[A2k] Conclusions on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

Thiru Balasubramaniam thiru at keionline.org
Wed Dec 18 05:15:38 PST 2013


http://keionline.org/node/1861


The following conclusions were distributed during the morning session (18
December 2013) of Wednesday's SCCR.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE PROTECTION OF BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS

1. The Committee considered the working document SCCR/24/10 Corr., as well
as the proposal submitted by the government of Japan, document SCCR/26/6.
In addition, the Committee took note of the working document containing the
proposal from the government of India.

2. It was agreed that traditional broadcasting organizations and
cablecasting organizations will be the beneficiaries of the protections
provided by the proposed Treaty, subject to clarification of the inclusion
of cablecasting organizations in the definition of broadcasting
organizations in national laws and the effect of that inclusion on the
scope of protection.

3. It was agreed that broadcasting and cablecasting are included in the
scope of protection of the proposed Treaty, without prejudice to
clarification of the inclusion of cablecasting organizations in the
definition of broadcasting organizations in national laws and the effect of
that inclusion on the scope of protection.

4. Discussions took place on the inclusion in the scope of protection of
transmissions over the Internet, with the common understanding that such
transmissions, if they are to be included, would be limited to those
transmissions originating from traditional broadcasters and cablecasters.

5. Discussions took place on transmission over the Internet of simultaneous
and unchanged transmissions of broadcasts, and it was agreed that if
transmissions over the Internet, originating from traditional broadcasters
and cablecasters are included in the scope of protection of the proposed
Treaty, then at least such simultaneous and unchanged transmissions of
broadcasts should be included.

6. It was also agreed that further discussions will take place in relation
to the possible inclusions in the scope of protection of the proposed
Treaty of transmissions over the Internet, when originating from
traditional broadcasters and cablecasters, of original broadcasts,
on-demand transmission of broadcasts, or deferred and unchanged
transmissions of broadcasts.

7. Discussions took place on the protection to be granted to broadcasting
and cablecasting organizations and delegations exchanged views on various
approaches, which will be further examined at the next session of the
Committee.

8. Discussions took place on the definitions that need to be included in
the proposed Treaty. Delegations exchanged views and the definitions will
be further examined at the next sessions of the Committee.

9. The proposals discussed during the session will be included in an Annex
to document SCCR/24/10/ Corr.

What follows is the WIPO stream text transcription of the morning's
discussions; the Chair of SCCR 26 is Martin Moscoso (Peru).

"The Delegation of Belarus has the floor.

>> BELARUS: Thank you very much, chairman. Chairman, on behalf of the
regional group we would like to express support for the document before us.
In our view this document gives a detailed and objective reflection of the
course of our discussion and work over the last two days. We think it is
factually prepared and are prepared to support it. We understand that other
groups may make their proposals to this document, and we're prepared to
consider and assess that. We would like to call upon everybody to work on
this document for mutual reflection of the course of our discussion and we
must refrain from turning our discussion today into a further long
discussion on what's already been said. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: I thank the Delegation of Belarus for their comments. I give the
floor to Poland.

>> POLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to
everybody. On behalf of the group I would like to say thank you to you and
the Secretariat for providing us with draft conclusions of this paragraph.
We would like to extend our support to the text. The issue we would like to
raise is to have some minor changes in terms of throughout the text so
instead of having the wording "adribble broadcasting organizations and
cablecasting organizations we would like to suggest to have it instead of
traditional the wording would be broadcasting organization and cablecasting
organizations in the traditional sense.

Thank you very much.

>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate from Poland for his comments.
Would any other regional coordinators like to take the floor before we move
to country contributions?

I give the floor to the Distinguished Delegate of Algeria.

>> ALGERIA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning to all of you. I would like to begin by thanking you and the
Secretariat for having prepared the draft conclusions on the protection of
broadcasting organizations. The African Group looked at the proposal and
made the following comments: First, the conclusions do somewhat change the
practice of the other committees of WIPO by getting into such a degree of
detail. We shared this with all of the African members that felt that by
going so deeply into detail that this could be of concern to some
Delegations and then the use of the term "it has been agreed" certain
members of the African Group emphasize that in fact no agreement had
actually been found on the issues included. Rather it was a general
understanding of certain issues. Some concerns were expressed by certain
members of the African Group over the term "it has been agreed."

