WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)

File contents

World Intellectual Property Organization.
Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights.
Session 24.
19 July 2012.
15 :00.
(please stand by. The meeting will begin momentarily.)
(Please stand by. The meeting will begin momentarily.).
(please stand by. The meeting will begin momentarily.)..
(please stand by. The meeting will begin momentarily.)..
>> CHAIR: Good afternoon, colleagues. Shall we commence our meeting? Good afternoon, distinguished colleagues. In accordance with the agenda on the work plan, we will turn to the issue of limitations and exceptions for visually impaired persons or persons with print disabilities.
Our discussions will be centered on the working document on a international instrument on limitations and exceptions for visually impaired persons or persons with print disabilities, SCCR 23/7.
As you recall, this document is based on the previous, this document is based on the previous proposal made by my predecessor, document 2316 and compiles comments made by the African Group, the European Union on behalf of its 27 Member States, and other 17 Member States. According to the conclusions of the previous session of the SCCR, and I quote, the working document, you concluded that it will constitute the basis for the future text-based work on the matter to be undertaken by the Committee in its 24th session with a aim to agree and finalize a proposal on a international instrument on limitations and exceptions for visually impaired persons, and, or persons with print disabilities.
I am certain that we have had sufficient time to study this document in our respective groups, and have held various consultations at national level, amongst ourselves, in order to have meaningful contribution to move this document forward.
I now wish to open the floor for any statements or comments on this document. The floor is open. Australia.
>> AUSTRALIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to place before the Committee Australia's views on the important work that the Committee is doing to develop a instrument on limitations and exceptions for persons with a print disability.
This is a significant real world issue for those millions of people around the world who have a print disability. Access to works in a accessible format is key to ensuring that those with a print disability are able to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds on a equal basis with others.
The Australian copyright act already recognizes this important public interest, by providing statutory licenses and free use exceptions allowing accessible format works to be made available to persons with a print disability.
Australia has also recently signed a memorandum of understanding with WIPO on the terms of a two million dollars donation to WIPO for IP and development issues, some of that money has been set aside for thety gar project. Australia seesty gar and a outcome from this Committee as complimentary strategies both based on willing partnerships with publishers and organisations assisting the print disabled to achieve a effective and sustainable framework for access to copyright works.
This Committee has made good progress towards agreement on text that will deliver better access for persons with a print disability and recognize the legitimate interests of authors and publishers.
Audiovisual performers waited many years for their moment in Beijing but Australia hopes the next General Assembly will provide the break through for which persons with a print disability have been waiting.
For this to happen though this meeting must keep the momentum towards a agreement. Much has been said about the form of the instrument that the Committee is considering. Australia's view is that the instrument with further development of the text can be developed as a treaty to provide proper recognition of the legitimate needs of persons with a print disability.
Australia considers that the outcome of the Committee's work should be a treaty which can operate where there is market failure in the supply and distribution of works in accessible formats for persons with a print disability, does not hinder technical advancements for commercial distribution of works in accessible formats, encourages a harmonized international approach to copyright limitations and exceptions, safeguards the legitimate commercial interests of authors and publishers and is based on the three step test in article 9 of the Berne Convention.
If there is significant progress made this week towards finalizing a baldz text -- balanced text, the balances the legitimate interests of authors and publishers as well as needs of persons with a print disability Australia can support a recommendation to the General Assembly that it consider whether to convey in a Diplomatic Conference to conclude a treaty.
Australia remains committed to contributing to the work of the Committee over the coming days, on this important issue. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Iran to be followed by Peru.
>> ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Asian Group fully committed to the successful result of negotiations on exceptions and limitations for the benefit of visually impaired persons, and we think that in new international instrument could make a significant step in alleviating the challenges of visually impaired persons which they are facing. Its common responsibility of all of us to find a effective and swift solution to the challenges of visually impaired persons and assure their access to educational, cultural and informational materials and guarantee sustainable accessibility of these persons to the copyrighted work.
For that purpose we have prepared to continue text-based work on establishing a international instrument on the base of document SCCR 23/7. This document should be based on any formal and informal text work in this Committee. We believe that we assure successful result from this session and recommend General Assembly for convening it possible Diplomatic Conference it would be imperative that all Member States engage with good faith and inclusive and transparent process to develop our working document.
We invite all Member States which may have any textual proposals to bring them forward in a clear and transparent manner. The Asian Group looks forward to creative and inclusive discussion in order to forge progress, with the final objective of bringing all Member States on board. We remain open-ended and flexible on the format of discussion, bearing in mind that any fruitful outcome needs to have the blessing of all parties both process and substantive-wise.
Furthermore, the nature of these documents should be discussed at some stage of these negotiations as this will also have a impact on the substance of the text.
We also have the view that any informal process to develop working documents should be open-ended, and inclusive. The formation of regional coordinator plus 2 does not work for the substantive negotiation in this Committee.
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Uruguay, sorry, Peru to be followed by Uruguay.
>> PERU: Thank you, Chair. On behalf of the group of Latin-American and Caribbean countries GRULAC of which met this morning, we would like to point out our major interest that the countries here present make the greatest efforts with a view to concluding a instrument on exceptions and limitations for visually impaired persons, VIPs. This is one of the principal objectives of our work here in this session this week. And we consider because it is ready, we could produce a recommendation in the General Assembly with a view to convening a Diplomatic Conference on the issue, on this urgent theme which GRULAC as well as other regional groups has fostered and promoted since the beginning.
Consistent with this proposal, the GRULAC recommendation would like to suggest as a group that we adopt a working methodology with a view to this objective to not replace the plenary sessions but would rather complement these sessions. The plenary sessions would be for every country to make their presentation, and then conclude a process of transparency which we all are seeking throughout these days.
So in this way, the plenary would be followed by work in the regional groups where the member countries in their respective regional groups would be able to work with a view to harmonizing their proposals, in order to advance the proposal and enabling in a third moment to have sessions in which the regional groups share the progress made, so as to speedily achieve the work and objective that we are seeking, so GRULAC members as well as other members in proposal of the clusters would like to propose this as a working methodology.
Mr. Chairman, for GRULAC, all the themes of the session are equally important. They have their right time and their right opportunity, though we do consider the text and VIPs is at a readier stage, and this is why we would like to convene the General Assembly. We would like to make the same efforts in other spheres having to do with exceptions and limitations. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Uruguay, followed by Egypt.
>> Uruguay: Thank you, Chairman.
We share what was expressed by the coordinator of GRULAC, as this Committee recognized in its last session persons who are visually impaired with a print disability need our urgent attention. In this context, it's essential for WIPO to display leadership in removing the obstacles that affect these persons.
This is what we stressed in other occasions that we are now at a time when the production of knowledge is increasing in a exponential way, and new tools will enable us to disseminate knowledge to all of humanity such as is mandated, the principles of information society. It would not be a good signal if a badly designed copyright, one of the major pillars of knowledge, and the greater incentives of benefit to authors and creators, not provide the necessary flow of information to the most vulnerable persons who rely so much on technological progress. This is why, Chairman, for Uruguay, copyright should guarantee the legitimate moral and economic interests of creators and authors and provide access to works to serve the needs of all of society, in a cycle of mutual benefits, and minimal standards of exceptions and limitations offers the possibility of guaranteeing the individual and public interests.
And in this case, would facilitate the access of a major amount of literature with persons with a print disability who have a unjustified obstacle to, because they have incomplete copyright. This task of perfecting our system of copyright to provide a speedy and fair solution to people with a print disability is urgent, because persons with a print disability face true obstacles, but also because we have to maintain the international legitimacy of the copyright system, which is based on the harmony of all human rights. In this regard, we should keep in mind that WIPO, as the U.N. specialized agency, must seek a solution to these urgent problems, as provided in the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, from 2007.
We must recall that article 1 specifically recognized as a social imperative that states parties must adopt the relevant measures to guarantee access to persons with disability in equal conditions with others to information, communication, and systems of technology and improve the dissemination of works through technological methods, in accessible and fair methods. This is in no way a substitute for the responsibility of this body, and its Member States, to facilitate a standards framework, which is in accordance with the legitimate needs of persons with disability.
This is appropriate for analog media. We do confer the exceptions and limitations to copyright, particularly imperatives as cited in the Berne Convention. This is accepted and ratified by Member States of this organisation. These international standards will enable the establishment of a sections and limitations to the benefit of disabled persons.
This conventional framework is still unsatisfactory. For this reason, because it does not specifically consider the need of persons with a print disability, because the exceptions that the states have established at the national level are limited and are of a ad hoc nature, which makes it more difficult to make access to persons with disability.
And finally, a expression of common minimum standards which respond to everyone's interests will only be achieved with international collective work. The implementation of the mandate of the convention on persons with a disability within the copyright framework is the work of this Committee. And this is why we entrust that with development of exceptions and limitations for persons with a print disability will provide guidance to state, Member States, to implement the convention, to enable these persons to live independently, and to fully participate in our society in a way that does not affect the legitimate needs of copyright, rights holders and related rights.
Since 2009 we have a text adopted by the Committee, in 2011, a document which SCR23/7, without prejudice, that we have carried out informal consultations. We understand that we are soon going to arrive at a consensus text, and that it will be time for this Committee to make a recommendation to the General Assembly to convene a Diplomatic Conference. In Beijing, related to artists and authors, that they would protect, this is the time we say a treaty for the print disability, the time has come.
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, I give the floor to Egypt to be followed by India.
>> EGYPT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Egypt is pleased to make the statement of the African Group and African Group would like first of all to thank the delegation of Australia and other delegations who have clearly supported a treaty for VIP, and the call for the conference, to adopt this treaty.
This has become a urgent need of the SCR to fulfill, and the African Group supports this objective.
The African Group would like also to welcome the working document on international legal instrument on limitations and exceptions for visually impaired persons, that was adopted by the Committee in its last session to constitute the basis of the text-based work for SCR24. Document SCR23/7.
The African Group recalls the conclusions reached in SCR23, that the aim of SCR24 text based work is to agree and finalize a proposal for international legal instrument on effective limitations and exceptions for visually impaired persons.
As the group has emphasized in its opening statement before SCR24, there is a need to advance this work in order to ensure the welfare needs and development of visually impaired persons, and people with physical disabilities, in Africa and indeed all over the world to empower them with a treaty that capture effective exceptions and limitations allowing them fully to fully exercise the right of access to information, education and knowledge.
In this regard, the group recalls the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and particular article 21, that state shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise the right of freedom of expressions and opinion, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information through all forms of communication of their choice, including accessible formats and technologies appropriate to different kinds of disabilities, in a timely manner, and without additional cost.
In addition, article 24 of the convention recognized the rights of persons with disabilities to education, and obliging Member States to ensure the education of persons in particular children who are blind, deaf or deaf/blind, as delivered the most appropriate languages and modes and means of communication.
Mr. Chairman, throughout the past SCR negotiations the African Group has always supported the need and just cause of visually impaired persons and people with other disabilities to have a WIPO treaty, with effective copyright limitations and exceptions to ensure the right of full and equal access to information, culture and communication. To expand on, accessible formats, and to ensure access to those works.
While also aware that the majority of visually impaired persons live in developing countries, the group has actively engaged in all phases of the negotiations, and submitted a treaty proposal for the benefit of visually impaired persons, and people with other disabilities.
As SCR approaches the final stages of negotiations, the group would like to state once more its position regarding the important development and legal imperatives that aim to ensure the needs of visually impaired persons are satisfied and the WIPO treaty with effective exceptions and limitations.
Firstly ensuring the legal exceptions and limitations allow for visually impaired persons to access and use the works. In this regard SCR24 is invited to reach a collective decision regarding the nature of the instrument to be a treaty with binding exceptions and limitations for all contracting parties.
Secondly, enshurpg the accessibility, especially for African countries to use the permitted exceptions and limitations, especially in relation to the rights of free production, translation, distribution, and cross-border exchange of accessible format copies and protection measures.
