[A2k] SCCR23: Afternoon, day 2: Exchange of views between EU, Nigeria, South Africa, USA, Egypt and Pakistan

Thirukumaran Balasubramaniam thiru at keionline.org
Tue Nov 22 10:49:53 EST 2011


This is taken from the WIPO live-stream.


"EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to emphasize what the delegate from Italy has just said. The truth is that what we have been asked to do is make comment on a document just discovered. I hadn't even realized in my previous interventions that the second column reflected the IFLA text so I think that Brazil about quite legitimately made that observation which we should review this paper revise it, because it's not possible to reflect a text which has been endorsed by any delegation from a member state. 

So I wanted to ask the Secretariat to please revise this text first and then, Mr. Chairman, the request has been made for us to draw up a list of the topics in the order which suits us. So here I would like to say that there are two topics which for the European Union and member states we would like to see them dealt with before the others which are legal deposits and library lending and supply of works. We would like these two topics to be put ahead, put at first-ranking in the document and we leave till the end of the list the topics of implementation and purchase of works at the end of the list, cross-border uses, retracted, withdrawn and orphaned works at the end of the list, and technological measures protections, technological protection measures and I would like the topics I pointed out first to be put at the top of the list. Also preservation of library and archivele materials, WIPO reproduction and supply of copies. Thank you very much. 

CHAIR: Thank you very much for your contribution, distinguished delegate. Nigeria has the floor. 

NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must thank the distinguished delegation of the EU for helping to clarify some of the thoughts that have really got me confused. 
Mr. Chairman, I think this table is probably better read vertically than horizontally. This is because if we go by this table, like some delegates have already pointed out, when we get to, and I think this could be a typo, when we get to page six, the second column becomes Brazil and Ecuador and then IFLA in parentheses, so I wondered if that was the same column that started on page one. 

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I think that we might be able to distill from this table and put in some vertical form the issues that we want to consider at this meeting. 

Mr. Chairman, I remember yesterday when we were running up, there were suggests from I think a number of delegations on the clusters and we had about six to eight issues coming up. 
This delegation is happy with the rearrangement that the EU has kindly proposed. There are issues that we think fit into functions of Libraries and Archives and should not have the same -- generate the same heat as the other issued that will deal with about the new platforms that the cross-border issues so these things that did -- if we look at preservation, library lending, legal deposit, we are able to look at that as a first cluster to enable us to begin discussions on the text and then maybe when we have made some progress we can better see how we move to the next level and then look at issues of contrast, partition, measures and then cross-border use and then finally get to orphaned works. 

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I share the position of the distinguished delegate of South Africa on behalf of the African group that indeed the third column which is the brilliant morm laition of the objective and principles by the distinguished delegation of the U.S., I find that very profound and and we have verly to discuss because these are the objectives and principles on which we think we can proceed with the work. 

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, as far as this delegation is concerned, we are left with two columns; the African group column and the fourth column, Ecuador, Brazil and Uruguay proposals so if we look at that, Mr. Chairman, I would rather looking at it vertically and accept the objectives and principles as well-formulated, and then we take the clusters, and we begin food for discussions on those clusters that have been well captured by the distinguished delegation of the EU. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to reply to the request we revise this document. I think we do not have much time left and we would like to -- it is now 20 past 4:00 and we don't have text yet so we would like to just reinforce what the delegation of Nigeria said, that let's just look at the two columns where there is text, and let's start discussing. I am happy the EU is willing to discuss the clusters that they have just referenced. We are willing to look at that. That's why we said whichever way suits members states we are willing to engage in that exercise but again we want to emphasize that once we discuss we want to have the document where we actually have the text in writing and we are not just discussing for the sake of discussing. We just want to emphasize that point, that the clusters that we have identified, they should be in there, in the document where we would just populate that document with the language. Of course we did say the African group already has -- we also have textual language from Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay so looking forward to start discussing these issues without wasting further time, Mr. Chairman. 

I think once the delegation of Nigeria has just outlined is a way we can actually proceed going forward with our work, considering the paucity of time. Thank you. 