The third comment concerns the final paragraph which speaks of an annex to
the basic document and to there some Delegations emphasized that they could
not at this point support the inclusion of a proposal in an annex because
they would need additional time to study the proposals and to report back
to their capitals and receive instructions so the African Group would
prefer that the proposals appear in the report like any other statement or
proposal and not the annexed to the basic document.

That said and taking into consideration your explanations on the fact that
other Regional Groups do agree with the formats of the conclusions as they
now appear I think that my group could be flexible and continue working on
the basis of this document. We would take note that this level of detail is
to prevent future discussions from wasting time by going back over ground
that's already been covered. In this sense I think the African Group could
share that understanding, that is that it would be a shame to always go
back over the same ground. Even if we can agree on in continuing in this
manner we would need at some point to change some of the language, for
example, it has been agreed or other comments which I would be able to send
to the Secretariat by e-mail so as to go through the conclusions again with
some detail on precision.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate from Algeria and the African
Group for giving us their views on the conclusions and for their
contributions in the form of suggestions so that the document will actually
reflect what took place in the meeting. I thank them as well for mentioning
the usual procedure of working, and here I would like to say that in this
case the style that's been used that's going into more detail will be
continued throughout the session. We await with pleasure your suggestions
and contributions for the purpose of improving the document and we thank
you, we thank the African Group for their flexibility. Trinidad and Tobago,
please.

>> TRINIDAD and TOBAGO: I was consulting with Delegates. My apologies.
Chair, once again, we wish to thank you for your draft conclusions, you and
the Secretariat on this particular topic of which we're discussing. It was
just one particular question I would have liked to ask, is we already gave
our comprehensive statement this morning with respect to our views on the
conclusions so I was wondering if the Chair, if you wished or so desired
for me to repeat the views in this forum? It is in your hands and, of
course, I look forward to items on this. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: I thank the Delegate from Trinidad and Tobago. It is not
necessary to go in detail into each of the specific words and contributions
that the Distinguished Delegate of Trinidad and Tobago suggested today in
the coordination on behalf of GRULAC. However, if you could in a general
sense go over the topics to which these contributions belong we can take
note of these general considerations as you feel is necessary as to avoid a
repetition of what we went over this morning but to give general
information to the plenary. Thank you.

>> TRINIDAD and TOBAGO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will go in the general
comments that the GULAK had seeing that we discussed this in the group
meeting this morning, coordinators in terms of transparency I would seek
some -- I would just reiterate some of the issues which were of importance
to GRULAC. First, with respect to item one we would have liked to have seen
discussions with respect with the U.S. proposal, the U.S. proposal which is
not in the formatted of a working document. We would have liked to see that
included, that is U.S., India, Japan proposal. Also if there is some
reference that these three documents be the basis of the discussions for
the next SCCR.

Another concern, another issue I should say rather than a concern, is that
in terms of item 6 we know that we had some preliminary discussions, not
items, paragraph 6, we had preliminary discussions with respect to the
protection of pre-broadcast signal and we would have liked to see that also
reflected in the document itself.

Four and five, paragraph 4 and 5, whereby, you know, I know we have been
discussing this in previous SCCRs as well, some Delegations, they're a bit
uncomfortable with the use of traditional broadcasters, the word especially
traditional and we would -- we were trying to see if we could get some sort
of language that we can use to replace that word traditional and
broadcasters as all broadcasters in a traditional sense. That's something
that we will also look at within the GRULAC.
We spoke about the pre-broadcasting and so on, I think essentially there
were orbit of grammatical issues, sentence construction issues, when we go
into again paragraph 4 and 5 I know we asked for the deletion of the word
cablecasters but after speaking to Delegations within the group we
recognize that we can be flexible on that and perhaps if the use of the
words beneficiaries can be used instead of cablecast that is something
which the GRULAC we can also be flexible about. These are just -- I would
like to suggest the tip of the iceberg, I know I went into greater detail
in the coordinator meeting with the different proposals, this is without
prejudice to what other Delegations within my group would like to see.
I thank you, Mr. Chair.

>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate from Trinidad and Tobago on
behalf of GRULAC.
I give the floor to Japan.

>> JAPAN: Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning. First of all, our group
would like to thank Chair and Secretariat for their excellent work over the
night and to prepare the document of the conclusion on the pre texts of
broadcasting organization.