Therefore, the group has emphasized the need to reconsider the definition of toward entity, which is currently have reservation by the group, especially because African countries do not have authorized entities and operate in environments, not conducive to them, and therefore a certain amount of flexibility is needed in this respect.
In the same vein the definition of reasonable price for developing countries must be affordable, and subject to national variations, so that each developing country can have the flexibility to determine what is reasonable price.
Thirdly, there is a need for a new article on the nature and scope of obligations, so as to ensure contracting parties shall adopt appropriate measures to implement the permitted exceptions and limitations, and that the treaty provisions will be implemented, taking into account the special needs of developing countries, as well as different levels of development of contracting parties.
Fourthly, the right to exercise the permitted exceptions and limitations permitted for the benefit of visually impaired persons should not be constrained, or rendered difficult to use in apply and practice. Therefore, there is a need to clarify the relationship or scope of application of the three step test which is development oriented with this, development oriented interpretation to the permitted exceptions and limitations under the treaty. This clarification should account for the distinction between exceptions which require no denomination as determined by the nonprofit nature of the use, and those limitations that are subject to some form of reasonable remuneration because of the convention or for profit nature of the use at issue.
Mr. Chairman, while we welcome the significant progress of negotiations and exceptions and limitations for visually impaired persons, and people with other disabilities, the African Group takes this opportunity to express its desire to achieve significant advances for exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives, education and research.
The African Group, which is of course the right to submit additional remarks during the course of negotiations and would like to emphasize its readiness to engage constructively with our negotiating parties so as to realize the important objective of this Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I give the floor to India to be followed by China.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indian delegation is a little bit disappointed about the way we started this topic, visually impaired treaty. Fore give me, Mr. Chairman, we have confidence in your abilities but unfortunately we have already lost one hour in this afternoon session. We have only two hours left. Unless and until we decide to work beyond 6:00.
We have a document, SCCR 23/7 on our table. Everybody has the document. We all decided in the last SCCR that we will work on this document and move towards a meaningful treaty we said, in this very 24th SCCR, which will be ready for that, which all started article by article discussions by this time now. And as we are involving in the general statements, even our agenda statement, I can go on reading it for another 20 minutes about five pages.
But we are supporting the document, and then, I'm sorry, I respect all the distinguished delegations. They have their own concerns to inform. But Mr. Chairman, under your leadership we should start article by article discussions. Yesterday what happened in the evening, the Chairman plus group leaders plus 3, we are all request to that, whatever happened during the 14, 15 intersessional meetings, we have no objection to that, but people raise the issue of transparency and availability of the document, and whatever changes have been made to the document.
If anyone is not ready to post that document either during the informal discussions, or during the plenary, they can always come out with the changes made to particular article, or para in the preamble when the discussion starts.
So we should be ready to work towards finalizing this treaty, even we are open to work on Saturday and Sunday, Mr. Chairman.
If we don't finalize in this SCCR, we cannot go to the General Assembly in the month of October first week. If we lose that time, we will have to wait for, until the next General Assembly, because we cannot have General Assembly in between.
So we will be simply wasting our time in the November SCCR and again next July SCCR waiting for the next General Assembly.
So kindly guide us to start some discussions on the text-based article by article discussions, so that we won't go back, especially the Indian delegation won't go back empty-handed, facing the 15 million blind population in India, which is almost 50 percent of the world population, that is 37 million. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, India. I take note of those very valid suggestions that you have made.
I will give the floor to China to be followed by Brazil.
>> CHINA: Thank you, Chairman. The delegation of China would like to begin by extending thanks to the WIPO Secretariat for all the work that they have done.
We would also like to thank the many delegations who have contributed to the work, and we recognize that progress has been made on limitations and exceptions for persons with print disabilities.
We thank you all for that. The Chinese government continues to attach importance to the exercise of cultural and educational rights for persons with disabilities, including persons with print disabilities.
We have a great deal of regulation in this area, and in accordance with our regulation, limitations and exceptions are defined, as they apply to persons with disabilities including those with print disabilities.
The government of China continues to support further discussion on this topic, and we also support further discussion on how to improve the way in which persons with disabilities can enjoy access to information.
We believe that this is something that should be dealt with under the auspices of the SCCR with a view to moving towards a Diplomatic Conference. We hope that tangible results will be obtained. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I want to mention the names that I have on the list for general statements. Venezuela, Brazil, followed by Venezuela, Singapore, Kenya, EU, Paraguay and the U.S. Chile. Switzerland. And South Africa, Argentina.
I will take those statements as, I will take those as a list for general statements, and then we will move to, Ecuador -- we will move to textual work.
So that is the close of the list. Brazil, you have the floor.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to everyone.
I'm taking the floor in my national capacity. At the outset I would like to support the statement made by the GRULAC on the issue. Before text based work starts on the drafting of a legal instrument establishing copyright exceptions and limitations for persons with print disabilities, I think we should put negotiations on this issue into historical perspective.
There seems to be needed at this stage for at least two reasons. First, most people directly involved in the drafting and approval at SCCR in November, 2010, of the current work programme on exceptions and limitations are not here today. The natural rotation of officers among delegations to the SCCR can unfortunately contribute to the loss of collective and institutional memory.
The second reason, in close link to the first one, is the fact that there seems to be a good deal of misunderstanding in the air about the process we are engaged in here.
Rumors seems to be prevailing over facts. Even seriously specialized media that usually are well-informed on ongoing IP discussions, international organisations, seems to be misinformed and there by fueling even inadvertently this hot airment we were surprised to read in one of them IP watch that there are secretive intersessional process on a treaty for the visually impaired was going on in the runup to this session. They were told of course Brazil is not aware of any secret process.
Let me now share information with all of you on the nature of the process as we see it from the angle of my delegation, one that from the very beginning has been directly involved in the negotiations, as one of the chief demanders on behalf of organisations gathering blind people across the world.
We must set a record straight if we wish to make progress, as I believe all of us here wish. Let me first say that all relevant information on the entire process on negotiations including proposals by member countries can be found in the reports on the SCCR which are fully available to anyone interested in WIPO's Website.
This history so far is is there for anyone to see it. The work programme adopted in November 2010 provides for negotiation of international instrument or instruments, in four areas. Following a global and inclusive approach, while at the same time recognizing the need for advance the more mature areas.
The work programme has always been negotiated and approved as a sequential or incremental undertaking. Moving forward, according to different levels of maturity has never meant proceeding according to different levels of priority.
Since the approval of the work programme, negotiations on exceptions and limitations for people with print disabilities recognized as the more material area from the start, evolved swiftly. Considerable progress was made in relatively short time, in spite of difference regarding the scope of the exceptions and limitations and the nature of the instrument under negotiation.
Indeed, by June, 2011, a limited set of issues stood in the way of a conclusion of a international instrument. Let me say that to help that process, interested delegations met informally during the first half of 2011, twice at the Brazilian mission. Brazil always invited several delegations, and anyone interested was more than welcome.
We always wanted a multi-lateral instrument that included all parties. In the SCCR session held last year, more work was undertaken which resulted in working document SCCR/23/7.
This was and remains the basis for our text-based work starting today.
What has happened since the last session of SCRR is the following. In a spirit to help further advance the negotiations, some delegations, including Brazil, European Union, Mexico and United States, decided to meet informally to try to narrow down differences on the basis of the existing working document.
I repeat, on the basis of the existing working document, SCRR/23/7. Brazil holds that one of those informal meetings, the European Union hosted another to which were invited countries from all continents. In order to ensure transparency, consistency, continuity, the then incoming Chairman of the SCCR, Ambassador from Zambia was also invited and attended informal meetings. The results of the meeting in the form of possible amendments to certain provisions of the working document were circulated to participating countries, with no restriction whatsoever to its distribution among other members.
We are looking forward to sharing those results with all members during this session of the SCCR.
Mr. Chairman, I venture to say the swept progress in the V.I.P. negotiations was made possible because a strong underlying consensus prevails among members concerning the special nature of the issue we are negotiating.
It's a copyright issue, that has a clear human rights dimension. The need to ensure that copyright is not a barrier to equal access to information, culture, and education, for people with print disabilities, reading disabilities.
Negotiations so far have focused on technical aspects of the proposals and the working document. Throughout this almost three years of negotiations, we saw no proposals to establish any conditional linkage between the negotiations on the treaty for the visually impaired on the one hand, and negotiations on the other topics in SCRR agenda or in other bodies of WIPO on the other hand.
Any such linkages would not be justifiable on ethical grounds when the issue at stakes benefits integrity of disabled persons. Members that did not have a interest in the treaty such as Brazil acknowledge that it should be concluded before the instrument for persons with print disabilities.
In fact, this session of the SCRR has been postponed and has taken place in July for only one reason, that some delegations expressed a preference that Beijing conference should take place before the SCRR so as to remove any possible barrier for the approval of the AV P treaty. Now, the Beijing treaty.
Mr. Chairman, the more advanced area under negotiations today in the SCCR is that of sessions -- exceptions and limitations for persons with print disabilities.
>>> We should avoid a attempt between striking balance between this area and broadcasting organisation goes, there is no possible cross-linkage between a instrument with a clear human rights dimension and one motivated by essentially business interests. The only effect of possible tieing these two issues together would be to undermine the confidence built in WIPO process in Beijing and to threaten to block the whole SCCR agenda.
This happened in the first half of 2010, when the SCRR and we have no agreed conclusions at all. We should avoid that happening again.
For this reason, let us not hide behind supposed flaws in process. There are no such different cults in process -- difficulties in process. Let us instead move positively towards the conclusion of a treaty on exceptions and limitations for persons with print disabilities. I thank you.
(applause).
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Brazil. I give the floor to Venezuela to be followed by Singapore.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Venezuela shares what was expressed by the representative of GRULAC with a exception which will certainly, that might appear to be a position of GRULAC minus Venezuela, which is to put at the same parameter, at the same level, a treaty on broadcasting with treaty on V.I.P.es. Venezuela doesn't consider it like this.
Venezuela considers that the VIP issue is much more mature than broadcasting, and it would be a contradiction with what we said yesterday if we thought that this organisation on broadcasting would only be a issue for the future.
Mr. Chairman, the only way this organisation can be considered more human, more social and inclusive is related to a outcome on this issue that is treaty with visually impaired persons. We can't imagine agenda for development, nor development without inclusion. Thereby it is necessary in this Committee to guarantee the right of VIPs to have access to materials protected by copyright, so that they can have free development of the personality, access to education and culture among other human rights recognized in the human rights charter.
Mr. Chairman, a agreement on this issue is very important for the millions of persons in the world who are visually impaired, particularly in developing countries, but also it's a debt of this organisation with the demands of our region which are characterized by being, that is to create a balance between the permanent disputes which are carried out in the forum.
This doesn't mean, Mr. Chairman, this should be clear, that our region and for example and for in any event Venezuela can't block other agreements or other attempts at agreement within the WIPO.
I think we should bear in mind in this meeting this situation, because no, Mr. Chairman, no relationship, even marriage or principally marriage can be maintained if there is only one of the persons which gives way. In our region, which place special emphasis on visually impaired persons, wants to see results on this issue.
So that we all feel more or less satisfied. In the last meeting, Mr. Chairman, Venezuela, this is a error which appears in the document, it only, we only proposed a new article in page 50 and 52 in Spanish. In Spanish, when we say in the last paragraph, other interests, other public interests, in other public interests, shouldn't be there, in English. So page 50 in English, as well as the footnote on page 51, 34, it appears with that. And this public, should be without a S in the Spanish version, it's correct. Thank you very much, Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Venezuela. Singapore to be followed by Kenya.
>> Singapore: We thank the Chairman for the floor. The Committee has been striving over a number of meetings to address the very real need of the visually impaired, and persons with print disabilities, to have access to copyrighted works. To that end, we thank the Secretariat for preparing SCCR 23/7, and all the delegations that have put forward their views there in. We recognize there are complex issues to be addressed as the Committee works towards creating much needed limitations and exceptions for deserving beneficiaries while dealing with stakeholders and in a equitable fashion.
Due consideration must be given to the technical and other interventions contained in SCCR/23/7, as we move forward in our work.
