Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights: Twenty-Eighth Session
SCCR/28 June 30 to July 4, 2014 (Geneva, Switzerland)
June 30, 2014.
The Chair has decided to move the Committee to room B for informal (i.e. not public) discussions. He announced the names of 3 representatives from broadcasting organizations associations. Some delegations welcomed the technical experts selected and appointed …by the Chair. However, others saved the day (or the process?) by asking a few questions.
In their own words:
CHAIR: […]I was saying that in order to facilitate, to try to obtain some progress, it was useful when we face some difficulties in understanding the scope of the different proposals we had, to go back to set the principles and I would like to recall that that was very useful in the previous experience of Marrakesh Treaty, when we had consensus on the principle, some of the different proposals maybe fall apart immediately and some of them might be considered an easily joined hopefully.
So in consequence, I invite you to enter into this technical discussion in Room B, trying to set what are the principles regarding the scope of protection, the scope of rights, that we are going to handle with and trying to obtain a consensus on those matters.
There was a request on the previous SCCR to obtain technical assistance in order to understand the different technical or technological platforms that we were dealing with, and in that sense, we have considered another previous practice that was used in previous SCCR before I had the chance to — to be in this role, and so I have considered to ask for technical assistance during these informals in order not to wait for making outdoor consultations of technical nature.
These specific contributions from technical assistance would request probably from the side of broadcasters to bring us three persons to be there in order to just give us technical assistance when it is required.
I think that might be useful to have what was used before in other experiences, and that case, we can use the practice again.
Secondly, in order for faster transparency, the Secretariat has informed me that the work that we will do in Room B will be heard in this area — no?
It’s possible to be heard in this area. So for transparency reasons, not only other delegates, but NGOs may follow the discussion and probably contribute through the the different representatives that will be there.
In that sense, since the work to be done is going to be hard, I suggest coordinators, plus six people format. So that will give the chance for bigger participation on that matter in a different format.
[…]
RUSSIAN FEDERATION: […]
According to me, the proposal which was made by our Chair, resorting to experts, we welcome it, most favorably. It would be interesting that the expert tell us in what direction we should head and I would like to point out that by drawing up this document, we should also take account of the different decisions which have been made previously concerning the protection of the rights of the broadcasting organizations within the framework of our committee. We must, of course, protect their rights, taking into account the existing treaties, particularly the protection of rights of broadcasting organizations, also taking into account legislations, national legislations which exist in this field.
We hope greatly that the delegations will be able to show understanding at the time when we will make decisions for the holding of a diplomatic conference, and in this regard, in the preparation of the document in question, we are ready to contribute in this respect and along these lines.
[…]
INDIA: […]
Mr. Chairman, on this issue of broadcasting organizations protection, we would like to thank the members of group who have provided alternative text on this issue and we would also like to express our thanks to the delegation of Japan and you for providing the non-paper to have a better understanding of the methods of different categories of protection of the transmission over the internet.
India has provided textual proposals during the 26th session and also during the 27th session of the SCCR. We had opportunity to clarify some of the points as requested by different Member States.
Mr. Chairman, we recall also the presentation made by the BBC at the 27th session, which was to enable delegates to learn more about the types of advanced technology being constitutioned by broadcasters however, it was useful, but there were several legal and technical issues which remain unanswered and therefore, Mr. Chairman, as the delegation of India had requested during the last session of SCCR for further clarification on the definitions of the various platforms of transmission over Internet to be disseminated to the members for taking an informed decision and in this context, we also thank the delegation of the United States which just requested for a half day session during the next session for making a presentation by the Secretariat as well as some broadcasting organizations as a combined effort in order to have better understanding by the Member States. So we support that proposal.
And, of course, Mr. Chairman, we have expressed during the last session our concerns regarding the new place forms, the webcasting, the simulcasting and retransmission over the computer networks, and we could be flexible in supporting the issues of unauthorized transmissions over computer networks providing the broadcasting organization has rights over the content broadcasted by it. So Mr. Chairman, we would like to express our continued engagement in a constructive manner during this week’s discussion.[…]
CHAIR: […]
Before giving the floor to the Distinguished Delegate of Egypt, just let me tell you that the three names of the experts that the broadcasters have provided us are a Mrs. Premila Manvi from the Asian Broadcasters, Mr. Alexandre Jobim (IAB) from the international association of broadcasting, coming from Brazil and Erika Redler for North America BA.