Also we have given our proposal to the secretariat and Chair at the
regional coordinator meeting for transparency I would like to mention about
those issues which I mention bad at the regional coordinator meeting this
morning. First of all, so the document, I would like to support that
correction pointed out by GRULAC relating to the word "traditional
broadcaster and cablecaster" to be replaced in the language, mainly
broadcasting, cablecasting organization in a traditional sense.

I will continue paragraph by paragraph. As far as paragraph one pointed out
by friends of GRULAC, the U.S. proposal should be included by the language,
for example, at the end of the paragraph, the proposal for discussion from
U.S. As for Paragraph 4, I know that you reflect and the discussion held in
a proper manner some notion should be mentioned as following, at the end of
Paragraph 4, if this protection is to be included further discussion should
be had whether it should be mandatory or optional. I think that notion
reflects the discussion held during two days in a proper manner. As for
Paragraph 4, the -- from the beginning of the first line, as of the word
original broadcast, in order to reflect the concept in a more proper manner
we prefer the language internet originated transmission instead of the word
original broadcast.

Next comment also goes to the Paragraph 6, first line. We would like to
propose to delete the word "broadcast" after the word on-demand
transmission in order to reflect the notion in a more proper manner. Last
comment goes to the Paragraph 9, we think that the annex would be
appropriate venue to accommodate the proposal and then we in Japan, India,
United States, those proposals will be discussed at the next session
including whether they should be included in text or not. In that sense,
annex would be the appropriate venue to accommodate those proposals at this
stage. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

>> CHAIR: I thank the Delegate of Japan forgiving us the views of group b
which were also expressed at the coordinators meeting. Japan.

>> JAPAN: One thing I forgot to mention. My last comment goes to the
Paragraph 5, the agreement mentioned in this paragraph has a proposition in
character in that sense it will be better to insert the word provisionary
in the second line of Paragraph 5. I thank you, Chair.

>> CHAIR: Thank you for that additional contribution. Are there any other
Regional Groups that would like to take the floor? If not, my thanks to the
Regional Groups and now I open the floor for individual countries. India
had asked for the floor to be followed by South Africa. India first.

>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. I would also like to thank
you and the Secretariat for the excellent work done on the conclusions of
the discussion of the protest of broadcast organizations. India conveyed
concerns through other regional coordinator during the morning meeting of
the regional coordinators. It may have been conveyed through the regional
coordinator India's concern. For the sake of now transparency and also the
view of proposing some amendments in the texts for the conclusion we would
like to suggest to make the intervention now. First thing, we have to make
all amendments in the whole text or we have any opportunity further to go
by paragraph is what we used to do here on the conclusion. As you want, you
can go along.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, India. for your cooperative attitude and your
contribution to the final results which we're putting together. What we're
doing at the moment is just gathering up the various views which could be,
as India suggested done in general form, after which we can go in detail in
terms of drafting so as not to get into a discussion now of changing comas
and not to unleash a whole series of differing opinions as to how to word
the conclusions because the Chair, after they have heard all the views from
the plenary could make it his job to redraft we say in Spanish that when
everybody sits down and tries to draw a horse you end up with a camel. In
order to avoid that outcome, first let us listen to everyone and then you
can give a specific drafting suggestion at a later stage.
India, please continue.

>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I fully agree with the statement made by the Distinguished Delegate
of Algeria on behalf of the African Group, the understanding expressed by
her, that is the way it should have been deflected in the conclusion, the
draft conclusion because in some paragraphs we have concern that the words
used, it was agreed is quite misleading as it is actually in views
expressed.

That would be -- also, the other thing from India's point of view, we
wanted, we have requested also that any textual contributions of India,
that we have sent to the Secretariat and also particularly on the three
articles, 6, 7, 9, which was broadly discussed during the plenary of this
committee should be reflective as alternative in the body of the text, not
the annex and I would like to bring the attention of the committee to the
conclusion, there is some textual contributions from the India Delegation
in the footnotes and they were incorporated after the committee into the
main body of the text and it reads paragraph 17 of the conclusion of SCCR,
it says the committee pursued discussion that led to the option of single
text documents which includes India's proposal as a working document which
will constitute the basis of further text based discussions to be
undertaken by the committee in the 25th session subject to any modification
or further textual comments to be made by the members. Here, another
understanding was any textual contribution, not only intervention made on
the floor, but if there are textual contributions and there is discussion
during this session on that basis we request that those articles at least
should be reflected as alternatives in the basic texts in the main body of
the text and we will not feel comfortable to put it merely as an annex.
That's been expressed by the African Group. That's what we have, that
understanding.

