WBU: we look forward to the revision tomorrow and we will study carefully. We see ourselves as technical advisors and we are available today and tomorrow for consultation.
STM (publishers); we have been supportive. But framework should not undermine publishers ambition….a legal instrument should be limited where there is no existing …it has to be limited to the essential. Should also be mindful to respect flexibilities. Authorized entities can be trusted By all stakeholders. that could be provided if operationaly prepared and ….
KEI we partly agree with STM. Quick points: I want to be sure that works that are born digtital are included. Term “Print disabled” might be a confusing term. It is not just print. I am not sure if the instrument is well served by using a legacy format. And the flexibilites under international laws should be maintained. The instrument should add not restrain. But what is the elephant in the room? Is this a treaty? it makes a difference. It’s time to cut bait on this. People have to come to grip and the US and the EU should think about how they should support this as much as they support other agreement.
FIAP (film) : we support the aim of the exercise but the instrument was conceived as one of other effort along of the stakeholders’ platform. We want a limited instrument. respectful of 3 step test
IVF (video): support for treaty. we stand ready to support an instrument that have expressed 3 step test
The Internet Society: Disability chapter. Support for the treaty.
FLA (libraries) now is the time for a recommendation for a treaty for visually impaired. Since 1981…UN Convention. We are major providers and we think it is right, fair and long overdue.
CLA (Libraries) we are supportive and encouraged by today. Time is now.
IFFRO: key element: it shoudl nelinked to berne Art 9.2 and the 3 step test. And should nto applied if available by publishers. It has to be limitedto lawfully made
Authorized entitied should follow rules.
CIS (India): In collaboration with libraries, WBU, KEI, ISOC. The fact that some countries have stalled negotiations is a shame. Too many rules and bureaucratic processes will not work.
IPA…?: I agree with many here. One thing is forbidden: to do nothing. And I agree with KEI re the technology. If we had done that in the 80s…. The last 5 years many changes for people with disabilities. But not many got the improvment. Flexibility is a core issues.
We are aware that in some countries there could be problem. There should be assistance in developing countries. Capacity building in the instrument.
CCIA (Tech): Pleased that there is progress. There should be no linking to any other issue as broadcasting. The text is getting more complicated. For Authorized entities: who can believe that even a rich organization could not have enough resources. Recommendation for the GA.
TACD (consumers): The future has arrived. We are making progress. This SCCR is time to finish. When it is in the open as in the parliament we get full support. Unanimous vote in February. Unfortunately of the EU representive here (Martin Pratt) today does not agree. We have to say the same thing we say in Geneva and in Brussells. There is no Lisbon treaty problems with recommending a treaty for the GA. Otherwise it would be a travesty if the EU rep prevent….let’s seize the moment.