Taking the above concerns into account, we are of the view that limitations and exceptions are critical parts of the overall framework of copyright protections to better serve our people. While we seek to protect the legitimate interests of authors, performers and other stakeholders, we should also secure the well-being of the underprivileged with a balanced copyright regime.
The proposed treaty contained in SCCR 22/16 and thereafter incorporated into SCCR 23/7 forms a good base for further discussions. For this reason, Singapore supports continued work on the issues of limitations and exceptions, for the visually impaired and persons with print disabilities.
We urge WIPO and all Member States to build on the success of the Beijing treaty, and work expeditiously towards resolving all outstanding issues on this topic. We have a commitment to deliver a recommendation on a treaty for the visually impaired and persons with disabilities, to the General Assembly noting that we are already one year behind, the agreed time line set out in the conclusions of the 21st SCCR. Singapore calls for the Committee to finally put a end to the book famine as so trench antly described by the World Blind Union. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Singapore. Kenya to be followed by the EU.
>> KENYA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My delegate renders its support to the statement made by Egypt, on behalf of the African Group.
The situation on the ground is that about 1 percent of the blind in Kenya have no access to knowledge, or why still is the fact that the larger part of the group are illiterate.
This therefore results to unequal provision of the right to education. Therefore, the conclusion of the VIP instrument on exceptions and limitations will be most welcome, and we assure this Committee of our support. However, we wish to emphasize the document must be seen to provide for the situation on the ground where you are not only dealing with VIPs in the cities, but also in villages, where they are mostly disadvantaged by limited media access to information.
And therefore, the instrument should cater for practical usages that would see the VIPs all over the world benefit from this instrument. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Kenya. I now give the floor to the EU to be followed by Paraguay.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Mr. Chairman, the European Union and its Member States would like to thank you and the WIPO Secretariat for the work on exceptions and limitations for the visually impaired persons.
Mr. Chairman, in the last twelve months, we have made considerable progress to find a solution to these very specific problems with a very specific objective, to remove barriers which prevent the access of the visually impaired persons to works in accessible formats and to help in a secure manner the cross border distribution of such special formats.
The European Union and its Member States find it important to make further progress and thus find a solution on this high priority file.
At the last session in this Committee, we had fruitful discussions on a new proposal for a international instrument on limitations and exceptions for persons with print disabilities, prepare and tabled by the Chair.
Based on the comments made by the delegations, original groups during the debate, and the following drafting exercise, the Secretariat prepared the working document SCRR/23/7. We believe that this document is a important contribution to the future work.
In between the sessions of the SCCR, the European Union and its Member States have participated in informal consultations with delegations from other regional groups. These consultations have been joined by a increasing number of Member States and the European Union and its Member States welcome these widening of consultations. We have found these consultations very useful and look forward to continuing the discussions and contributing in a constructive manner.
The European Union and its Member States consider that the way to make further progress on this file is to continue working on a solid text that enhances the availability of works in accessible format to visually impaired persons, while being mindful of the need to have effective protection of the rights of creators.
The European Union and its Member States are ready to achieve further convergence in our discussions and believe certain effective balance and flexible text should be within reach. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, EU. I give the floor to Paraguay to be followed by the U.S
>> Paraguay: Thank you, Chairman. For Paraguay, the time has come. It can't be that more than 300 million visually impaired persons, because of legal issues related to our legislation, our national and international legislation, are unable to have access to knowledge and culture.
These persons have and should enjoy the same rights as normal persons. This is why this standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights in its 24th session has an historic responsibility to give a signal which will give rise to a international mechanism to protect these persons. Paraguay has cosponsored this initiative right from the start, because of its sensitivity and interest to this issue.
In our country, we have thousands of persons who have no access to culture, to learning, simply because of legal matters, and this is why that we urge this Committee, as a member of this Committee, to work and take a step forward, make progress. For us, the General Assembly in 2012 must convene a Diplomatic Conference and thus have a legal valuable instrument which can serve to all parties with disability.
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. U.S. to be followed by Chile.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The United States is mindsful of the remarks of the distinguished delegate of India and his kindness in not reading the five-page document that he had prepared. So we will try to keep it short.
First of all, we like the distinguished delegate of Iran on behalf of the Asia group is committed, we are committed to engage in good faith in a process that is as transparent and inclusive as possible.
And we sincerely appreciate the remarks by the distinguished delegate of Iran that the Asia group is willing to accept, is open-ended in its views on the format. So are we.
We want discussions that succeed, discussions that are positive, discussions that get us to the finish line, and the format, the approach is not so important as the success.
We are also appreciative of the statement made by the distinguished delegate of Egypt on behalf of the Africa group, and we appreciate him identifying the areas of concern that are important to the Africa group, and our delegation works, looks forward to working closely with them to address each of the areas that he had identified.
Like our distinguished colleagues from India, the United States is prepared to work today and tomorrow and Saturday and Sunday and Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday to get this issue finished.
In fact, when the possibility of informal consultations or informal meetings became clear in 2011, the United States participated actively in those, and hosted one of those in addition to our colleagues in the European Union and Brazil.
The problem of those meetings was not the lack of inclusiveness. I can attest that the problem was often getting national delegations to come. It wasn't that the door was closed. It is that the door was open and we were trying to get people to walk through it.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I do want to address a important issue that was raised by the distinguished delegation of Brazil, and that is the question of linkages.
Regrettably, there has been a new shadow come over the issue of our efforts on print disabilities, and that is the possibility that one or more delegations seeks to link our efforts on print disabilities to what our colleague and friend described as a project on business interests.
For the United States, we do think this Committee has important work to do for business interests, because business interests create economic opportunities, create educational opportunities, and are the drivers of much of the wealth that all of our people enjoy.
But we do not accept any form of linkage between the effort on behalf of the world's print disabled people and any other project.
To us, such a linkage between the print disabilities effort and an effort for business affairs would be unprincipled, it would be unethical, and the United States will not have any part of it.
So, Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with everyone on this. We believe tremendous progress can be made, and we look forward to your guidance to achieve a successful conclusion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Chile to be followed by South Africa.
>> CHILE: Thank you, Chairman. We will be very brief, so that we can work directly on the text.
We have three brief points to mention.
First of all, we believe that all issues on the agenda of this Committee respond to the interest of one or more delegations.
However, for my delegation, the issue we are discussing at this time, that is, the theme of visually impaired persons, does have a greater value than the other issues on the agenda.
Just as was mentioned recently by Brazil and the United States, we do not believe that this issue should in any way be linked with other discussions in the framework of this Committee.
I'm referring certainly to the discussions on broadcasting organisations. Secondly, my delegation subscribes to the need to, during this session, make a recommendation to the General Assembly, so that they convene a Diplomatic Conference on visually impaired persons.
And finally, thirdly, that is, we believe that during this session, we must make progress as much as possible in achieving consensus on the text that we have before us today.
In order to do this, we think in a first phase today it will be necessary for delegations and certainly NGOs have a opportunity to express their views and comments in plenary.
However, subsequently, we believe that it would be useful for a small group, small open-ended group to all interested delegations, that is, can work in discussing certain areas in which there is not yet complete agreement.
And finally, Chairman, we believe that the theme of visually impaired persons is a subject which has been discussed for a reasonable and cautious period of time, and more important still, without prejudice to the fact that there being legitimate differences in the text, we think that the majority of delegations do have the political will to provide a speedy and final solution to persons with visually impaired, who are visually impaired.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: South Africa, to be followed by Switzerland.
>> SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I must say it is a pleasure to see you presiding over this meeting as well.
We just wanted to associate ourselves as South Africa with the statement made by Egypt on behalf of the Africa group. My delegation fully supports the work on the exceptions and limitations for the visually impaired persons.
South Africa has commitment to the needs of the visually impaired as a constitutional matter which has further found expression in the establishment of a special ministry for the people with disability including the visually impaired.
We sincerely hope that this session will substantially make progress towards concluding a effective instrument to facilitate access to copyrighted works by the visually impaired persons. South Africa's view is that whatever the nature of the instrument that is adopted, it must take into account the developmental challenges faced by various Member States origins, we are committed to working in a constructive manner and in the spirit of compromise and flexibility with all partners, in assuring a successful outcome to this process. I thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, South Africa. Switzerland to be followed by Argentina.
>> SWITZERLAND: Thank you, Chairman. The Swiss delegation would like to associate itself with all delegations preceding it, to point to the importance of a speedily achieving a result on the question of exceptions and limitations for visually impaired persons, and persons with print disability.
For our delegation, this means a conclusive result during this session of the SCR, SCCR. Our Committee cannot miss this opportunity this week as very eloquently raised by India before us.
Our Committee has worked in a in-depth matter on this subject in preceding sessions and a draft text for a international instrument was able to emerge, which is SCRR23/7. Although very advanced, this document is not yet at a stage of full maturity to be adopted by this Committee.
Otherwise, we would have already done it in preceding sessions.
And improvements are still necessary to reach the necessary level of comfort and maturity which will enable a positive decision on the part of our Committee this week.
Our delegation is certain, however, that if we all display constructive engagement during the session this week, as we did in Beijing, just a few days ago, we will be able to find compromise solutions which are mutually satisfactory on the last open points and reach a very positive result, and our Committee will thus be able to satisfactory recommend it to the General Assembly and thus fulfill its mandate.
Mr. Chairman, we all tend to want perfection and that is certainly praiseworthy but at this stage of our work, our delegation no longer thinks it's timely to seek a level of perfection which breaks further this week the achievement of a fair and positive result. But this result has been expected for too long a time now. Various delegations who are very active in this negotiation and have a great deal contributed to this document SCCR 23/7 met in the intersessional period to have the draft instrument progress further toward a consensus instrument.
Our delegation was invited to one of these meetings, where there were very interesting discussions held, related to various provisions. We also met and exchanged views with the representatives of associations of the blind, as well as publishers. We hope that the results of these meetings will help the work of this week in order to finalize a text.
After this first turn of general comments, we can only support you, Mr. Chairman, for us to speedily begin to examine the various articles of the draft instrument, while recognizing and fully supporting the principles of transparency and inclusiveness, our delegation would like however to point to the utility of our, pursuing our work also in a more restricted group, including all interested parties, following the instructions that you set up yesterday so as to work speedily and concretely towards finalizing the text.
We have had successful experiences with this format on other subjects in this house, particularly when we had to launch ourselves into drafting activities, because it does enable more direct exchange between delegations. Therefore, we should certainly not renounce on having that this week.
Mr. Chairman, you can count on the constructive contribution of our delegation, so that this Committee can finalize the text this week. Thank you very much, Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Argentina, and then Ecuador.
>> ARGENTINA: Thank you very much, Chairman.
Argentina would like to associate itself with the statements of Peru on behalf of GRULAC, Uruguay, Brazil, India, Singapore and Chile. We would also like to congratulate the delegation of Australia for its confirmation that a treaty is the real and effective solution for visually impaired persons, and to have them have access to text.
We hope that in this session, which is the last before the next General Assemblies, we will be able to give a clear idea to this assembly so that they take the decisions in order for visually impaired persons can, who are here today with us at the back of the room, and have been waiting for this for such a long time, that is, the convening of a Diplomatic Conference to find a legal framework, a legal solution to a real problem.
We understand that this time there is the real political will on the part of all members to finalize this text, for which as other delegations have said it's at a very advanced stage.
All delegations preceding me expressed their interest in advancing now in this text, and recognize the major progress that has taken place since the last session of this Committee.
Argentina has consulted and discussed with various interested parties in our country before attending this session, and we are ready to discuss the text now with interested parties, in order to achieve a result which can be sent to the General Assemblies this year. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Ecuador.
>> ECUADOR: Thank you, Chairman.
Our delegation, as one of the three proponents with Brazil and Paraguay, which initiated this draft text for a treaty of exceptions for visually impaired persons, are certain that thanks to the work done by members of this Committee, the effort and sacrifice of civil society organisations in particular, particularly the world association of the blind, that inspired us and accompanied us in this long trip, we are certain that we are very close to our destination.
