Rough Notes on XCasting Treaty Debate Today at WIPO General Assembly

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [A2k] Today's debate on Casting treaty
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 06:43:00 -0400
From: James Love <[email protected]>
To: a2k discuss list <[email protected]>

These are my very rough notes from this morning's debate on the
Casting Treaty.

Equator, supports DC

Iran on behalf of the Asia group, raised questions about the
process.....  there is a need for sufficient time for member
states at least two SCCR....., webcasting should be excluded, and
not raised in any form in diplomatic conference....

Members states will decide on a process...... opposed to any
diplomatic conference at this time.

Czech republic Baltic states...
Move forward.....

Switzerland,
Group B..... supports,   2006 diplomatic conference

Morocco
1st regional consultation, Arab states....  new solutions for
webcastings....  secretariat would present this..... wppt.... 
not to use illegally the signals.  Likes the flexibility supports
DC

Moldova, Eastern Europe group...
General support for DC....   June, consultations in Moscow

Russia
Work since 1998.  Supports DC...  2006 SCCR, before DC

Thailand
Southeast Asia nations
Asia Pacific consultations....  good basis discussions.  However,
more needs to be done in discussions in the SCCR.

UK, on behalf EC.
EC ready to move forward on the issue.  DC on 2006
SCCR could resolve outstanding issues.

El Salvador
Update and Modernize, support DC
2nd quarter of 2006.


Caribbean, approval of DC, 2nd quarter of 2006.
Big cricket event coming up, so urgent need for updated treaty...
mentioned webcasting.

Trinidad, I think, yes on DC.

Kenya. on behalf of the 14 member  Africa consultation, mid 2006
DC
Says Casting treaty is Pro development
Promotes access to public information
Need to Immediately update broadcasters rights
Welcomed webcasting options, but more time to consider for making
decisions

Kenya’s own statement, was horrible.

Romania
  Urgent.... for DC

Benin
LCDs find no problem with DC, "but as usual," we need money to
participate.

Mexico

Nicaragua
Supports of DC

Columbia

Jamaica
Supports DC
Urgent to update rights

Norway
Supports DC

NZ
Supports (strongly) DC 2006
Reinforce broadcaster rights in digital environment

Japan
Strongly support diplomatic conference in 2006

St Vincent
Protect signals of broadcasters
Supports more discussion, give money for diplomatic conference

  Egyptian delegation, opposes diplomatic conference

Brazil on behalf of 12 members of .....FoD.... No DC now.
Member driven organization.  Webcasting should not be considered
as a matter of discussions.
At least two meetings... of SCCR.   Also, more time to topic of
L&E.

South Africa
Importance of purported treaty is not in dispute.  Something
else. 2nd quarter of 2006 is too soon.  Dissatisfaction about
regional consultations.   Serious concerns about transparency and
balance. Invites were issued to people in individual
capacities.   Not through diplomatic channels.   No agreement
among member states on duration, scope of rights, TPM, DRM,
webcasting, etc.  Counter productive to do now.  No impact
studies.  No economic studies.  Principled positions, the GA
should take a principled positions that development impact
studies based upon empirical studies.  We don’t support DC at
this time. It will not produce a productive result.

Chile.... Time not ripe for DC.  Not consensus on content... what
is impact on users and copyright owners.

Cameroon, some technical details need to be addressed.  Widest
possible participation... no objection

India, not sensitive to rights of content owners...new layer of
rights.  Also, negative A2K, and right to information, the public
at large.    Prefer TRIPS approach....   no rights in the
content. Broadcasters would obtain rights in both signals, but
refixation, reproduction, and redistribution.  Mentioned the
public domain.  Any attempt to bring in webcasting even as
optional protocol.   Ability to access info key to dissemination
and stimulating creativity. Mentioned UNESCO, and asked for their
active involvement.  UNESCO has been asked to get involved.
Freedom of expression and universal access not included in
statement.   Support the Asian group and the 12 members of the
FoD represented by Brazil, plus Chile and some
others....premature.

US pleased to support prompt DC.    Timely and appropriate. 
Urgent 2006 DC.

China.  DC conference when time is right.

Ghana.  Supports DC, in 2006.

Kazakhstan, totally clueless.  Supports DC.

Russia.   A number of countries are opposed a DC.  Rights holders
rights are suffering today.   Broadcasting owners may harm right
owners.   Should a DC for next year.

Venezuela.  We had the private sector from industry, all
supported treaty, but no NGO invited in opposition to the
treaty.  To sum up, postpone DC.

Ukraine.  Active in regional consultations.  Want DC in 2006.

Croatia.  Supports DC.

Morocco.  Really Really loves DC.

Peru.  Ask the Chair to give sufficient time to look through this
proposal.  We would extend time frame, before we make a decision.

Chair.   No country opposed to DC.  Considerable support for DC
along lines.  Opposition from some groups, for more time. Would
hesitate to seek a decision on paragraph 14.  Informal
consultations.  Will meet with regional coordinators around 2 pm
in Room b.

Several countries clarified that some countries have are not
ready to decide if DC is good idea.  Depends upon many things,
including further analysis, but also scope of treaty and possible
substantive outcomes.


---------------------------------
James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org /
mailto:[email protected] /
tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040

_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k