Regarding this concern, you recall that at least not only India but three,
four Member States and others expressed the concern about the mandate, NGOs
of this committee to discuss in a traditional sense or it goes beyond to
the webcasting, broadcasting over internet which is not reflected here in
this conclusion paragraph. That is missing. We want to see that be
reflected here, that some clarification was asked, it was not only one
Delegation, that's what I can recall, so it should be reflected in writing
that it should be in that traditional sense or going beyond that mandate,
some hang should be there. I will leave it in your hand how to reflect and
maybe there is not many amendments from India, I would like to reflect
maybe in paragraph, two paragraphs, in paragraph 1 the second sentence in
addition the committee took note of the text -- textual rephrasing of
certain paragraphs, paragraphs in the working document. So, textual
rephrasing of certain paragraphs in the working document containing the
proposal from the Government of India. So it is regarding the India
proposal that we want to amend. I hope that should not be a problem for
other Delegations and it is regarding the Indian proposal and also in
paragraph 2, we do not have much concern in paragraph 3, again, we would
like to reflect here it was agreed that broadcasting and cablecasting with
signal based approach in traditional sense to be added. I understand that
that is also the request from other groups who are not feeling comfortable
that it is traditional broadcasting or cablecasting but should be reflected
in the traditional sense.

In paragraph 4 perhaps some amendments in the end and if they are to be
included, limited to those transmissions originating from the traditional
broadcasters or cablecasters to the extent contractual agreements with the
content owners authorized on different media of transmission.

Further we would like to have additional paragraph after paragraph 4 that
India Delegation suggested that instead of giving absolute right the
broadcasting organization could have right to prohibit unauthorized use of
their signal transmissions over different media including internet to the
extent contractual agreements with the content owners authorized on
different media of transmission.

This is a new paragraph I can send by e-mail also to the Secretariat
further and in Paragraph 5 we want to add in the end, to the extent
contractual agreements with the content owners authorized on different
media transmission. Further, in the line of that, we had requested to
include our textual proposals in the main body of the text so in paragraph
9 it should be amended, it should not be that all the proposals will be in
the annex, India supports the proposal from Japan and U.S.A. to be included
in the same main body of the text, given their flexibility if they want to
leave that text in the an next. For India will be important to highlight
it. That we request that. About the rephrasing of the paragraphs, there it
is agreed, should always be referred to as some Delegations express this
view, they have different views and opinions expressed, it should be more
defined. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, India, forgiving us your views on the document with
the conclusions. For taking note of the topics that you have raised.
Naturally we will continue to listen to the various points of view so that
at the end we can provide you with conclusions that represent the views of
the entire plenary, not broken up into the views of specific Delegations.
That is the work that the Chair will do. I give the floor now to the
Delegate of South Africa.

>> SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My Delegation is going
to make an input in the content of the document I think by in large the
discussions of the last two days but also I think we're off procedure. The
last two days, they're not necessarily the discussions that went out the
window, but as something that indeed marks some level of progress in our
discussions. So, as a point, my Delegation wants to say that the reason why
we adopted the working text, Chair, was so that our discussions could be
focused. To whatever that people want to submit as part of the discussion
points should be in the draft working text. I'm hope that the discussion of
the last two days I think reflected that, that most of the countries,
Member States, India, Japan, the United States as well, they referenced to
those.

My Delegation wants to request that perhaps either way we can share these
discussions, they should reflect the articles that were made whether they
are proposals, they should reflect that so that I think in the moment you
have the working document only in the first paragraph and last one, it
looks like this was just formal discussions, people were just bringing a
lot of issues. I think I would really appreciate this as South Africa that
the discussions should reflect the articles that were discussed and any
proposals made should refer to those articles so that even next time when
we meet we know which articles were discussed and what is it. For my
Delegation, they should -- they should put that in the annex but the most
important thing, at least it shows that there is some level of progress in
the discussions that have been held in the last couple of days were indeed
fruitful discussions, a mark of progress, therefore we should refer to
those articles as draft articles as continuing in the working committee so
that way everybody will see the discussions that we had focused. So that
would be our submission, Chair.

>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate of South Africa whom we
welcome your suggestions. We'll certainly take them into account because
the plenary is witness to the fact that we have discussed both topics and
articles and indeed it is the articles that have led us to discuss the
topics. We're taking note of this very interesting suggestion and I give
the floor now to the European Union followed by Brazil to be followed by
Venezuela and then Bela Russia, the European Union has the floor.