JAPAN: […] We would also like to thank the Secretariat for their continued dedication.
This delegation fully associated itself with the statement made by Group B, since we do recognize the importance of the protection of broadcasting organizations, we have been actively and constructively engaged in the discussion toward the early adoption of broadcasters treaty over the years.
In this context, due consideration should be given to the progress this committee has made so far. Upon the recognition that it is essential to foster a common understanding of fundamental concepts among member states we have been focusing on the key issues such as beneficiaries, a scope of protection in the two years. As to the beneficiaries, we fully convinced that no Member States have objection against treating broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense as the beneficiaries in this treaty.
And with respect to the scope of application, the intensive discussion among the Member States helped us to understand our mutual understanding on this issue, especially on the point of which type of transmission over computer network should be included in the scope of this new treaty.
Given such a situation, we are of the view that at this session, we should spend more time open the discussion of the scope of protection and — than other issues so as to make significant progress to convene diplomatic conference as soon as possible.
As for the presentation of technical experts, we are of the view that the technical explanation of modern technology by broadcasting organization, will definitely help us move forward, however, we should bear in mind that fact that sometimes each broadcaster used the same word in different meaning. And therefore, a mere presentation may bring us some confusion about what we are talking about. In this sense, we think updating the 2002 technical papers by Secretariat will be helpful.
Based on such updated document, we can effectively discuss the issue on what kind of platform or what kind of act is to be protected in this new treaty. Many chair, this delegation is willing to delegate in this negotiation in a constructive matter.
[…]
VENEZUELA: Mr. Chairman, I just have a doubt here. I think I got a bit lost in these discussions perhaps because you are speaking English and that’s not my mother tongue. I just got lost at what time did we decide that new experts were coming? Who are these experts? What is the expertise of these experts to speak to the Member States about such a complicated issue? What are the selection criteria were used for these experts? What are we claiming to do with these experts? What are we seeking from these experts?
The truth is, I’m just a bit taken aback by your proposal. I’m surprised at the way in which all this has been accepted, despite the fact that you are a member of our group and whom we have supported, but I think we are — we are always talking about transparency and I don’t think it’s been all this transparent to bring at the last minute, to bring up a topic where we are all surprised like an expert proposal which I wasn’t familiar with and I’m just hearing it for first time on a topic where we are all know that my country has serious reservations in this regard.
So I would like to receive some clarifications on this matter. I would like to know who these very important people are who are going to come in and help us solve a problem in which we have not been able to solve in 10 years.
CHAIR:[…] Thank you for that question and I can answer it directly. Yes, it is previous session of the committee, there was a request to ask for technical support, to allay the technical doubts, about the technological platforms being used for broadcasting, and also the connections with business. That request was part — was part of the paragraphs that were submitted for the committee’s adoption as conclusions and unfortunately as you know, we are unsuccessful in formally adopting any conclusions on any of the items we dealt with at the previous session.
Consequently, it became necessary to have the chair’s conclusions, conclusions of the Chair. And the document was headed thus, “Conclusions of the Chair.” And since the Secretariat was not able to carry out further coordinations because there was no agreement in the committee about setting aside a day or half a day for technical assistance which is what happened with the experience of the BBC, we had to undertake this work, both in the plenary, and in an informal group, all alone.
So Distinguished Delegate of Venezuela, we can do without the technical assistance if it’s considered to be negative for committee’s work because believe me, there is no interest in incorporating technical support by force, if it’s considered unnecessary or if due to reasons of transparency it might be considered something bad for the committee. It’s just a proposal from the chair to try and reduce the time for technical consultations that may emerge during the discussions.
In other words, make use of the broadcasters. So having said that, I am open to any more suggestions from you, Venezuela.
Thank you.
Venezuela has the floor.
>> VENEZUELA: Well, I understood you much better in the language that we both love, Spanish.
I don’t want to sabotage your work. That’s far from any intention of mine. But I think when you made your proposal, you could have left time until the next session for us to put forward candidates and forgive me but I think you are being ingenuous.