CHAIR: Thank you distinguished delegate. I call on the United States of America. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The United States agrees both with our colleagues from the European Union and our distinguished delegate from Nigeria that when looking among the different topics, preservation, library lend asking legal deposits seem to be things on which we might work most productively with the most likelihood of some convergence of views. United States would also like to add to that list which is not reflected in the comparative document the subject of limitation on liability for librarians which can be found in the Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay document and also found in the United States' submission under other general principles. So we would ask for the members of the committee to consider that as a subject that is near and dear to librarians and something worthy of discussing as a topic on its own. Mr. Chairman, with that having been said we would find difficulty with an approach that took one single text as a basis for discussion and we also have some concern about those delegations that have expressed the view that in some sense the United States has  not submitted text. 

As far as I can tell, it is English language text. It may not be the text of a treaty but I recall to everyone that the agreement of the conclusions of this committee in SCCR 21 was to work toward an appropriate international legal true or instruments, whether model law, joint recommendation, treaty and/or other forms. Those who have the expectation the only form of text that can be discussed is treaty language is not -- that is not the United States' understanding of what SCCR 21 agreed to. 

So on the other hand, the United States is appreciative of the comments of South Africa and Nigeria that they agree completely 100% with our principles and objectives and we may recall that to them at later points in this discussion. But we would prefer to keep in mind that our text and various elements of it also has a place at the table for the discussion. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

EGYPT: Mr. Chairman, regarding this composite text before us and the short time made available I find that we have to establish a method for dealing with this document to facilitate our work and undertake an analytical reading of this document. Egypt finds we should proceed on the following basis, first and foremost to start with the single proposal submitted by the United States of America and which deals with objectives and principles. These should be first submitted for the discussion. 

Once these have been agreed to, we can approve them and adopt them. Then I believe we should proceed to consider those proposals made by the African group and Brazil alone and then the proposal of Brazil, Ecuador and Argentina. However, we do believe that the proposals submitted by Brazil are not in fact radically different from those submitted by Brazil, Ecuador and Argentina. Here I would like to request the delegation of Brazil to undertake with the delegations of Brazil, Ecuador and Argentina to seek to establish and consolidate the text regarding every subject to facilitate reading and comparative reading between it and the African groups' proposal so we can proceed with our work. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I would like to thank Egypt for its proposal but I do have to say that we find the Mexican proposal like the U.S. difficult to accept, that is, to base our work on a single text. 

We think that the U.S. proposal is valid and we do agree that we don't have an obligation to draft a text in the form of treaty language. On top of that, Mr. Chair, we received the American proposal and the Brazilian/Ecuadorian and Uruguay yan proposal just today so we need some time as EU and its member states to go through these documents and to be able to react and make our comments in this committee. 

So that even to start as proposed by Egypt, with the U.S. proposal would be difficult, because we have not had time to fully go through it and prepare our comments. 

I guess we will have to spend another night studying all those texts, Mr. Chair. 

CHAIR: Thank you very much, distinguished delegate. 

Pakistan has the floor. 

PAKISTAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have to express my gratitude to you and through you to the Secretariat who has helped us in bringing forward this document. I believe that all of you are indebted to the Secretariat for the efforts during the lunchtime. We believe they have definitely sacrificed their lunchtime on this and we are grateful to you and the Secretariat for this. 

Secondly, we could not agree more with the U.S. delegation with regard to the form of the text that we are going to have. There is definitely an open-ended wording that it can be a treaty, it can be a model law or something else so we need not enter into that debate at this stage. We are at a very preliminary stage with regard to that issue. 

And definitely EU has rightly pointed out we are under no obligation to draft text on treaty language at this state but we are under obligation to draft a text as we had all agreed. 

Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, we believe in view of transparency, openness and equality the document that we have presented has all the proposals. This can be filled up with all the other suggestions that would be put in it by Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay and we do believe many other other suggestions can be eventually incorporated into text form. We would have preferred it to be in the form of clusters, having one cluster with all the different proposals and then the next cluster but due to the paucity of time we would be very willing to work on this. 

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, it is also our belief that we should start actively working on the substance rather than discussing broadly about the process and modalities because we are thankful to you to bringing out the paper and we believe it's time we entered the substance rather than process issue. Thank you."




More information about the A2k mailing list