that the next step should be the
convening of a diplomatic conference in 2006.

Kenya: [F] Reads statement of 14 African countries from their
regional consultation. The current international legal framework
of WCT and WPPT is inadequate. We note that the convening of a
diplomatic conference should take place no later than 2006.

1) Recognizes the importance of development in broadcasters
rights
2) Recognizes the urgent need to update broadcasters' rights
through new international instrument
3) we therefore call on GA to schedule the convening of a
diplomatic conference

Welcomed the webcasting proposal, and calls for more time to
consider webcasting

[TB:  The US was present in the African regional consultations]


Romania: [F] 13 countries represented at our regional
consulation. The consult was preceded by a meeting of regional
broadcasters, NGOs, and states. Negotiations have been going on
for a long time, progress has been made, and the current state of
the documents allows for the remaining issues to be dealt with
swiftly. We believe that WIPO should approve the convening of a
diplomatic conference. Also observe that there should be a final,
post-diplomatic conference SCCR meeting. We fully support the
continuation of Mr. Liedes as chair.

Benin (LDCs): We find no problem with convening of diplomatic
conference next year, but we require some support given our
situation.

Mexico: [F] We support convening of DC as soon as possible.

Nicaragua: [F] We support convening of DC as soon as possible in
2nd quarter of 2006 given the substantial progress that has been
made.

Colombia: [F] We believe that the substantial work on this topic
has now matured, and we support holding a diplomatic conference
in 2006.

Jamaica: [F] Agrees with statements of Trinidad & Tobago and
Antigua & Barbuda.

Norway: [F] We met recently in an extra-regional meeting to
discuss the treaty [which seems to include many of the wealthier
countries like UK, USA, Canada, Australia, etc.].  That group
supports convening of a diplomatic conference.

New Zealand: [F] Aligns itself with Group B statement.

Japan: [F] Strongly supports convening a diplomatic conference in
2006.

St. Vincent and the Grenadines: [F] Aligns with precious
statements from Caribbean nations.

Kazakhstan: [Not present]

Egypt: [A] Despite the fact that we are in favor of a convention
of we feel that the negotiating process in its present form would
suggest that there is much more to be discussed.

Currently, we are in a position that would prevent us from taking
a positive decision on convening a DC.

South Africa: Would like to hand time to Brazil.

Brazil (Friends of Development sans Kenya/Ecuqdor): [A] WIPO is a
member state driven organizations.

For reasons of both procedure and substance, would like to take
issue with the draft treaty.  In particular, we previously agreed
to accelerate the work of the SCCR.  The expectation was that the
SCCR would give members an opportunity to discuss all of the
complexities of these proposals.

However, only one member of the SCCR was organized after the last
GA. The SCCR did not allow enought time to consider consolidated
text.  An intersessional-interregional meeting was

Instead, regional meetings were held.  We note that some of the
countries in a region did not participate in their regional
meetings. This is because many countries did not have the
maturity to deal with this topic even at a regional level.

Discussions in SCCR have not matured to a state where convening a
DC is possible. If anything, the SCCR process has exposed serious
concerns on the length of term, nature of rights, TPMs, DRM,
webcasting, interaction between this and other treaties. 
Webcasting should NOT be included as an item for negotiations. 
We also urge more time for exceptions & limitations.

We are of the view that 2 meetings of the SCCR should be convened
next year before even considering the possiblity of a DC.  We
also note that a diplomatic conference can only be convened by
SCCR, and is not properly under the jurisdication of the Chair of
the DA.

South Africa: [A] Associate itself with statement of Brazil.  The
importance of purported is in dispute.  It is inevitable that a
DC should take place in the future.  We may be too optimistic in
trying to convene a DC in the 2nd quarter of DC. We would like to
express dissatisfaction with the manner in which regional
consultations were organized.

In particular, invitations were extended to people in their
personal capacities, not through diplomatic channels.  Also, in
Africa, only 14 of 53 countries attended.

There is no consensus on duration, TPMs, content of protection,
webcasting, and others.  Also, traditional knowledge, folkloric
and existing rights holder issues are still undecided.  Would
like to reiterate the need for evidence-based impact assessments
should be conducted before new treaties are proposed.

We do not support a diplomatic conference convened in the 2nd
quarter of 2006.

Chile: [A] We believe the results of regional consultations are
no substitute by the decisions of the SCCR.  The time is not
right for convening of a diplomatic conference.