The best telecommunication company in — is in Venezuela, but it’s not — we’re not talking a Venezuelan company representing the interests of Venezuela and being in accordance with what the population wants. Here we have transnational companies. I think your proposal, like all of your proposals is welcome but I was taken aback by the fact that we represented with these names and we don’t know who they are. I think there should be a space for — between now and the next session, names could be put forward and we could then listen to their technical advice and pay attention to it.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Distinguished Delegate of Venezuela and my friend and we take note of what you have said and we’ll apply it to the next session, although that doesn’t rule out the fact that we can make use of the expertise offered at this session and Secretariat will give us some information about the background of the people who are going to take part in this exercise. […]
KENYA: Thank you, chair and mine was just a clarification to getting the suggested work — manner of working and in regards to — especially in regards to the issue of the technical assistance or the technical experts who would westbound involved in terms of help — would be involved in terms of helping the experts in terms of trying to escalate the issues and the discussions in the broadcasting, I don’t know whether we can have an idea, the experts maybe you have in mind, just to give us a — an understanding of what the composition would be […]
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that request for clarification. I would like to say that I have asked broadcasters from different parts of the world to help us in bringing us this technical assistance if requested. So three of them would come to join us to informal group, informal work of the informal group in Room B, and, of course, since I made this request having different broadcasters from different parts of the world.
However after the lunch and side event, at 3pm, Venezuela’s appeal for transparency regarding the technical experts has changed the discussion:
Chair: In order to be quite clear, the following will occur. To ask for technical assistance during the work we are going to start, since I think that even though we could not manage to have the whole procedure to request for part of the program to be used for technical assistance that comes from the private sector, it was my idea to use what we have here in this hall in order to ease the path and have rapid answers to our technical questions.
However, I should add that usually, I learn a lot when I confront my ideas with yours, and I have heard very much the legitimate concerns regarding transparence, transparency, that some of my distinguished delegates and fellows have expressed, not only coming from the delegates, but from some NGOs.
That is not the message I would like to deliver, since that was not the intention behind the proposal. As I said before, if we need technical assistance, we will request that technical assistance and some delegates, some representatives of the private sectors have offered themselves to bring us those answers, or to serve as intermediaries to collect technical answers. I’m very thankful for that.
But regarding what we have exchanged, the different views we have exchanged, I will ask them kindly to stay here in the plenary room to listen our discussions as they are being held in room B, and in the same and equal conditions as others. See, if we request technical assistance, it will be open for different sources to give us some clues or some rapid answers for those requests.
I am sure that the people who offer themselves to my request to being intermediaries or to bring these direct answers will be helpful if they have so, but they will not be the unique source of technical assistance.
In doing so, I’m sure that I have been informed by some NGOs that there are some technical expertise around the room, and I recognize some of them. I will be very thankful if they offer themselves to bring us those technical answers, and the Secretariat will help us if you hear that there is a technical misunderstanding in the room B or there is a request for receive technical assistance.
In that case, I think that we don’t need to listen additional comments regarding this point, since I consider it closed, thanks to your good comments and suggestions, and we can go on with the next statements coming from substantial opinions regarding the topic of broadcasting, protection of broadcasters, of broadcasting organizations.
Saying so, I have next in the row Canada, and I would just pledge not to go back to this issue, since I consider it that has been already clarified, and because I can confess that I would like to use this afternoon’s for that topic that has to obtain a solution thanks to your contribution.
Canada has the floor.
[…]
We welcome the various suggestions which have been put forward, to ask these experts to become involved, and ask the Secretariat to update the background documents published in 2002, so that we can better understand the current environment.
We think that many of the elements are worthy of consideration, and we would hope that we will have a representative variety of organizations of all areas, private, commercial and from various geographical areas, and the challenges with respect to piracy, whether they are consulted informally or in plenary, and that will make for dynamic dialogue, so that this will give further clarity to the solutions envisaged to counter piracy and the complexity of their implications.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much to Distinguished Delegates from Canada. Nigeria has the floor.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the delegation of Nigeria, I wish to congratulate you on the renew of your chairing mandates for the 28th SCCR. I joined other delegates in commending the excellent steering of the work of this Committee under your leadership.
We also commend the Secretariat of the SCCR for its excellent work of supporting the SCCR. Mr. Chairman, Nigeria notes the efforts made at the 27th session of the SCCR to advance discussions with respect to the issue of protection of broadcasting organizations.
We welcome the proposal for further informal discussions to enable members to discuss principles of protection. We are optimistic that such session would consolidate on those areas where significant understanding had been reached, while continuing to discuss other issues with a view to achieving greater consensus, taking into account the guidance of the technical experts as proposed by the Chairman.
Nigeria is committed to further constructive engagement within the agreed work program of the Committee. It is also important that discussions take into account the mandate of the General Assembly and particularly ensure that whatever act is adopted meets the needs of the current challenges of broadcasting in the digital environment.