Mr. Chairman, for our delegation, it is a moral and legal imperative in light of human rights such as the international convention for persons with disabilities, as was mentioned by the delegation of Uruguay, this is the time to take the step remaining for this Committee, that is to agree on a text which will serve as a basis for a treaty, so that the Diplomatic Conference can be convened very briefly by the General Assemblies.
Ecuador last June has just adapted its legislature to recognize exceptions for persons who are visually impaired unanimously. This makes us full of pride and happiness. Now we hope, anxiously, to celebrate very soon a international treaty which provides this protection to all persons with disability who deserve not only in certain countries but throughout the world this protection.
In this context, we take this opportunity to reiterate the will and commitment of our delegation to work with the required urgency as was expressed by the delegation of India.
We must enter fully into substantive discussions without further delay. Thank you very much, Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Ecuador. You recall that the Chair had invoked rule 17 by announcing the list and closing the list of speakers and Ecuador was my last speaker.
I thank you very much for your cooperation in this rerespects. I think we have all heard how committed we are, and determined to conclude this work in this session, and to proceed to work on the text as expeditiously as possible.
With all that commitment, that as I've heard around this room, I think it is time to translate it into real work, by having a spirit of cooperation amongst yourselves, so that we are able to agree on the text, and reach a conclusion for recommendation.
I think that those statements that we have made are very positive. But they will be more meaningful if they are translated in real work. Those that stand to benefit from our work have been eagerly waiting for years for this outcome.
So I think that we need to commence work in earnest, and therefore I invite contributions on the text, starting with the preamble section. The floor is open. Brazil.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very happy to start this text-based discussions and hope to be very fruitful.
On the preamble, the first preamble of the draft text, we have, recalling the principles on nondiscrimination, etcetera, our delegation would like to insert after proclaimed, I quote, in the universal declaration of human rights and it continues, the United Nations convention.
I'm going to read how the preamble would read in our suggestion. Recalling the principles of nondiscrimination, equal opportunity, accessibility and full and effective participation and inclusion in society, proclaimed in the universal declaration of human rights, and the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.
This is our suggestion for the first preamble. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. U.S.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The United States would like to propose what we think is a streamlining and clarification of the second prea.m. bull are -- preamblear. Let me give a little backgrounds on that. The second preamblear refers to freedom of expression and freedom to seek information.
For those of us who have been working together informally, we were concerned to map properly the description of the freedoms and rights onto existing international conventions.
So we went and did some research on the United Nations declaration on human rights, and of course, the recent United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities.
And looking at the precise language of those, we would like to propose the following substitution for the seconds prea.m. blar.
It is as follows. It is only slight changes. I'll read it. Mindful of the challenges that are prejudicial to the complete development of persons with visual impairments/print disabilities, comma, which limit their freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, comma, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds on a equal basis with others including through all forms of communication of their choice and their enjoyment of the right to education.
So I can read that again. I will read it again much faster. Mindful of the challenges that are prejudicial to the complete development of persons with visual impairments/print disabilities which limit their freedom of expression including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds on a equal basis with others, including through all forms of communication of their choice and their enjoyment of the right to education.
Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to provide that language. But let me explain that the freedom of expression and the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas comes from article 19 of the U.N. declaration of human rights, while the right of education comes from article 26 of the U.N. declaration of human rights as well as one of our colleagues already described article 24 of the U.N. convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.
So we carefully researched this to properly track the right language. Finally, Mr. Chairman, in this suggestion from the United States, we are suggesting that we use the phrase, persons with visual impairments/print disabilities, both here and throughout the document, subject to the Committee later deciding on a final phrase, or staying with that phrase.
And again, we would be happy to provide this language to the Secretariat. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I give the floor to Mexico to be followed by India.
>> MEXICO: Thank you, Chairman. For the third preamblear paragraph I'd also like to make a few small amendments to the original text of the document.
I'm going to read this out, but I would like to explain, it's a very minor amendment, which we think will provide greater clarity to the text. I'll read it in English. The importance of copyright protection as a incentive and reward, as additional, this was added, reward, artistic creations and enhancing opportunities for everyone including persons with visual impairments/print disabilities.
This part of the sentence is also a new addition, persons with visual impairments and print disabilities, life of the community to enjoy the arts, enjoy scientific progress and its benefits.
Progress is also a new proposal, which would replace the original version which is advancement. We think it's more appropriate. Thank you, Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I give the floor to India, to be followed by Brazil.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These are our initial reactions to the three amendments proposed to the para 1, para 2, para 3, by the Brazilian delegation and the U.S. and Mexico respectively.
Amendment to para, we have no objection for inclusion of the universal declaration of rights, but in the para 2, and para 3, the expression persons with visual impairments/print disabilities, actually, this has been explained in the beneficiary persons, the paragraph article B, beneficiary persons.
Instead of mentioning again persons with impairment and print disabilities, we can simply mention beneficiary persons here in all the paragraphs of the preamble, number one.
In the second paragraph, the U.S. suggestion, it stops abruptly, the right to education. It should include right to education and research, the topic research has been I think removed there. In the original text, the right to education and research is existing. So that word research to be continued in the paragraph 2.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, India. U.S., you want the floor?
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick response to the distinguished delegate and our good friend from I understandia. We are -- India. We are open to discussion on research. The problem was we did not find a right to research when we were examining the conventions. We would be happy to sit down with India and look for the precise language to track what the status of freedom of research is.
So we would be eager to do that with our Indian colleagues.
Our friend from India mentioned that the definition is already in article 2 of the beneficiary person. We are mindful of that. But this is the preamble.
And the preamble is read before one has the benefit of any of the definitions in the articles. So for us, the preamble has to be read as though you know nothing about the document. It is the beginning of the story.
That is why we don't think you can say beneficiary persons so early on. You have to describe the class of people that this instrument is going to work toward.
So we would be happy to discuss that with our friends from India as well. But we do think that there is a important reason to say persons with print disabilities, persons with visual impairments here.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Brazil, to be followed by Australia.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to say that regarding the second preamble, this delegation is supportive of the language which reflects the united nations convention on the rights of persons with print disabilities.
We think that the new language is reflecting that. And also being mentioned by other delegations during our opening statements here.
Of course, we are available also to discuss with our colleague of India, who have made a suggestion of right to research, and we are available to better understand and to reach a agreeable language for this preamble. I thank you.
>> CHAIR: Australia to be followed by Pakistan.
>> AUSTRALIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Australia also participated in these informal discussions, intersessionally. I guess part of the exercise that we undertook was to look at the preambles and to try and look at duplication between the 17 paragraphs existing paragraphs, and to look at ways that we could reduce that duplication and streamline it.
So one possibility that we looked at was the possibility of streamlining or merging the fifth, sixth and 8th paragraphs of the existing preamble, into a new fourth paragraph.
That paragraph would read as follows: Aware of the barriers of persons with visual impairments/print disabilities to access published works and the need to both expand the number of works in accessible formats, and to improve the circulation of such works.
Now, the reason we came to that formulation was we looked at those kind of three, fifth, 6th and 8th paragraphs and saw that there was some duplication between concepts, for example, the concept of accessibility appears in the fifth and eightth paragraphs of the existing text.
The concept of equal opportunities, which is in the, I think it is the 6th, existing 6th paragraph -- sorry. Let me check that. Anyway, in one of those three existing paragraphs, yes, it's the fifth paragraph, is already encompassed in paragraph 2.
The effective protection of rights of authors is already encompassed in paragraph 14. We thought we didn't need to retain that. The concept of barriers which is in the 6th paragraph we incorporated and the concept of expanding the number of works which is currently in the 8th paragraph was incorporated.
So that was a suggestion for potentially merging those three existing paragraphs into a much more succinct statement of those elements. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Australia. Pakistan, to be followed by Senegal.
>> PAKISTAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is it very good that we have already started the work.
With regard to the first preamble paragraph we definitely support the insertion by Brazil and we do believe it is the right reference to the universal declaration on human rights. With regard to the second paragraph, we had also noticed the same as mentioned by the delegation of India that this paragraph stopped just before research.
But we do understand that since this is emanating from a specific reference, what we can propose at this stage is, after the proposed language from the United States, which stops at, and the right to education, we can add, and opportunity to conduct research.
We do believe that it is important that the element of research is also included, but there is the limitation that we do not have the right to research specifically mentioned in any of the declarations.
So probably this is one of the proposals which can take us forward, while also capturing this aspect. I thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Senegal and Nigeria, but I see that Egypt flag is up. Would you want me to give Egypt the floor first? Egypt, you have the floor.
>> EGYPT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm speaking in my national capacity. Egypt would like to support the proposal made by Pakistan, and the reference to the research.
Also, regarding the reference to beneficiaries, perhaps we can try to solve this through referring to the beneficiaries as defined in article, and would like to refer to the article, so that the cross-reference, and we don't need to repeat the concept each time.
In addition, we also note that in article 21 of the U.N. convention, that there is a reference to the right of freedom of expression. So just noting that there is this reference to rights, and convention of people with disabilities. I thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Senegal to be followed by Nigeria.
>> Senegal: Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, I would like to echo what has been said by Egypt, and I also agree with the points made by India and Pakistan. In other words, the concept of research is one that I would like to highlight.
It is true that there is no right to research as such, in theory, but in practice there is after all freedom of education, the right to education. And that includes education and research.
If you look at universities, if you look at faculties, then again you are talking about education, training and research. And all of that is understood as being encompassed by the right to education in the broadest sense of the world.
I think then that it would be wise and appropriate to include that as such within the preamble. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Nigeria, you have the floor.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. On behalf both of Nigeria and the Africa group, let me say that I want to echo the comments about research and its importance, so echoing both Pakistan and India and Senegal, we think it's important to highlight this, and want to echo those sentiments.
Let me also say that in terms of the comment by the distinguished delegate from Australia, and the United States, there is some historical language in the Berne Convention for the right to research.
This was debated during the stock home -- conference, I'm sure since we are in WIPO we can find some of those documents and perhaps that language would be helpful in inserting research into the document.
On behalf again of the Africa group, and Nigeria, I'd like to propose some new language. That language, if you excuse me a moment, as I work through paper here, is with the fifth paragraph, what would now be the fifth paragraph, formerly the 7th, which the old paragraph read, aware that, aware also that the majority of persons with visual impairments/print disabilities live in developing countries, we would propose that the words aware that, be replaced with "taking into account."
Taking into account. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to add comments on behalf of two delegations.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Nigeria. I give the floor to Iran to be followed by the U.S.
>> ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the proposal made by distinguished delegation of Australia, the numbers paragraph we would like to add the following. At the beginning of the second sentence, so it reads aware of the barriers of person with visual impairment/print disabilities to access published work, and to achieve equal opportunities in sphere of society and there continuation of the paragraph.
So this sentence be added, and to achieve equal opportunities in all sphere of society. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Iran. U.S. I give the floor to, to be followed by the EU.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The United States would like to propose at this point a what would now be a sixth preamblear clause and this clause would be a merger of the 9th, 10th and 11th preamblear clauses as they exist in SCCR 23/7.
That can be found on page 9 of document 23/7.
When the informal group meetings were being held in March and May, we became aware as we studied the 9th, 10th and 11th preamblears that they all had a common theme on new information and communication technologies as said in the 9th media, as said in the 10th, new technologies as said in the 11th, and that they also had the theme that despite the development of these new technologies, that the national nature of copyright meant that the new technologies were not being exploited to their maximum benefit for the benefit of persons with print disabilities.
So for that reason, we brainstormed and thought and came up with ideas and suggestions, and on that basis, the United States would like to propose a new 6th preamblear which on would consist of a merger and replacement of the 9th, 10th and 11th.
I will read it, and then be happy to provide it again to the Secretariat.
Recognizing that despite the differences in national copyright laws the positive impact of new information and communication technologies on the lives of persons with visual impairments/print disabilities may be reinforced by a enhanced legal framework at the international level.
I'll read that again. Recognizing that despite the differences in national copyright laws the positive impact of new information and communication technologies on the lives of persons with visual impairments/print disabilities may be reinforced by a enhanced legal framework at the international level.
