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-