As a way forward we suggest that the informal discussions be properly guided with respect to reiteration of areas where there was convergence of opinions and thereby enable delegates to know those areas that require further consideration.
This will enable the discussions to be progressive and more results-oriented. We look forward to the achievement of the target of a Diplomatic Conference on the protection of broadcasting organizations within the shortest possible time.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much to the Distinguished Delegate from Nigeria for your clear statement. I listen to Uruguay.
>> URUGUAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have not planned to speak to this issue, but I felt that I should briefly refer to this here, but in order to ensure full transparency with my own group, and with those groups with whom we had met, so I believe that it is urgent to discuss this, since I wish to avoid any misunderstanding.
The question of practical presentations, the regional coordinators met on the 12th of July — of June, at the request of the Secretariat to speak to the organization of the work of the 28th session.
I spoke with the Vice Chairman, as to why there were to be technical presentations, and I was told that this is the result of the Chairman’s summary in paragraph 9.
I am of course not against technical presentations in principle. They are a very good thing. But we need to work in a different way, and in a more transparent manner.
On that day, and the regional coordinators can confirm this, we must agree first, as to the way in which the session is going to work, rather than bring people who will not be able to participate and will not be able to make their presentation, because their session will not be held.
Why should we spend the money to bring somebody here to waste their time, when there may be no agreement. We were given a week. On the 27th of June On the 27th of June we met again., and there I stated that we needed to agree on this, that and other issues before we come to a conclusion. One of them was the division of time, the basis of our future work, and whether we would have technical presentations or not.
A number of views were expressed, some people felt it should be during the session, some off line. And on the basis of future work, and the division of time, we were told and I quote, that we didn’t need to call upon a technicians, and nor would we ask the Secretariat to look for such a technical experts.
So you can imagine my astonishment when I saw that there are three technical experts at this session. If regional coordinators are consulted on four occasions, and on two of those occasions we discuss the question of technical presentations, and we responded that we did not wish to have such technical presentations, as long as though we had not come to decision on the other issues, so I really feel that it is most inappropriate to tell us that there would be technical experts present on the bench as it were, ready to provide support should we need it.
I wanted to make this clear, because my GRULAC colleagues will be wondering what on earth I was doing at those meetings with the Secretariat, when having told them afterwards that we were not going to have technical presentations, and here they are.
So I would, GRULAC would expect to be informed that these people were going to be present. Perhaps we would have been less astonished if we had been told ahead of time of the presence of experts.
But Mr. Chairman, we must ensure that there is more transparency in future, and to avoid confusion. Thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you, Distinguished Delegate of Uruguay. I certainly did not want to spend any time on this, but if the Distinguished Delegate of Uruguay thinks it’s important to do so, I will once again state the following.
I noted that there was not an agreement, agreement was not reached on technical presentations, and that is why there will be no technical presentations in the course of this week.
I think it’s unfortunate. But a number of delegations did feel that technical presentations would be useful. Once again, in today’s session, it was requested that there be technical presentations at the next session of the SCCR.
You will recall that at previous meeting, we had a technical presentation from the BBC, thanks to the support of the distinguished delegation of the United Kingdom, and it was very useful.
It was then suggested that we continue with technical presentations, but as my friend, Distinguished Delegate of Uruguay has said quite rightly, there was no agreement on that, and on other issues.
Since no technical presentation has been scheduled, I thought that since we would need some clarification and assistance in the work we are doing, we may have technical questions. It might then, it occurred to me, that it would be useful to have representatives of the broadcasting world to assist us in responding to technical questions, though I see that not everybody thinks that is a good idea.
And this, because of legitimate concerns regarding transparency.
I have three people to stay out of the room, and we will be consulting, that is outside room B, and that they be available to respond to specific technical questions, and of course any technical who may be present or any NGO who may be present can provide assistance should we request it, or require it.
And we delegates in room B may get information from different technical sources, if we get it in time. Otherwise, we will have consultations in order to ensure that the responses are available to us at a later date.
I think it’s clear enough, there are no technical presentations. Simply, we have people here who can answer technical questions, if there is a technical question, we can say, who can answer this question? And we will have the experts there who can do it immediately.
I think, therefore, that we no longer need to discuss this further. There are no technical presentations. We will simply have access to technical questions from those persons who are able to resp once we are in room B. South Africa, you have the floor.