Again, I'd be happy to provide that language to the Secretariat.
Mr. Chairman, it's been heartwarming to hear everyone's positive input on these suggestions from the countries that met informally, certainly on the question of research we are open to exploring that. And my good friend and the distinguished delegate from Nigeria said we might be able to find that material in the WIPO library.
She hasn't probably spent much time in the WIPO library here.
(chuckles).
It is not easy to find anything.
(chuckles).
So, I look forward to doing that with her. But it might take a while. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, U.S.
I give the floor to the EU.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like as well to propose for a improvement as regards in page 9 of document SCCR/23/7 the preamblear clause number 12. When we discussed this preamblear among the different Member States, we had the impression that it is not correct to refer to a large number of countries having established limitations and exceptions, and that it is more adequate in view of the present situation to refer to many Member States.
We are aware of the fact that it is only about one-third of countries that have that type of limitation and exception in their legislation, and that is why we believe it's better to use, many, rather than large, when qualifying the name number.
We believe also that there are a couple of improvements in the technical drafting that can be included, and I will read to you how then the recital 12 or at least the old number 12 will read now.
It will be recognizing that many Member States have established exceptions or limitations in their national copyright laws, for persons with visual impairments/print disabilities, and yet there is a continued shortage of available works in accessible formats for such persons.
Basically, the technical amendments is to convert into a or, the and, that you have currently between exceptions and limitations, to use the word accessible when referring to format, because in the original drafting it read, acceptable. And we understand what we meant was accessible.
And to refer as has been explained by the representative of the United States to use the terms persons with visual impairments/print disability.
I note the remark by Egypt as to whether it will not be better to use beneficiaries, or beneficiaries as defined in this instrument.
It will still read very strange in preamblear language, but of course we will be happy to discuss further if there are specific concerns as to the use of one or the other. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Switzerland.
>> SWITZERLAND: Thank you, Chairman. We would have a suggestion for a clarification in preamble number 7, former 7, that used to start with aware also, and is now through the intervention of Nigeria, starts with taking into account.
We would like to add in the end, after developing countries, the following text: That considerable resources are required for the effort of making works accessible to these persons, and that the lack of possibilities of cross border exchange of accessible formats necessitates avoidable duplication of these efforts.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Any further comments on the preamble? Brazil?
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are referring any further comments to this preambular? Or any other comments to preambular in general?
In general.
So we have a suggestion of former preamble 13, seems to have a suggestion to merge some preambulars and the numbering would change. The preambular which reads recognizing that the preference is for works to be made accessible by right holders to people with disabilities at publication, and that to the extent that the market is unable to provide appropriate access to works for visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability, comma, is it recognized appropriate copyright exceptions and limitations are needed to improve such access.
So our suggestion to this preambular is kind of a streamlining a bit the text. It should, it could read, comma, sorry, recognizing that the preference is for the right holders to make their works accessible to persons with visual impairments/print disabilities and that, comma, to the extent that the market is unable to provide such access, comma, appropriate copyright exceptions and limitations are needed.
And what are the changes here? The first, we have a reputation of recognizing the preference, and then it is recognized in the same sentence.
So we could reduce and just say recognizing at the beginning.
The second is that the qualifier at the publication, which appears in the text that we left here in December is difficult to be put in practice. It is subject to many interpretations, and within a small group of persons trying to find meaning to that, it was possible to reach multiple results.
So we think that is not necessary to qualify. And the strong part of this preambular is to say that appropriate copyright exceptions and limitations are needed.
This is what we think is the essential part of this preambular. So the idea is to simplify the language to it, and remove a qualifier that is creating kind of a confusion on how to be interpreted and implemented.
I thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. EU.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. President.
Also to keep improving the language of the preambular and if we go to page 11 of document SCCR/23/7, where you have the preambular clause 14, we will want to, again, replace the reference to visually impaired persons/persons with print disability, by a reference to persons with visual impairment/print disability, and we also believe after we discussed this as well with other of the participants in the preparation of this work that it will be more appropriate for the reading of the text to include the words, the effective protection of, in the first line.
So the preambular will read, recognizing also the need to maintain a balance between the effective protection of the rights of authors and the larger public interest, particularly education, research, and access to information. And that such a balance must facilitate effective and timely access to works for the benefit of persons with visual impairment/print disability.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Mexico.
>> MEXICO: Thank you very much, Chairman.
As was proposed, that is, the previous amendments to SCCR/23/7, Mexico would like to propose a amendment on the basis of the order that's changed through all these suggestions being made, and we would propose a new article which would now be article 10, which originally was article 15 of the preamble.
There is just a small addition, which would be in this way, would begin, instead of taking out, we would begin, Member States on the existing international treaties on the protection of copyright, and the importance and flexibility of the three-step test to limitations and exceptions established in article 9.2 of the Berne Convention and other international instruments.
In other words, there was just a small addition, the first line is a addition, with the word emphasizing, which was after protection of property rights. We have taken out emphasizing, and then there is emphasizing. Thank you very much, Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Colombia.
>> COLOMBIA: Good afternoon, Chairman.
Now, as far as the 13th preambular paragraph, Colombia considers that they impose excessive responsibility on copyright, rights holders, which in our system doesn't exist.
We have enshrined free enterprise and the private individuals decided which way this right is exercised.
For this reason, we would propose alternative wording to the 13th paragraph which says recognizing that it has been expressed that copyrights holders should publish the works in accessible format for persons with print disability, but to the degree that the macialght can -- market cannot provide access to works to persons with print disability, we have to use alternative measures to improve this access.
I repeat the proposal of this alternative wording, recognizing that it has been expressed that it would be ideal for copyrights holders who should publish their works in the format which is accessible to persons with print disability but to the degree that the market cannot provide access to works to persons with print disability, they have to have alternative measures to improve this access.
The second amendment, on alternative measures, which was expressed earlier, because access to persons with print disability doesn't just depend on exceptions and limitations to copyright, but also to other types of measures.
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Brazil.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comment is on former preambular 16th, according to the merging, which would be now preambular 11th according to the proposed changes.
Very simple change, needing to continue the implementation on the relevant recommendations, we suggest to substitute needing for seeking.
So it will be seeking to contribute to implementation of the relevant recommendations and so on. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Brazil. India, followed by Nigeria.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm referring to the para 16 of the preamble. We have a formulation here which says that needing to contribute to the implementation of the relevant recommendations of the Development Agenda of the WIPO. World Intel ectul property organisation.
I'm just raising a question here, and then leave it to the member countries, especially the leader of the Development Agenda Group and other members, and the reason we conclude in Beijing we are a paragraph included in the preamble on Development Agenda, so whether we will follow the same formulation of the Beijing treaty preamble on Development Agenda, we will copy and paste here? Or we will be satisfied with this formulation. That is what my open question to everyone.
>> CHAIR: Brazil, would you like to respond?
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank also the distinguished delegate of India for reminding us. In fact, when we were discussing this text, it was before the Beijing Diplomatic Conference.
So this text was not available. But we think it is a good suggestion. We thank India for that. We are ready to discuss it with India and again, it's always a good opportunity to take advantage of language that has already been tested and approved in other instruments. I thank you.
>> CHAIR: Nigeria, to be followed by the U.S.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Nigerian delegation and the Africa group would like to propose a new preambular paragraph 12 to replace preambular paragraph 17. I will read slowly the new paragraph, give people time to get there.
Desiring to harmonize and enhance national laws on such limitations and exceptions through a flexible international framework, comma, consistent with the Berne Convention, in order to facilitate access to works, protected by copyright by persons with visual impairments/print disabilities.
Let me read that again: Desiring to harmonize and enhance national laws on such limitations and exceptions through a flexible international framework, consistent with the Berne Convention in order to facilitate access to works protected by copyright by persons with visual impairments/print disabilities.
I'd like to submit this as a replacement to old 17, on behalf of the delegation of Nigeria, I'd like to reserve a opportunity to correct what I believe is a grammatical error in that sentence.
But since it was negotiated and agreed to, I'm going to leave it as is, and ask the indulgence of our distinguished delegates at a later time to fix the double preposition in that sentence. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Nigeria. U.S. to be followed by Venezuela.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the room's carefully following the many suggestions of the countries that were involved in the informal meetings. Listening to the remarks of the distinguished delegate of India, and the response from Brazil, I think it is certainly right that we should take a look at the language from the Beijing treaty and determine what modifications might be appropriate of what is now the 11th, the proposal for 11th preambular, formerly the 16th preambular.
The United States delegation also wanted to respond to the comment of the distinguished delegation of Colombia concerning what is proposed to be the 8th preambular in the streamlining and what was previously the 13th preambular. We listened very carefully to the comments of the Colombian delegate. We are not sure we understood the difference in how the wording being suggested by Colombia would have difference in meaning from what was proposed.
We look forward to a discussion with them on that.
On that note, thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Venezuela to be followed by the EU.
>> VENEZUELA: Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this was just to know whether there was any difficulty in working with the screen which really makes work much easier. This is going from one paper to another.
It is getting very confusing. I think perhaps it has to do with my age, but I really think we could work much more comfortably with the screen. Thank you, Chairman.
>> CHAIR: EU.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. President. We thank the delegation of Nigeria for the proposal to replace the former preambular 17th by a new preambular 12.
It just occurred to us that probably we should also refer to the WIPO WCT treaty because the rights that fall within the remedy of this instrument include to the making available right that it is established in that treaty.
So it could, one could read in the second line of the proposal of the Nigerian delegation on behalf of the African Group, consistent with the Berne Convention and the WCT.
This delegation would also like to support the proposal made by the delegation of Switzerland. We understand there has been a proposal to what will now become the preambular 7th, but if it is referring to another preambular we are happy to discuss this.
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Egypt.
>> EGYPT: Thank you. I just support the proposal made by my dear friend from Venezuela, to have the screen, because we are kind of lost here about following the different formulations that are being presented.
We welcome this.
Second point, just to ask this question: Some WIPO Member States didn't join, for instance, the WCT treaty. So if we include it here and say that this new treaty would be consistent with the WCT, so we might be making it difficult for contracting parties who are not member of WCT to consider joining this treaty.
So therefore, it might be an effort to encourage broader participation in it, just to limit the reference to the Berne Convention. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. India to be followed by the EU, then U.S.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indian delegation agrees with the statement made by the distinguished delegate of Egypt, that most of the countries are not member of WCT, mentioning it in para 12 may be a problematic one.
In fact, we agree with the suggestion of the distinguished delegate of Nigeria, in the new formulation of 12, it is very perfect. Then we go ahead. But to address this WCT problem, we can go back to Beijing again, the Beijing formula can be introduced here, how we dealt with the nonmembers of WCT, WPPT and TRIPS. So same formula can be introduced. But we ought to sit down and have some language for that.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: EU, then U.S.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. President. Just in response to the concern expressed by the representative of Egypt, and now as well echoed by the representative of India, it is not the intention by a reference in preambular to a treaty to make them compulsory, the ratification or accession to that treaty. I'm aware of the fact that lately, we have been having a few of these discussions as the representative of India rightly indicated.
We spent quite some time giving reassurances to some Member States as to the fact that the Beijing treaty does not imply a need to ratify in that case, it was the WPPT. The reference here is for the sake of consistency, as this instrument refers to a right which is the making available right, right which is important for the situations we are considering today, in the 21st century, a right which was established by the WCT.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: U.S.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We would like to note the suggestion of the distinguished delegate of India. We should definitely study the formulas that were used in the Beijing treaty, to address similar issues.
But we might just point out that in the proposed new 10th preambular, it says, in reference to the three-step test, as established in article 9.2 of the Berne Convention and other international instruments.
So, without prejudicing the discussion further, that formulation might be a way out, consistent with the Berne Convention and other international instruments.
But this is definitely a small point, and one of a list of small points, we hope the Chairman is making, on issues that should be worked on. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Nigeria, to be followed by Peru.
>> NIGERIA: I'd like to echo the concerns and the sentiment by the distinguished delegate of India as well as the distinguished delegate from Egypt, and the distinguished delegate who does not go to the WIPO library from the United States, Justin.