>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you very much, on behalf of the European Union and
Member States I would like to thank you very much and the Secretariat for
preparing that document which we think in a very correct and objective way
reflects the discussions that were held during the last two days.

Following on the statements made researched by Group B we would like to
have two small suggestions to Paragraph 6, which is to reflect our
discussions on transmissions over internet and in particular to reflect
taking from the Japanese diagram points 2, 3 and 4 and in that regard we
think that it would be possibly better to draft it in a way that is closer
to the drafting proposed in the Japanese diagram and we would suggest
rather than say original broadcast in the third line of this paragraph to
say "internet originated transmissions" so replace original broadcast with
"internet originated transmissions" which reflects point 2 in the Japanese
diagram and then after where it says on-demand transmissions of broadcasts
we would suggest delete of broadcast and just to say "on-demand
transmissions." Again, we think it better reflects the diagram that was
discussed.

Just one additional comment we very much support the statement by the
Chair, what we're trying to -- what should be reflected in this
conclusions, is the overall discussions and not extending as a common
understanding some issues that were raised by particular Delegations. We,
of course, appreciate that certain Delegations had to -- had particular
suggestions but as some comments were made as to Article 4 we would like to
just note that Article 4, Paragraph 4 is about common funder understanding.
Under common understanding we would prefer not to see suggestions that came
from individual Delegations that have not been given common support. Thank
you very much.

>> CHAIR: I thank the European Union, and I give the floor to Brazil.

>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Chair, forgiving me the floor. On the outset I would
just like to second the GRULAC intervention, Trinidad and Tobago on behalf
of GRULAC and we would like to highlight comments made regarding Paragraph
3, in order to have a more precise reflection of the discussions that we
had in the second line we would need to replace the words "without
prejudice" to "subject to clarification" on cablecasting. It refers to the
points that were raised in discussions, that we need to find language that
is flexible enough on this point prior to advance and to have a definite
decision on this.
Regarding the language in 4, 5, 6, Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, it was mentioned by
Group B and GRULAC and there is no consensus as to how to refer to the
traditional webcaster, cablecasters, broadcasters, in a traditional sense,
I believe that the best solution was brought should the -- to the issues
should be to focus on the word "beneficiaries." That would be a possible
way out as was mentioned by GRULAC. That perhaps leads us to change to
Paragraph 2 when we're discussing what the is the -- where we can find the
first language referring to traditional broadcasting organizations and
cablecasting organizations and perhaps in this, the first line of the
second paragraph we could go with the language of the mandate and after
that we would refer to beneficiaries. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate of Brazil for his suggestions.
We have taken careful note and it is now our pleasure to give the floor to
the Distinguished Delegate of Venezuela.

>> VENEZUELA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have read with great interest of
subject that was of little interest to my Delegation and the only agreement
we see here is a lack of agreement and had there been agreement then there
would be two days for broadcasting, two days for limitations and exceptions
on archives and a day for educational matters but when I turn around I see
a lot of NGOs that are here that are interested in libraries and I think
are not very interested in the idea of the multinationals and broadcasting.
Others are interested in this topic so quite naively I had -- I would like
to ask you what is our schedule for the coming days? Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman. If this is a difficult question to respond to, then please
consider that I never asked it. (Laughter).

>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate from Venezuela. It is not
necessary to suggest that you didn't actually ask it because yesterday we
said it was important to take up the second topic, but it was decided based
on the suggestion of the plenary that we would take limited time at the
beginning of this sitting, and we limited it to one hour to deal with the
conclusions. We're quite certain that we will be able to complete this and
perhaps even finish a bit early because we have received a number of views
and the NGOs will also be heard on the second and very important topic. I
thank you very much for your comments. I give the floor to Belarus.

>> BELARUS: Thank you very much, chairman. I'm speaking in my national
capacity. Chairman, taking account of the fact that the representatives of
the African Group and India have expressed their views on the proposals
that were considered at this meeting either in the text or in an annex or
in some other way we would also like to give our opinion on this. From the
practical viewpoint weapon don't think it is a good idea to have all these
proposals as alternative text because as these proposals grow the text
might become difficult to read so we would like an annex to be considered
and we're prepared to be flexible on this. We would like to officially
state our understanding, the term "proposal" officially submitted to the
Secretariat in the future either between meetings of the committee or the
next meeting of the committee will receive the same status as will be done
now for the current proposals on the table.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate from Belarus for his views. We
will certainly consider these in planery and in the proposals to be put
forward in in context. I give the floor now to the United States.

>> UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have been listening to all the
approaches as to how to deal with the new proposals were discussed
yesterday. We certainly share India's concern about ensuring that our
discussion proposal too is fully reflected for future consideration by this
committee and also we share South Africa's desire to be sure that the
progress that we have made in the last two days is captured on paper for
further discussion. We particularly appreciate South Africa's suggestion of
a compromise which might be to put into the discussion, into the proposals
that have been made references to the specific articles that they relate to
in the text and with that approach in mind the United States could be
flexible and agree to inclusion of certainly our discussion proposal along
with the others in an annex with these references with the understanding
that the next meeting should start with integrating proposals in the annex
with the reference to the particular articles into the text and that this
should be done in an appropriate and helpful way with guidance from the
Chair and Secretariat as to how best to achieve that result.

We hope that this may be a compromise that everyone can accept to make sure
that we capture all of our work in an appropriate way and to ensure that it
is fully integrated in a single document as soon as possible. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate from the United States for her
suggestion. We have taken note and we hope for comments on that proposal. I
give the floor now to Japan.

>> JAPAN: Thank you very much, Chair. I would like to take the floor first
for group b followed by a national capacity.
The proposal discussed during the session in the annex to the text, it is
bald and appropriate reflecting the situation of the discussion of the
session in a proper manner.

The proposal should be reflected in the text as such only when it is
deliberated enough and regarded as a firm and good basis for further
mainstream text.

The discussion at this meeting preliminary because of the timing of the
submission and many Delegates need more time for further reflection. We
could consider further at the next session how to deal with the proposal
including whether the proposal should be included in the text or not as a
basis for further discussion.

I would like to speak in my national capacity, first of all, this
Delegation would like to thank colleagues in this group for the wide
support of our proposal as a way out for the transmission of the internet.
We also recognize that further reflection is necessary for some
Delegations. Needless to say, generally speaking, every Delegate submitting
a proposal would be more than happy if their proposal is submitted in the
text by wide support but given the objective discussion we have the
inclusion of the proposal in the annex, not in the text as such at this
stage and in this regard we hope that our proposal will be included in the
text by a wider support, not at this stage but in the future and that at
the same time we would like to appeal that the proposal, the fair treatment
of those proposals should be respected with the same spirit.
I thank you, Mr. Chair.

>> CHAIR: I thank the Delegate from Japan.
We're just about to conclude the time that we had allotted. We have taken
note of all the comments made and we have now the European Union followed
by Kenya.

>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be very quick.
We first of all would like to support the proposal made by the
Distinguished Delegation of South Africa and also of the United States on
referring to Articles that have been discussed in the conclusion paper, we
think it is very helpful.

As to proposals that were made during the sessions, we're grateful to all
of the Delegations as Japan, India, the U.S. for proposals and we think
they all deserve the proper consideration and we will be certainly looking
at them. We think that the best way forward from our point of view would be
to keep them in the annex because we should try in the next session try to
streamline the text that we're working on, including, of course, with these
proposals and other possible modifications that can be made but looking at
how we can take this into account and work on the text to streamline it
rather than make it bigger, but I would like to stress that means taking in
county all the proposals and other modifications and hopefully we'll have a
streamlined and shorter text and we'll be getting closer to a result. Thank
you very much.

>> CHAIR: I thank the Delegate of the European Union. I give the floor now
to the Distinguished Delegate from Kenya.

>> KENYA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First I want to take the
opportunity to thank South Africa and other Delegations to have the
proposal to making references to the specific articles. In terms of
conclusion we shouldn't be carried away and start drafting it as if it is
the final report because the conclusions should basically capture the
essence of what was generally agreed because there are so many issues
discussed in the last two days some of which we had the concurrence of,
some which we did not, some which we have left pending for the next
discussion. We should look at the conclusions and any other details should
be contained to the final report. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of the hour. We
have used an hour's time. Exactly an hour. Thank you very much. Yesterday
we made comments on the work of all of the Delegations on broadcasting I
simply wish to reiterate the constructive attitude by Delegations and their
flexibility in working towards consensus and in meeting the mandate that
was given to us by the General Assembly. Thank you."



More information about the A2k mailing list