Cameroon: [F] We associate ourselves with the statement of Kenya,
since we participated in that regional consultation.  We
regretted the low participation of Member States in this regional
consultation.

Nonetheless, there was consensus among participating countries
that an instrument was needed to regulate this domain.

India: [A] India has been consistently of the view that the
broadcast treaty does not take into consideration of of content
owners.  Goes far beyond TRIPs.  It would harm access to
knowledge.  We noted that TRIPS based approach to protecting the
rights of broadcasting organizations. We believe that this treaty
would add an additional layer rights.

Could result in curbing the rights of content creators and harm
access to knowledge.   We consistently oppose any exclusive
rights on the content they broadcast as they would impede access
to the public domain.  We also oppose, still, any attempt to add
webcasting to the treaty - even as an optional provision.

India has raised this matter at UNESCO.  We feel this issue goes
beyond the realm of IP.  UNESCO has been requated to pro-actively
consider this issue.

India's broadcasting industry has come of age, and it is
concerned with signal piracy.  However, they do not advocate a
new layer of monopoly rights as a method for addressing this
issue.

We would like to urge the GA not to rush into a DC.  Current
approach would give an inordinate amount of rights to
broadcasting organizations.  We support the position of Asian
Group, 12 FOD, Chile and South Africa.

United States: [F][unkown speaker] Urges prompt convening of a
diplomatic conference.

China: [A] We note the contribution of the SCCR on protection of
broadcasters, and we support the continuation of that process. 
We support the holding of a diplomatic conference, but only at
the appropriate time.

Ghana: [F]  Supports convening of DC.

Kazakhstan: [F] Mentions that visit of Dr. Idris lent energy to
developing their IP system.  Also, Kazakhstan is one of the
leading countries of the central Eurasian area - the rate of
growth of GDP and personal income was second only to China last
year.

Russian Federation:  The impression here is that a number of
countries are against holding a diplomatic conference.  Although
we share that there are issues of principle that need to be
addressed today - like the balance of rights between broadcasters
and existing rightsholders.  I agree that this is an issue, and
it has been an issue since 1990.  If we don't address this, then
broadcasters will take advantage and further harm the rights of
producers.  Therefore, we support convening a diplomatic
conference in order to move forward.

Venezuela: [A] I personally took part in the proceedings in
Cartagena. I saw that there was quite an imbalance in the
agenda.  We had the private sector from telecommunications
sector.

There was no NGO invited along that was in fact against such a
treaty. Furthermore, after seeing that there were problems in the
conduct of the meeting, I left the meeting with the approval of
my capital.

This may threaten an upcoming initiative called Telesur (Cuba,
Uruguay, and Argentina), and we therefore need further assessment
of this treaty.  We therefore oppose the convening of a
diplomatic conference for now.

Ukraine: [F] In our regional grouping, we felt that it was
important to protect broadcasting organizations.

Croatia: [F]

Morocco: [F] We propose that DC be held in LAST quarter of 2006.

Peru: [?] Our position to ask the chair to give us more time to
sufficiently study the proposal in greater detail.  Could you
give us further time to consider this decision?

Chair: Didn't hear any statement that opposed a diplomatic
conference. Also heard considerable support for holding a
diplomatic conference under the terms proposed.  Iran requests
floor.

Iran:  Asian Group opposed the convening of a DC in 2006 and
requested 2 more SCCRs.

India: As mentioned by coordinator, we were perturbed by your
summary.

Chair: I meant to say - and what I did say - was that I didn't
detect any opposition to the concept of a diplomatic conference. 
Instead, it's an issue of timing.  In the view of the chair, I
would hesitate to seek a decision on item 14 as such.

I would hesitate to reach a decision on paragraph 14.  Therefore,
I think it's best to have informal consultations in the afternoon
(regional consultations plus additional delegations). I believe
we cannot reach a consensus on the current language.

Brazil: Chair's summary doesn't quite capture all of the concerns
of those who expressed a desire to wait.  In fact, the reticence
to have a diplomatic conference is an indicator of how much
material we haven't seen yet.  Therefore, there is no
pre-approval of a diplomatic conference either.

Chair:  Let us meet at 2:30 in Room B to have informal
consultations to discuss item 10 (Protection of the Rights of
Broadcasting Organizations).

[Administrivia]

[Lunch]

5:10 P.M.