I think that if we can adopt the formula suggested by professor Hughes about other international instruments, this would both permit the accommodation of those countries that are members of the WCT and those countries that are not.
I wanted to just point out a very subtle issue about including treaties by name beyond the Berne Convention.
First, as I indicated yesterday, the making available right is not recognized in several jurisdictions. So while it could be recognized independently in a treaty such as or a instrument such as this, that does not require reference to the WCT necessarily.
I also think that as a legal matter, when the phrasing talks about consistency with the Berne Convention and a specific of a treaty, it does introduce interpretive norms that I think we need to try to avoid.
So again, my distinguished friend and delegate from the United States, I think the formulation of, and other international instruments, is broad enough and was successful in Beijing and perhaps should be used here. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Peru.
>> Peru: Thank you very much, Chairman.
At the outset, I'd like to point out that the Peruvian delegation would like to pay tribute to the work and efforts of various delegations in trying to take out overlapping terms and so on, and with a good, and with a good work reduced to 17 preambular paragraphs, and if I've taken due note of these suggestions, that is of trying really to merge some of the texts which are related to each other, linked to each other, and if accepted by plenary, that is, this whole series of suggestions, we will have reduced the quantity of preambular paragraphs to 12.
So a first effort, first interesting effort has been made to try to concentrate reading to this substantive part of the preamble, and not be redundant when necessary. Secondly, we would also like to point out that with respect to the proposed merging of the previous articles, 5, 6 and 8, in which we proposed there would be a fourth paragraph now, there was a suggestion of mentioning the following words, and to achieve equal opportunities in all spheres of society. These were presented by distinguished delegate. Just in this regard, we would like to mention that the mention of equal opportunities is contained in the first preambular paragraph, and therefore in this case perhaps we would request or ask the proponents of this proposal to reconsider or consider the use of this term in this first paragraph.
Now, as far as the comment made by the distinguished delegate of India with regard to the inclusion of the term "research" I think this is quite legitimate. We would be interested in the work done for its new inclusion in this paragraph.
Now, as far as the attempt to try to include the term, the term of beneficiaries, instead of persons with visual impairments/print disabilities, we would associate ourselves with the replies presented by the distinguished delegate of the United States. In other words, that if this preambular stage, it makes sense that we make a direct express mention of persons with visual impairments/print disabilities so that subsequently, when we mention in future article B the term beneficiaries, beginning then we would always use that term.
Now, finally, as far as the proposal by the distinguished delegate of India we would associate ourselves with it, that is of using the paragraph on the Development Agenda which was product of consensus in the recent treaty of Beijing. We would agree with that. We would offer text which I will now read, and which you don't have to apply muttatiz muttandis because there was no change to be made in this case and it applies perfectly and I'll read it in English.
Development Agenda recommendations adopted in 2007 by the General Assembly of the convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO which aim to ensure that development considerations form a integral part of the organisation's work.
Thank you, Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Peru. Egypt.
>> EGYPT: Thank you. I also, like my colleague from Venezuela, are getting old. My memory is fading. But as far as I recall in Beijing there was this agreed statement, to say that contracting parties will join the Beijing treaty, will not be obliged to join the WPPT treaty.
I think this was the solution. Back to this point, I'd like to ask the question, whether we need another agreed statement here to make sure that, if contracting party is not party to other international instrument, they will not be obliged to accede to them.
>> CHAIR: U.S.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The distinguished delegate of Egypt did raise, that raises a fair question. It almost seems like a little bit of a new issue.
We are certainly open to discussing that, or how to do it. It does seem like a little bit of a new issue. I'm not sure, and I speak to my friend mok t a, I'm not sure that is something we need to worry about in the preamble.
So the distinguished delegate of Egypt, I think, is raising a new issue, which is fine. We can talk about it. Thanks.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Are there any further contributions on the preamble? Definitions, Chile, preamble.
>> CHILE: Thank you, Chairman. A comment or suggestion, on the former para 13 of the preamble, which is currently para 8, according to the suggestion of countries who work briefly in this session, we would like to propose a text that reads as follows. I will read it in English.
Recognizing that together with important role of right-holders in making their works accessible to persons with visual impairment/print disabilities, appropriate copyright exceptions and limitations are needed, comma, including when market is unable to provide such access.
I'm going to give this text to the Secretariat as soon as possible, so that it can be included in the working paper. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Chile. U.S.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure how the Committee would like to proceed, but this delegation might suggest that the Committee consider now, given the range of positive .... whether or not we would be comfortable accepting as a Committee the substitution of the streamlined 12 to replace the 17. That would greatly assist the Secretariat in preparing a new document that would have the streamlined 12 as well as all the comments, the suggested language of Chile and Colombia, the suggested recommendations on research from Pakistan and India.
So, we would just like to offer that as a possibility for something for the Chair to think about at this time.
(pause).
(standing by.)
>> CHAIR: Colleagues, shall we continue with the meeting, please? Iran.
>> ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to know is there any technical problem with the screen? Because two delegation ask it and they would like to see the new proposal in screen to exactly, to know what is happening.
>> CHAIR: U.S.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We apologize for the informal, the informal informal that was happening in the center of the formal. But we were trying to figure out the best way to present these new ideas as well as the suggestions of delegations like Colombia, Chile, Pakistan, India and others, we were trying to figure out the best way to present them that could actually be the most digestible. I suppose we are in your hands on that.
One possibility to be completely transparent about the possibilities, one possibility is to just produce a nonpaper that shows the twelve with the suggestions. Another possibility is to produce a 23/7 Rev that shows the new 12, the old 12, as deleted. But also as replaced or proposed to be replaced.
And then the suggestions that delegations have made in our plenary session.
Some of us are concerned that that would be, while the maximally transparent, also the maximally confusing.
So we are in your hands and the hands of the Secretariat I think on the best way to see it. But I think everyone agrees that, everyone in the room needs a chance to see the 12 proposals, to replace the 17, and then certainly in addition the new language proposed by several delegations.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, colleagues. I can't answer for the Secretariat. I don't think there is a technical problem with the screen.
But we had to discuss as you are doing as well as to the best way of proceeding.
Now, you will note that the proposals that have come from the floor, we had asked and I wish to ask again that they be submitted to Secretariat in writing, because some of them were just being made orally, and we don't have them in writing.
The Secretariat needs to have those in order to make a revision of what we have done on the preamble.
So, I suggest that we receive those as soon as possible, so that Secretariat can revise the preamble.
But that does not mean that we should not move to the next stage.
I think we should still move to the next stage, because those suggestions and amendments, you still have a look at them. They have been captured.
I think we should still move forward, and make progress, so that we are not held back by, against that to look at, I didn't say that, I didn't say this, and so we can make progress.
But the first thing is let's have those proposals in writing, submitted to Secretariat, to enable Secretariat update the preamble.
In the meantime, we move to the next section. Pakistan.

>> PAKISTAN: Thank you very much, Chair, we fully agree to what you just mentioned. We also believe that though we started a little slow in terms of general statements and other things but we have made a lot of progress during the last hour or so.
This progress needs to be captured, and we are in your hands on how to do that, and I think you very correctly pointed out, the first step is for all of us to send those comments and suggestions to the Secretariat, and probably the Secretariat as usual and as efficient they are would again be able to give us a paper, probably tomorrow morning.
I would not say it would be the replacement of the current document. Let's not touch that, because if we start infiltrating that it will be more confusing. It can be just as colleague from USA, a nonpaper, let's not call it even a nonpaper, just something which would capture all the comments which were made from the floor.
The most important thing is that we do not lose the progress which we have made. And we should be able to capture that and have in front of us, and this would be without prejudice to any further comments that Member States can make to those which have already been made. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Pakistan. India to be followed by Mexico.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Indian delegation supports the intervention made by the distinguished delegate of Pakistan. Your proposal is excellent. The Secretariat abilities are well-known. They can come out with a document any time early in the morning tomorrow.
(chuckles).
And then now first step has been cleared, that is a preamble. All the members will give inviting, now we will move forward as you said to the next step that is the definition. There was discussion so finalized and the Member States, they can give, send their comments on that, also, we can go on, and then whichever form Secretariat likes, they can come out with the document.
Ultimate thing is we want something has to be put in the systematic way, on submissions that have been made. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Mexico, then Brazil.
>> MEXICO: Thank you, Chairman, very much.
We consider the proposal presented by you, sir, as the right road forward, to make progress in this Committee. We also consider as delegates preceding me have said, that the delegations who have made proposed, proposals or changes to the preamble, we would urge them to give their text in writing, and to also give their final version so you can give clarity, proper clarity to the Secretariat, and that the Secretariat be given the opportunity to have these documents before them, and be able to continue to include them in the document.
And I think this is the right time to do so. I think we have finished the preamble. We might break now and continue with the analysis of this document when the Secretariat can work simultaneously with the changes already included in the document.
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Brazil.


>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I say we are happy with the practicing made so far. We are supportive of the idea -- progress made so far. We are supportive of the idea of having a revised version with all the comments made today, so that people can have a easy way to read everything, and to consider the proposals made.
We also support your proposition of moving forward also in the intersession document. We are very confident that we can keep this cooperative spirit and make further progress in all the text. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: U.S.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Listening to the proposals of everyone, we have made a lot of good progress, and I'm sure we are going to have a great spirit going forward.
It is already close to the normal hour when we adjourn. Let me offer one possibility. If the Chair wanted to continue, we might do the definition of work, and the definition of accessible format copy with suggestions from, that came out of the informal meetings.
The recommendation to the Chair of the delegation of the United States would be that for authorized entity, because this is so central to so many countries' concerns, and so central to the concerns of the Africa group, that might be appropriate for the Chair to convene his informal meetings beginning tomorrow morning.
We could have a full and frank kind of discussion we have in informals about the difficulty of mapping the road on authorized entities.
>> CHAIR: Well, colleagues, in consideration of the commitment that you have expressed in this room, I have to mention that we can have interpretation for French and Spanish, and we can proceed for the next one hour, to look at definitions.
That will show some translation of our commitment to our work. Shall we have another hour on definitions? Egypt?
>> EGYPT: Thank you. I think the African Group is ready to work on this day and night.
I mean no problem. Of course, we need to stay one hour, two hours, that is okay.
Just a request, if there is a possibility to see the text on the screen, so that we can follow up on the different proposals, and formulation.
This can be assisting us in trying to make quick progress ahead.
>> CHAIR: Mexico.
>> MEXICO: Thank you very much, Chairman.
I think we are making good progress in our work today.
Now we are very much on the right channel. I think you were very clear with the proposal, that the Secretariat should follow with the changes requested.
And I would like to simply express the readiness of the Mexican delegation to continue the work today, until necessary. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: EU.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. President.
First of all, really I congratulate this plenary for the excellent work that we have undertaken so far.
We are interested in advancing, advancing really, so in that respect it is important that we not only take the time to get to the same type of understanding and exchange of view that we have had so far, but that we give ourselves the right opportunity.
In that respect, I believe that the proposal made to tackle the beginning of the definitions and then give us ourselves a pause to reflect and to assess what we have achieved is as important, and this is a way forward, discussing for instance work on accessible format copy that we can accept, that we believe afterwards and for the sake of making sure we advance probably we want to start working again tomorrow, as early as you want.
(pause).
>> CHAIR: Distinguished colleagues, there has been a suggestion for the screen, from Venezuela, Iran and Egypt.
What we can do is that we will organise ourselves to have that tomorrow.
In the meantime, we can look at the first part of the definition section and then we can address the screen issue tomorrow morning.
Our contributions to definitions work, page 15.
Mexico to be followed by India.
>> MEXICO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As far as this article A of SCCR 23/7 under definitions, we would like to propose as far as the reference to the part, work, a new wording, which has been taken account of in the footnote, particularly number 16, footnote number 16.
There were various alternatives, and we have worked on these alternatives, and we have got a new version, which I'll give as literary or artistic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention in the form of text, notation, and/or related illustrations whether published or otherwise made publicly available in any media. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, mention could. India to be followed by -- thank you, Mexico. India to be followed by Brazil.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. President, in fact the delegation raise the flag to convey that there should not be any changes in the existing definition, but the distinguished delegate from Mexico has changed our stand. Then they also suggested a, some surprising amendment to the existing definition of the work.
We may accept the suggested definition only partly, because we may accept up to the means as literary or artistic work within the meaning of definition. That is all. Not more than that., because inclusion of the, in the form of text, notion, and/or related illustrations will be detrimental to the discussions of educational exceptions, where print disabilities persons will benefit, because that will be very restrictive in the nature, at the moment we mentioned in the form of text notion and/or related illustrations.
The mention of Berne Convention within the meaning of Berne Convention literary artistic work, no problem. The Berne Convention is a matter of all convention, article, the section 2 of the Berne Convention explains in detail what are the literary works, what are the artistics works, it includes composition of works. Mr. Chairman, I remember attending when WIPO, visually impaired people, organized by WIPO in collaboration with the U.S. Copyright Office in the 2010 which I had the opportunity to attend.
During one of these in the evening the motion picture of America showed a film, titled, up, first time I had the experience of how a blind person totally blind person can see a film.
So such things can be put in the dust bin if such exceptions will not be allowed, if the moment you say, now here in the form of text, notion or related illustrations, so it is restrictive.
It can't be extended to the music compositions or some other things, films or films. We are working with the changes, means literary or artistic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention, whether published or otherwise made publicly available in any media. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Brazil, to be followed by the U.S
>> Brazil: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Trying to contribute to the debate, the way we see, I thank very much the contribution made by our distinguished delegate of India.
I'm just thinking that from my reading of this notation and our related illustrations, is not, the idea is not to restrict the implementation but rather to make for instance books that have graphs, charts, or equations, also covered by the definition of work. So we are not talking about the text itself. But if the text is also accompanied by charts, being, especially in the context of some technical materials.
This is basically what I had in mind when reading notation and or related demonstrations according to what has been said before.
I have not solved any relationship with other kind of things such as movies, etcetera.
(ringing).
It is relative to have a complete take on what is contained in a book. I thank you.
>> CHAIR: U.S. to be followed by Senegal.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we look forward to discussing with the Indian delegation ideas for the definition of work, we do think there is different ways to approach that.
We had our flag up thinking you would be on to accessible format copies.
We will defer and come back. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Senegal to be followed by Nigeria.
>> Senegal: Chairman, I'm sorry. We would like to speak after Nigeria, if possible.
>> CHAIR: Nigeria, you have the floor.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair, I want to echo the comments of the distinguished delegate from India.
I would also like to add perhaps two additional comments.
I think that in the interests of clarity and succinctness, stopping at the Berne Convention with a period is certainly effective.
This would of course mean that literary artistic, scientific works, works of research, are all covered, as they are under the Berne Convention.
If that is ultimately agreeable, we would not be making any further edits.
However, we want to reserve the right to make a proposal, should there not be agreement on where to stop that definition. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Senegal.
>> Senegal: Thank you, Chairman. We would like to subscribe to what Nigeria said. We think if this is adopted as it stands, Senegal will accept it and suppose that proposal. If that is not the case, however, we have taken the liberty of looking at the three proposals, in 16 through Russian, federation, Brazil, U.S., Egypt and swits err lands. And we real -- Switzerland and we realize that with a bit of work, semantic tweaking, we could condense this, because it seems that they say the same thing.
However, we do have a problem regarding the definition as such of the word work, work. Because we are told that the, we are told often that words have very specific meanings. We need to be careful with this word, work. We are qualifying works by saying they are literary, scientific or artistic but we don't define the notion of work, and so Senegal would like to understand by the word work, creation of a literary scientific or artistic nature and so on. Because we can see the proposal from Russian federation, U.S., Brazil, Switzerland and Egypt and those proposals tend to qualify work rather than actually defining it.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Argentina, to be followed by Ecuador.
>> ARGENTINA: Thank you, Chairman. We would like to thank Mexico for this contribution in defining work.
We can empathize with the proposal which has been made.
But I will reserve the right to make specific comments after I've spoken to my capital.
I think, however, this goes in the right direction.
Argentina does have some doubts concerning the way in which work is defined in 23/7. We wanted to have scientific works included as explicitly mentioned in the Berne Convention.
However, a broad ranging reference to the Berne Convention, includes other types of works, and we are not sure that all of those works are completely relevant to the problems which we are trying to resolve here. So in light of that we think in the form of text notation and/or other related illustrations. Seems as a wording to look more specifically at the problem which we are trying to solve. It might be useful, however, for the proponents to explain a bit more about the reasoning behind this proposal. Having said that we think as a initial remark it's fairly useful. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Ecuador to be followed by Egypt.Which is the wording we normally use when regarding to the Berne Convention. Thank you, Chair.
>> CHAIR. Egypt, to be followed by India.
>> EGYPT: We would like to support what is made by the Delegation of Nigeria, Senegal and Argentina with reference to the importance of inclusion in the definition of scientific works and also this is consistent with our desire to make available scientific works to efficient valley impaired persons.
. We would like this captured in the definition. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: India, to be followed by the EU.
>> INDIA: Mr. Chairman, Indian Delegation is not able to understand why the nature has been included in the definition of the work. Why this has to be imposed by the 37 million blind population for different people. We are referring here literally artistic work meaning the meaning of the Berne Convention, okay. Because earlier definition within the meaning of the Berne Convention was not there including it, it has made this very expansive.
The section or the Article 2 of the Berne Convention clearly says "Literary and artistic works shall include every in the scientific, artistic dough maition or whatever shall be the form of express, such as books, puck Risch, other writings, sermons and other works of the same nature, dramatic, musical works, cinema toe graph fishing worked and entertainment in musical compositions, sin toe Mo graphic works which are assimilated works expressed by the process to cinema to go graph if I, drawing, painting, architecture, it goes on, sculpture. So when is this is applied to normal people, why are we listening to the blind people here? Like putting in the words of text, normal, related illustrations? I do not understand why we are restricting it. It means Article two of the Berne Convention is not applicable to the blind, 37 million world population. They are not able to access those works mentioned there? This is my question. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: EU, to be followed by Iran.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a question or comment directed to those who have requested in the definition of "Work," we delete the reference to the words "Whether published or otherwise made publicly available in any media."
We fail to understand the idea behind this request and we are concerned that it will be understood as the possibility of imposing limitations on published works, something that is not normally done, and have a clash as well with the litigation right which is part of the rights as recognized in many of our countries.
So in that respect, we believe that that deletion of those words in the definition of "Work" will create problems.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Iran, to be followed by Venezuela.
>> IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My Delegation also would like that scientific work reflected in the definition of work in the Working Document. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Venezuela, to be followed by the United States.
>> VENEZUELA: Thank you, Chairman.
Like Ecuador, we would not like restrictions to be imposed on this and so we support what was said by Ecuador.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: U.S. To be followed by China.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. In listening to the many Delegates' comments, we think that the addition of the word "Scientific" does make some sense. We share the question and concern posed by the Distinguished Delegation of the European Union that the reason "Published or otherwise made publicly available in any media there "Is to recognize unpublished works, works being kept private by someone should not be subject to Exceptions and Limitations until they are made public or published.
As to the question of focusing on text, notation and other related illustrations, this Delegation certainly looks forward to discussions, formal and informal, with other Delegations On that point, but we have repeatedly said in our meeting here at the SCCR that we are critically concerned in crafting a solution to the book famine that, of the educational needs and needs to access to information for persons with print disabilities.
One of the key things we will face when we get to authorized entities is the notion of schools. Because schools and education is partly at the focus of what we are doing here.
We do think as the Distinguished Delegation of Argentina said, that there is a value in focusing in on this, and though it's not the time for a full discussion to respond to my good friend from India, I am not sure how you make an architectural work more accessible format copy.
I am not sure how you take a sculpture ral work and make an accessible copy. A sculpture ral work is pretty damned accessible to someone print-disabled as is architectural. There should be a recognition and it's just not everything in the Berne Convention would actually ever be the target of efforts to make accessible format copies.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. China, to be followed by Nigeria.
>> CHINA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the suggestions made by the Delegations.
As the Chinese Delegation, we would like to make a new kind of suggestion that is as follows the work itself is concerned, I think no matter whether it is protected or not, we should concentrate more specifically on the definition of the work itself.
So I think that probably we could think we use another -- we could delete the "Protected," this word. We just say work means a work wing the meaning of the Berne Convention as the Berne Convention is the basic convention which we use usually for the definition of the "Work."
Because when the work which is entering the public domain is really -- not enjoying any protection so everybody can use it freely. That is why we think that maybe we propose that we use the work means work within the meaning of the Berne Convention. Or maybe we add "Whether published or otherwise made available to the public media."
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Nigeria.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to make a comment about the definitions section of this document in general.
Depending on how this current conversation ends, I think given the comments of the Distinguished Delegate from the United States, there is a need, then, to define the word "Published."
It is actually something which came up for discussion in the Africa Group this afternoon. It's a certain tral tenet obviously of copyright law. It's repeated many times through this document. If you look at the definition section the term is never defined. Given that publication and published do have several different meanings across copyright regyms I would just suggest that omission be corrected as part of this exercise and it may affect the definition of "Work," it may not, but it is certainly needed in the document.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Nigeria.
Ecuador, to be followed by the EU.
>> ECUADOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We would like to give an example of why it is important that this Commitee do not restrict the benefit of the exception to certain kind of works because many of you are not familiar on what are the real needs or what is the practice for persons with print disabilities or the blind.
Following an example of the Distinguished Delegate on how that, why will someone need an exception for a sculpture, because that will be easy for a person who is blind, but I wonder how we will do a blind person with the statue of liberty or you would need to teach a blind child about the Taj Mahal. You necessarily cannot rely on the possibility of the other senses; you need to provide a model.
That model would have to be in a way an adaptation or transformation of that work.
So we think there is -- it is important that the restrictions to what can be transformed and under which condition that will be part of the specific exceptions that we are providing. But not to limit from the start those works that might be under an exception. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you.
EU, to be followed by Venezuela.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just in reaction to the suggestion by the Distinguished Delegate of Nigeria as to the need to try to define within this instrument the concept of publication.
We do have a concept of "Publication" in the Berne Convention. We are also perfectly aware that the interpretation of that concept in the digital environment is complex, but those of us that were here in the negotiations of the 1996 treaties have some memory of it, even if it's quite a while ago. We remember quite distinctively one of the issues that was most difficult to discuss, even if we attempt to get to a solution, was precisely this issue; the issue of publication in relation to the digital environment. My advice, if we don't want to negotiate here for another five years, is that we do not attempt to get to the definition of the concept of publication in this instrument at this time.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Nigeria before Venezuela.
>> NIGERIA: I want to say thank you to the Distinguished Delegate of the European Union. Just a slight correction: There is a different between "Published" as a term in copyright and "Publication."
And my reference was to the term published. If published is a qualifying criteria for what is covered by the statute, instrument, treaty, whatever we end up negotiating, that certainly needs to be defined so countries know exactly what they are committing to.
As you know, in the United States, we do have a dual system of works that get certain kinds of rights when they are published and works that don't. So this is a real significant issue. If the word "Published" is a criteria for the jurisdiction of this document, we need a definition.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Venezuela.
>> VENEZUELA: Thank you, Chairman.
To follow on from what was said by Ecuador concerning lack of restrictions, besides what he said, we're surprised that our friend from the U.S. says there are no difficulties with architectural works when that country is making such quick technological progress. We think we have to leave this open for, to legislate for the fact that technological progress might lead us into situations of which we are not yet aware. We are not yet aware what developments might arise.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you.
U.S.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Just a very small point, Mr. Chairman. The Distinguished Delegate of Nigeria pointed out that some definition of published or publication would be necessary.
That may be, but we were conscious of that problem and that is why we said "Published or otherwise made publicly available in any media."