Chair: On Item 10, we have yet to reach consensus.  Therefore,
I've asked the UK and Argentina to act as my delegates in having
more consultations.  We will return to this later.

Now, we turn to Item 13, the Development Agenda

Mr. Saadallah: Presents procedural background of Item 13.

Chairs: Wants to draw attention to document WO/GA/32/2.  What we
have to do is figure out how to proceed sith this matter.  We've
had many substantive debates on this issue, and you're welcome to
touch on those, but we should focus on how best to move this
forward.

Argentina: I am taking the floor on behalf of (FoD).  We pointed
out that WIPO, as a UN agency, is bound by the goals of the UN.

Pushing for more IP without respect to its policy effects simply
undermines IP.  On the other hand, carfting IP alongside
considerations for the public good will bolster respect for IP.

During the IIMs, we had substantial debate and many new
proposals.  More are waiting to present.  This is an undeniable
indicator of the deep interest in these issues.

Despite budding areas of consensus, several delegations kept us
from reaching substantive and even procedural agreement.

As more countries wait to participate, we observe that continuing
the IIM process is the only way to give equal footing to those
ideas.  The process that we started at the last GA shouldn't be
unlimited, but should be a continuous one.

The PCIPD context is inadequate for this proceeding.  We believe
that the a continuation of the IIM, with three meetings in 2006
and a view to presenting our findings at the next GA.

Switzerland (Speaking on behalf of Group B): DA should be moved
to the PCIPD.

Czech: We also believe that DA discussion should happen, but we
think it should happen in PCIPD.  We also observe that the DA
should not keep WIPO from other matters.

Mexico (Speaking on behalf of GRULAC): We believe that WIPO
should extend the mandate surrounding the DA for a certain amount
of time.

Iran (Speaking on behalf of Asian states):

UK (Speaking on behalf of Europe & others): Continues to support
the DA, but that this is best done in the PCIPD.  Others have
different views, but we all agree that progress is most
important.

Brazil: Associates itself with Argentinian statement. IP is
important to developed and developing countries alike.  Many of
the developed nations strong IP systems were able to do this via
flexible paths that they now deny to developing countries.

Moreover, the broad support for this issue prove that this isn't
a north-south issue.

Reads first four (of ten) prongs of a document produced at
seminar on IP and development.

Like the overwhelming majority of WIPO members, we recommend that
the IIM process be continued.

US: Noted at the last GA that development is one of the most
important and daunting issues before WIPO.  We also observe that

While IIMs provided nice place to exchange views, they have not
provided a forum for indepth investigation.  In fact, no

We do not believe that the IIMs are the right place for this -
they were a compromise, time-limited proceeding that has reached
the end of its mandate.

The PCIPD, on the other hand, is permanent and has budget and
staff.  It also meets for a whole week.  We, as member states,
can change the mandate and even its name.  How about the
Permanent Committee on Development and IP?  That way it won't
sound like it's only about technical assistance.

We strongly believe that the PCIPD, not more IIMs, is the way to
go.

As an existing entity, budgetary or technical issues can be
addressed quickly.  Plus, it's permanent.

China: We have only been operating an IP system for 20 years.  We
feel that, during this time, our creativity and innovation has
increased. Much of this was due to technology and expertise
transfer.

The forum that we use to discuss DA must be suited to such a
broad issue, including one with the legal expertise to advise
us.  We also feel that, since norm-setting is so important,
whatever forum we choose, it should have binding power on other
committees.  The previous IIMs have attracted 85 members states,
and ever more participation from NGOs.  And it produced a 300
page report.  We think this illustrates its suitableness as a
venue.

Morocco (On behalf of African group): We believe that renewing
the IIM is vital to all African countries.

Chile: We support Mexico's statement on behalf of GRULAC.

Almost everyone agrees that the IIM should be renewed.  Also,
there are many proposals left to be discussed. With regard to
proposals for the public domain, future proposals should be given
equal treatment. We propose that the mandate should be extended
to include such proposals.

Chair: About a dozen speakers but only a few minutes left, so
we'll suspend until tomorrow morning.  Malaysia will start
tomorrow.
Announcements:

1) consultations on officers have now concluded, and decisions
will be read tomorrow morning
2) we'll probably have night meetings for the rest of the week
3) would again like to meet with regional leaders at 9 A.M.

Singapore: Thank you for decision for Singapore to host
diplomatic
conference on trade marks.

[Administrivia]

/Meeting: 6:02 P.M.

_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k