That was precisely a keen sensitivity to the shoals and difficulties that we chose the phrase "Or otherwise publicly made available in other media."
But we are open to discuss that. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: India.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. President.
Indian Delegation would like to support the statement just made by the delegate of the technological progress in the future. If we may make possible accessible works of any kind of work mentioned under Article 2 of the Berne Convention, it is true. I never thought of playing with iPad in this room. The iPad has come into being. So we don't know a blind -- physically handicapped, blind having no, both limbs, he may be accessing works of architectural scul' tour in the future with the technology, giving him opportunity to access those things. That is one issue.
Second is the interesting debate about published and published works. Okay. We are all aware at the moment it is in a fixed format we have the copy right come into existence. When it is not published, unpublished worked are protected. For example, in Indian copyright even when applications were given for the unpublished works, it is whether it is a screenplay, script of the film, unpublished work, no one can get a copy of it under the right to information act because we -- we respect the copyright of that person. But once it is published, it is available for the creation of any accessible format under the exception.
So we know the importance of published and unpublished. There is a need for protection of unpublished works. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. India.
Are there any suggested amendments to accessible format copy. U.S.?
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In studying the definition of an accessible format copy, we realized that later in the document, later in 23/7, the 23/7 text recognizes that even while one seeks to respect the integrity of the original work, there may be some compromises of that integrity that are needed to make the accessible format copy completely accessible.
So in studying that problem, instead of recognizing that language later, and I believe that language can be found in... found in Article C, we -- when we get to C, we can describe how we would propose deleting it there.
We suggested, we would like to suggest the following definition. "Accessible format copy" means a copy of a work in an alternative manner or form which gives the beneficiary person access to the work including to permit the person to have access as feasibly and comfortably as a person without visual impairment, print disability."
In that sense the first sentence is the same with the only change being at the end, "Without visual impairment, print disabilities."
Then the second sentence would read as follow: "Accessible format copy is used collusively by beneficiary persons and it must respect the integrity of the original work, taking due consideration of the changes needed to make the work accessible in the alternative format and of the accessibility needs of the beneficiary person, qult I'll read that again. Accessible format copy is used exclusively by beneficiary persons and it must respect the integrity of the original work, taking due consideration of the changes needed to make the work accessible in the alternative format and of the accessibility needs of the beneficiary persons."

So again, the only intent here is to bring forward the idea that while the preparation of the accessible format copy should do everything possible to respect the integrity of the original work, that there may be some changes, some compromises, in the original work that must be made to truly render it accessible.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: India.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact the Indian Delegation also wanted to make the similar changes at the end of the first sentence. We without visual impairment and print disability that just now the Distinguished Delegation of the U.S. has made. We are happy with the similar changes to be made in the first sentence.
Then we have no objection with the changes made in the second sentence of the definition.
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Nigeria.
>> NIGERIA: I just wanted to ask for clarification from the Distinguished Delegate of the United States. On the second sentence of that paragraph, accessible format copy is used exclusively by beneficiary persons," is that intended to be a defense definitional aspect of that provision or is it merely descriptive of the follow-on part about the integrity of the work? It just was not clear to me from reading that.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: If the Chair...
>> CHAIR: U.S., go ahead.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The choice seems to be between definitional or descriptive? I am not sure about the difference but I'll take descriptive.
>> Then the Distinguished Delegate of the United States has answered my question and if it is descriptive we have no comments and simply subscribe to the comments of the Delegation of India
(That was Nigeria speaking)
>> CHAIR: Algeria.
>> ALGERIA: Thank you, Chair.
I would like to ask the delegate of the United States to repeat kindly the proposal for the first paragraph as a delegate, or sentence.
>> CHAIR: First sentence.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first sentence would be exactly the same, I believe, as in 23/7, with the final change at the end. Instead of saying "Without a print disability," to say "Without visual impairment print disabilities."
But I'll read it again. Accessible format copy means a copy of a work in an alternative manner or form which gives the beneficiary person access to the work, including to permit the person to have access as feasibly and comfortably as a person without visual impairment/print disabilities."
>> CHAIR: Algeria.
>> ALGERIA: Thank you, Chair. I'd like to thank the delegate of the United States. I would like to know whether the proposal that has just been made could allow the -- for the comment which my Delegation made at the previous session of the Commitee regarding accessible formats, not just for printed works, but for digital works as well. So does the proposed change take on that comment? Thank you.
>> CHAIR: U.S., did you capture that question?
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No, sir, it seemed -- I did not hear it all.
>> CHAIR: Algeria, please repeat your question.
>> ALGERIA: Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor again.
So just to recall that my Delegation had made the following comment previously, that an accessible format copy should include not only printed works, but also digital works. And so the question I am now asking the delegate of the United States is to know whether the amendment that he has proposed to make to the first sentence of the paragraph could take on board the comment we made previously. Does it include that? United States United States thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I understand the question now. For our purposes and this Delegation understanding of the first sentence, the first sentence is technology-neutral in the sense it does include digital but when we are asking the question: Does it include this or does it include why, the question is: Are we talking about the originating copy of the work or the accessible format copy
(United States speaking)
For us the technologically neutral definition of accessible format copy in the first sentence clearly means that an accessible format copy could be a digital version such as the DAISY format. In the United States a substantial amount of accessible format copies are in a digital format. And it was not our intention to limit in any way without the specification. We would recommend to the Commitee that in this kind of area it is better to have a general definition and not try to start specifying for the exact reason that technology develops.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Algeria.
(Algeria speaking)
>> I would like to thank the Delegation of the United States, however, the comment my Delegation made previously stands because the Delegation still believes that it is important to define the scope of definitions or to make clear the scope in an international instrument and we would like the Commitee to take into consideration that. .
(Pause.)
Even though it is neutral, it is ambiguous without a mention of access to digital works. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Any further comments on this definition? Ecuador.
>> ECUADOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Delegation of Ecuador would like to take a position with regard to the question just proposed by the Distinguished Delegate from Algeria.
To our understanding, this definition of accessible format copy, it does not preclude the possibility of making a digital copy from an originally -- work originally published in digital. So we could have two possibilities. A print work in analog format could be put into digital format, the copy, or we have, we might have a work originally published in a digital form and to be copied for to be made accessible for a person with print disability or visual impairment in digital format. We could go from digital to digital or print to digital or digital to print in the most analog form. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you.
I was told that it was suggested that the definition of authorized entity could be dealt with at a later stage.
I did not get any suggestion as to whether the next definition should be dealt with at this stage or we should proceed and go to reasonable price for developed countries. U.S.?
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Mr. Chairman, I think our Delegation's recommendation would be that the authorized entity discussion is going to be very, very important to so many Delegations. Our Delegation would have a question for the Africa Group Coordinator, whether they would prefer to present their ideas on the authorized entity at this time or would be more comfortable presenting tomorrow morning.
And that would I think guide the scheduling for the Commitee's work.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Egypt?
>> EGYPT: Thank you.
I think the African Group would like to have a fresh look at this important issue tomorrow morning.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. The question that I raised, I don't think was answered. The question was: Should we leave authorized entity and still proceed? Or we get to authorized entity tomorrow? My question is can we move to page 23.
United States.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To answer your question, I suppose the answer this Delegation would give one be might consider bifurcating it. Yes, you should leave "Authorized entity" and then perhaps we could all go have dinner because moving on to "Reasonable price," what you will see is at least some countries will have a suggestion for a rere formulation of Article that preserves sensitivity in relationship to developing markets without the need to use the concept of reasonable price at all. We might not need a definition in Article 1 if we have a reformulation later in the text that preserves the sensitivity to market conditions in developing countries but does not require the definition.
>> CHAIR: Venezuela?
>> VENEZUELA: Thank you, Chair. Just to see that the holidays and... having to go to eat, we need time for recovery and to rest, to be able to see things properly. I think we should break now so we can come tomorrow with a clearer mind.
There are some people who can work for 24 hours, but I can't. So let us come back tomorrow with more clarity and so that we can be more coherent. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much.
(Laughter)
The point is taken. I think that we have done reasonably well, considering that we have just opened this Agenda Item. And I can see the Delegations Have been ready to work on this document. As I indicated earlier, please let's have the proposed amendments to the document sent in writing to the Secretariat. As early as possible so that they can do an update. We shall reconvene tomorrow at 10:00 but in the meantime, I will ask the Secretariat for announcements and then Coordinators for announcements. Secretariat?
>> SECRETARIAT: We would only remind Delegations That we have asked if you have any changes to the report from the 23rd session that you would like us to incorporate in the final version, we did ask for those by tomorrow, so we would be very grateful if you could send them to copyright mail, me or Heidi. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Announcements from Coordinators. Egypt?
>> EGYPT: Thank you. We just would like to request from, ask delegate if he can send by e-mail to the Coordinators the proposed paragraphs for Preamble so that we can stipulate and have a discussion on it tomorrow morning in the coordination meetings and in this regard would like to announce African Group meeting tomorrow at 9:00 in the Bilger Room. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: EU, then Czech Republic.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you. Just announce coordination of the united nation and Member States at 9:00 in the B Room.
>> CHAIR: Czech Republic, then Italy.
>> CZECH REPUBLIC: Thank you very much. Just to announce I will not be sleeping on the paragraphs and for such group, we will coordinate tomorrow starting at 9:30 in the Room 13.1. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Italy?
>> ITALY: Group B will meet tomorrow at 9:30 in Room B.
>> CHAIR: Pakistan, you have the floor.
>> PAKISTAN: Thank you very much, Chair.
Just for my understanding and clarity, so tomorrow morning early morning, as we mentioned, we expect to have a non(?) With all the new ideas, just from a clarity. Thank you.
(Missed that word)
(Pause.)
(Silence.)
>> CHAIR: Colleagues, I wish to confirm the Secretariat will do the incorporation of the proposed amendments that we have received today and we'll make the document available tomorrow morning. So Iran?
>> IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tomorrow morning we will have SCCR 23/7 rev 1. Yes? Because we would like to have the document tomorrow morning.
>> CHAIR: No. It will not be SCCR 23/7 rev 1. What we'll do is that we have done Preamble, and part of the definition so we will provide a paper with those, incorporating those changes. When we reach to a stage where we need to revise 23/7, then we well revise. Go ahead.
>> In this case it is complicated. We would have two documents
(Not sure who is speaking
(
(In order to make negotiation more easier, we propose we see SCCR 23/7 rev 1. Because the proposal made for this document, this is a Working Document, we would like to see that Working Document published.
>> CHAIR: U.S.?
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Listening to the Distinguished Delegates of Iran and Pakistan, let me suggest a compromise. Let's have document 23/7 rev and the first six pages of it or however many pages are the new 12 proposed preambulars with the additional suggestions of other countries, followed then by the rest of the document. So everyone can just look and go back and forth if they want to see the 12 versus the 17. It is the same as producing the nonpaper, it's just putting the nonpaper at the beginning of 23/7 rev. It would be the same, Mr. Chairman, as a nonpaper. Just putting the nonpaper at the beginning of 23/7 and calling it 23/7 rev.
(Pause.)
(Silence.)

(Standing by)

(Gavle)
>> CHAIR: Venezuela.
>> VENEZUELA: Thank you, Chair. I don't agree with Iran or the US. If we worked permanently over the course of the next four days we would simply have 23/7. We'll only be able to give this a new name when it's been finished so let's just come tomorrow, we'll keep looking at the amendments which we have done today and then when we finish the entire document, we'll call it rev 1. We can't call it rev 1 now because that will mess up the system. We have to wait until we've got further down the line for that and then we'll have a version for the Diplomatic Conference, of course.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Venezuela.
That was indeed my understanding, because we have just done a part of it so we can't call it rev 1 until we finish and then we can -- we revise the document and then call it rev 1 or whatever we decide to call it at the end of the session.
So let's have a look at the work that we have done today. You want to see that in writing so let's produce this paper, so that you can work from it, and then we will move on to the other sections. That is understood, so we'll convene tomorrow at 10:00. The meeting is adjourned. Egypt?
>> EGYPT: Just one question about the document about the education. When it will be released?
>> CHAIR: