E sccr/34/7 prov. Original: english date: august 4, 2017 Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights Thirty-Fourth Session Geneva, May to 5, 2017

AGENDA ITEM 6: PROTECTION OF BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS

6. 
   The Chair opened Agenda Item 6 on the protection of broadcasting organizations. The Chair noted the support expressed by the delegation to continue the discussions based on a revised document which was prepared by the outgoing Chair, with the view to achieving the consensus required for convening a diplomatic conference on the protection of broadcasting organizations. The Chair stated that document SCCR/34/3, Revised Consolidated Text on Definitions, Object of Protection, Rights to Be Granted and Other Issues, was before the Committee for its consideration. The Chair noted that there was also document SCCR/33/5, Note on the Draft Treaty to Protect Broadcasting Organizations, submitted by the Delegations of Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico for the Committee’s consideration.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Argentina congratulated the Chair and Vice-Chairs on their election. The Delegation expressed its thanks to the Secretariat for organizing that session meeting as well as the resale right conference. The Delegation supported the statement made by GRULAC. The Delegation stated that on behalf of the countries that had cosponsored document SCCR/33/5, the Delegations of Argentina, Colombia and Mexico, it would like to state once again the importance and the priority the delegations attached to the updating of the protection of broadcasting organizations. The Delegation was grateful for the preparation of document SCCR/34/3, Revised Consolidated Text on Definitions, Object of Protection, Rights to be Granted and Other Issues and believed that that document properly reflected the progress made in the discussions on broadcasting as well as highlighted the main issues that still had to be resolved. Consequently, it was a good basis for continuing discussions and reaching common understandings on the outstanding issues. Regarding the provisions on which consensus had not yet been reached, the Delegation stated that in resolving those issues, it was necessary to bear in mind technological changes that had taken place in recent years, and that affected the way in which broadcasting organizations carried out their activities. Effective protection to broadcasting organizations would only happen if the treaty came as a result of discussions held in that Committee. The protection of broadcasting organizations was different from other matters being discussed in that Committee, because of the rate of maturity that it had achieved. The Delegation hoped that the Committee could make progress so that a diplomatic conference could be convened 2018, as it was mentioned in SCCR/34/5.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Chile congratulated the Chair and Vice-Chairs and thanked the Secretariat for preparing the documents. The Delegation stated that it would participate in that session of the SCCR in a constructive spirit and would follow with great interest all the discussions on the agenda items. The Delegation expressed its gratitude for document SCCR/34/3 and stated that it was studying it, in light of discussion in that Committee and other proposals that it had brought forward.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Nigeria congratulated the Chair and Vice-Chairs and extended its deep appreciation to the outgoing Chair, Mr. Martin Moscoso and his Vice-Chair, Mr. Santiago Cevallos. The Delegation thanked the Secretariat for its preparation for that meeting. The Delegation stated that there was no doubt that technologies and marketplaces had significantly evolved since the adoption of the Rome Convention in 1961, thereby necessitating the need to update the protection of broadcasting organizations at the international level. The protection of broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense, which was mandated by the 2007 WIPO General Assembly, had been on the front line of the SCCR for an uncomfortably long period of time without concrete results. It hoped that that session of the SCCR would change the course of that trajectory and expressed its preference for a signalbased broadcasting treaty. Member States had to share greater commitment and political will to engage more positively on that agenda item. The Delegation stated that it was studying document SCCR/34/3, prepared for consideration by the Committee. The Delegation believed that that document substantially captured the textual proposals, clarifications and evolution of discussions on broadcasting organizations over the recent SCCR sessions and that it made useful recommendations. The Delegation believed that such documents would add impetus to the deliberations of the Committee and would facilitate attainment of the needed consensus to advance towards making a recommendation for the convening of a diplomatic conference on the protection of broadcasting organizations in 2018.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the European Union and its Member States stated that a treaty on broadcasting organizations was a high priority for the European Union and its Member States. The Delegation was strongly committed to advancing the work of the previous sessions. It hoped that further progress could be made on the basis of the Revised Consolidated Text on Definitions, Object of Protection, Rights to be Granted and Other Issues that has been prepared for that session. The Delegation stated that it had a number of technical and substantive comments on the text and that it was ready for indepth discussions on that text. The Delegation considered whether the Committee's work should result in a meaningful treaty that reflected the technological developments that had occurred in the twenty-first century. The Delegation believed that the transmissions of traditional broadcasting organizations over computer networks such as simultaneous transmissions or catch up transmissions were not internationally protected from acts of piracy. The Delegation attached great importance to the adequate catalog of rights which would allow the necessary protection for the broadcasting organizations against acts of piracy, whether they occurred simultaneously with the protected transmissions or after those transmissions had taken place. The Delegation looked forward to discussing in more detail the other issues that had not yet been discussed in depth by the Committee. More generally, what was needed was a broad consensus as to the extent of the protection to be granted so that a future treaty could provide broadcasting organizations evolving in a complex world with adequate protection. The Delegation hoped that considerable efforts which had been made during previous sessions and the work still to be undertaken during that and future sessions could allow the Committee to find a solution on the main elements of the treaty and bring it to a successful outcome. The Delegation stated that it would continue to work towards the convening of a diplomatic conference in line with the mandate of the 2007 WIPO General Assembly.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Brazil congratulated the Chair and the Vice-Chairs. The Delegation stated that it would discuss broadcasting in good faith and with an open mind. The Delegation stated that a signalbased approach was the best way for a new treaty to achieve a balance between broadcasters, stakeholders and third parties, including other right holders under the copyright system. A way to reach that goal was to carefully discuss the definitions contained in document SCCR/34/3 in a way that reduced ambiguities and ensured legal certainty. The Delegation stated that it committed to working towards a balanced text that reflected the legitimate interests and priorities of all stakeholders.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Georgia, speaking on behalf of CEBS, reiterated the great importance that the Group paid to the conclusion of a treaty that would go to protect broadcasting organizations, and noted its eagerness to advance the work of the Committee in achieving progress on the Revised Consolidated Text on the Definitions, Object of Protection, Rights to be Granted and Other Issues prepared by the Secretariat. The Delegation stated that it was looking forward to building its discussions on the latest revision of the text, which illustrated the progress achieved during the last session, and advanced work in developing an effective and legal instrument that would protect the broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense, but would take into account an ever rapidly evolving digital environment. The Delegation reiterated its commitment to work towards convening a diplomatic conference on adopting the treaty, which would produce a meaningful outcome.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Iran congratulated the Chair on his election and thanked the Secretariat for its hard work in the preparation for the meeting. It aligned itself with the remarks made by the Asia and Pacific Group. The Delegation stated that while it understood the productive work carried out in preparation of the Revised Consolidated Text on Definitions, Object of Protections, Rights to be Granted and Other Issues, it believed that that text could be a good basis for further elaborations. The Delegation stated that in that Committee, society’s free access to knowledge shall not be compromised at the expense of certain right holders. Traditional broadcasting remained a central mechanism for access to information, knowledge, and culture in many countries. It was its view that the Committee should avoid guaranteeing strange or extra rights which would cause extra costs for the public and affect access to broadcasting content. The Delegation stated that the Committee played an important role in developing a legal framework for the protection of broadcasting organization against signal piracy. In that regard, the Delegation recalled the mandate given to that Committee, which was to negotiate and conclude a WIPO treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations including cablecasting organizations. Based on that mandate, it was crystal clear that a scope of the treaty would be confined to the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense. Taking into being the mandate of that Committee, the definition of broadcasting should be limited to the traditional definition and type of the transmission exploited by the traditional broadcasters. The Delegation stated that while it knew the evolving digital environment and technological development, it would like to underline that the scope of the treaty, as one of the main elements to be discussed, would, indeed, affect the entire provisions of the treaty. It was as such essential to reach agreement on the definition of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the United States of America congratulated the Chair and the Vice-Chairs their election and thanked the former chair, Mr. Martin Moscoso for his dedication in moving forward the work the Committee. The Delegation stated that it was prepared to continue to engage constructively at a technical level on the issues in the revised Chair's draft text. The Delegation considered it important to represent the interests of all of its stakeholders and to contribute actively to all normative discussions. The revised consolidated text was a reasonable basis for further discussion, on the issues that the Committee had been addressing in the last few sessions, those were definitions, objective protection and rights, as well as the new other issues. The Delegation noted that while the Committee had reached a better understanding of each other's positions, and the text had become clearer, there were still significant disagreements among Member States on some of the most fundamental issues, notably, the object of protection and the rights to be granted. The Delegation supported the statement made by Group B which stressed the mandate of the 2007 WIPO General Assembly, where it was requested that the SCCR reach agreement on the objectives, specific scope and objective protection before making any recommendation to proceed to a diplomatic conference. The Delegation stated that it was eager to hear from delegations that had not been actively involved in the discussion of the draft treaty lately, as broad participation was necessary to be able to realistically evaluate the status of the Committee’s work. The Delegation believed that a mature text, with a clear path forward, was of utmost importance before deciding to convene a diplomatic conference.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Turkey, speaking on behalf of Group B, reiterated the importance of a legal framework for the effective protection of broadcasting organizations to address the technological issues and the reality that broadcasting organizations faced in the modern world. The Delegation stressed the importance of remaining faithful to the mandate of 2007 WIPO General Assembly, which conditioned the convening of diplomatic conference on the SCCR to reaching agreement on the objectives specific scope and object of protection of the treaty. Group B believed that there were other elements that required further discussions, if the Committee was to progress to a stage where it could convene a diplomatic conference. The Delegation believed that Member States had differing understandings of the underpinning principles that the Chair's text was based upon. Therefore, the Committee had to discuss those elements so that a consensus could be found on which the Chair's text is based. The Delegation remained committed to the discussions and to furthering its technical understanding. The Delegation stated that the critical element in the text was the technical understanding and the knowledge of the issue facing broadcasting organizations in today's world, and how it could be the basis of a treaty text. Therefore, due consideration had to be paid to that text.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of The Republic of Moldova congratulated the Chair and the Vice-Chairs. The Delegation stated that it supported the statement made by CEBS on the importance of a treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations. The Delegation appreciated the visible progress realized during the previous session and on the consolidation of the revised text. The Delegation encouraged all the Member States and stakeholders to actually get involved in the negotiation of a treaty adoption on broadcasting.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the Russian Federation congratulated the Chair and Vice-Chairs. The Delegation thanked the outgoing Chair for the revised consolidated text. The Delegation expressed its desire to examine that text and to focus the Committee’s attention on the agreed upon text. The Committee had made significant progress in recent times and it seemed that it was ready to submit that treaty to a diplomatic conference. The Delegation stated that it did not understand the problem with the object of protection and that it had seen obstacles impeding agreement to a treaty at the diplomatic conference. The Delegation asked if the Committee would be able to make new progress that would lead to new forms of communication or if the Committee was going to approach it from the point of view of traditional broadcasting. That was what distinguished that session from the previous ones. Was the Committee going to take into account Internet broadcasting or not? Was it going to concentrate on traditional broadcasting and therefore prepare that document in that way or not? The Delegation stated that the Committee had to find a compromise. It was extremely important to find that compromise in that Committee, otherwise, the discussions would continue for another 20 years. The Delegation expressed that the Committee should also discuss whether it would be traditional broadcasting or whether it would take into account new forms of broadcasting. The Committee had to decide what was more important to achieve, a new agreement and a new treaty, or to continue the discussion. The Delegation was in support of preparing an agreement, a new treaty, and it proposed that the Committee do its best in focusing its efforts and work on the text that had been prepared.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Japan congratulated the Chair and thanked the Secretariat for all the peremptory works for that Committee. The Delegation stated that under current copyright, phonogram producers and the dissemination of copyrighted works, among them the performers and the phonogram, enjoy protection, but that the international protection for broadcasting organizations had been left behind for a long time. The Delegation believed that the Committee should use its efforts to conclude a text to convene a diplomatic conference on a new treaty as early as possible.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the Republic of Korea extended its congratulations to the Chair and Vice-Chairs. The Delegation thanked the Secretariat for its hard work in the preparation of that meeting. The Delegation stated that on whether to protect different transmissions of broadcasting organizations, it was of the view that the catchup service should not be included in the object of protection, nor rights to be granted. The Delegation nevertheless emphasized that the Committee stay open and flexible to a possible solution option that would be able to breach the gap between those in support of the aforementioned position and those that were not. The Delegation was looking forward to engaging in a dialogue with other Member States and to creating concrete outcomes that would lead to the planning of a diplomatic conference in the nearest future.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Cote d'Ivoire congratulated the Chair and the Vice-Chairs and thanked the Secretariat for its excellent work in the preparation of the working documents. The Delegation supported the statement made by the African Group. The Delegation attached great importance to all the items on the agenda of that session and hoped that the discussions would lead to a consensus text, and that a diplomatic conference would be very soon convened. The Delegation stated that its country was in the process of changing anything to do with the audio visual area and would take everything that was said in the Committee into account during that work.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Malawi congratulated the Chair and the Vice-Chairs. The Delegation thanked the outgoing Chair, Mr. Martin Moscoso, for the amazing work he did in guiding the SCCR and the Secretariat for the smooth organization of the SCCR. The Delegation congratulated the Delegations of Senegal and the Republic of Congo for the wonderful and successful international conference on resale rights. The Delegation welcomed the statement made by the Delegation of Senegal on behalf of the African Group. The Delegation wished to further discuss those substantive issues such as achieving agreements on object and scope of protection of broadcasting organizations. The text that had been prepared by the Chair formed a good basis for a healthy debate on those outstanding issues, with a view to making progress on the outstanding issues and possibly convene a diplomatic conference in 2018.
   

6. 
   The Chair thanked all the delegations for their statements and requested the Secretariat to provide a brief explanation of document SCCR/34/3.
   

6. 
   The Secretariat stated since developments had taken place since the thirty-third session of the SCCR, the Committee had requested that a revised version of the consolidated text on definitions, objective protections and rights to be granted be prepared. That was the new text that was before the Committee, document SCCR/34/3. That document was prepared with a new presentation, including additional explanations to facilitate the decision making process by the Committee. The document contained four parts on objective protection: definitions, objective protection, rights to be granted and a new category which was other issues. The first three issues, which were the definitions, the object of protection and the rights to be granted, had been extensively discussed by the Committee, essentially on the basis of the informal charts which had been prepared by the outgoing Chair. The Secretariat stated that in the new structure of the document, the first part was on definitions, with the order of definition having been changed, and some of the definitions also polished. Some of the provisions included in the whole text were either in brackets, in italics or in a side box, indicating that the Committee had not achieved consensus about those provisions. In order to facilitate the Committee's understanding, the presentation had been modified to include some notes at the beginning of the document. On the definition of broadcasting, the definition was presented inside a box, meaning that there was still no consensus about that definition and the text provided for two alternatives. The box highlighted that there was further work to be undertaken by the Committee, with the aim of achieving at that session, a single text. There were two alternatives: Alternative A, limited broadcasting to wireless transmissions, but it included in paragraph two, a specific definition for cablecasting and Alternative B was a more technology neutral definition of broadcasting. The Secretariat noted that while Alternative B received significant support at the previous session of the Committee, the reference to wire transmissions was still in italics as one delegation had indicated some concerns with regard to that provision. The inclusion of wire transmissions was pending due to the internal consultations in that Member State. In order to accommodate that concern, a new agreed statement had been added to the text, agreed statement number two, which clarified that the provisions applicable to broadcasting were applicable to cablecasting. In relation to the definition of broadcasting organization, and, of course, as a consequence of the previous and resolved issue related to the issue of broadcasting, where there were still two alternatives, the definition of cablecasting in the definition of broadcasting organization is also under brackets. That was the case actually of several provisions in the text, where cablecasting was still in brackets, as the solution to that issue depended on the finalization of the definition of broadcasting as such. In that definition, there was another unresolved issue which was indicated in italics and which referred to the entities that delivered the signals exclusively by means of computer networks, which the Committee did not wish to include in the scope of protection. That bracket was in relation to the fact that transmissions of a computer network which were not considered broadcastings, had been removed, compared to the previous version of that text. Further work was required from the Committee to clarify that broadcasting and possibly cablecasting organizations that provided services over the digital transmissions would be protected with other entities. In other words, nonlinear services, such as pure video on demand services, not related to traditional broadcasting would not be protected. In relation to the definition of retransmission, it had also been further polished in the new text as it was possible to remove one of the alternatives which had been deleted. The Secretariat stated that the text now referred to retransmission by any means of a program carrying signal broadcast. The word "broadcast" was added compared to the previous version, and there was also the word acting on its behalf, which was included compared to the previous version. The text contained, for first time, a definition of the third transmission, extending the protection beyond simultaneous and near simultaneous transmissions. That definition was still in italics and would require further input from the Committee. In particular, in relation to the clarification of the scope of online broadcastrelated services which were discussed last time, such as in particular, simulcasting and catch up TV services. The Committee had expressed some desire to protect such services, while also stressing the need to refine the definition of the third to exclude the generating the pure video on demand services as such. In relation to the definition of prebroadcast signal that definition appeared also in italics. It aimed to provide a definition of what was to be considered a prebroadcast signal, and that definition would also require some further input from the Committee. Part two of the document, SCCR/34/3 related to the object of protection as such. Progress had also been made in the discussion in relation to the object of protection, which had led in that new text to the deletion of one of the alternatives. There were mainly three issues which remained to be addressed in that proposed chapter, object of protection. In paragraph 1, there was the reference to prebroadcast signal which remained in italics and there, the Committee needed to decide whether prebroadcast signals should be included in the object of protection. In paragraph 2, the word "deferred" was still in brackets as well as the making available rights. The Secretariat stated that as it had previously mentioned, the Committee was still discussing the inclusion and wording of those elements, which appeared in different parts of the text. In paragraph 2, subparagraphs I and II, they also needed to be further considered by the Committee and they appeared in italics and brackets. Subparagraph I provided a text which allowed Member States to limit the protection of deferred transmissions as provided in subparagraph I. Subparagraph II was applicable only in the case that paragraph I remained and it provided a possibility for contracting party to limit national treatment and to apply material reciprocity in the case of deferred transmissions. That Paragraph relied on the fact that if the Committee decided not to include deferred transmissions in the object of a protection, in the text, then subparagraph I and II would not be needed and they should be deleted. That issue was still under consideration by the Committee as such. In part three, rights to be granted, some text had been streamlined there. The legal protection was provided under an exclusive right of authorizing was already provided also under the Beijing Treaty. The expression by any means also at the end of that subparagraph 1 appeared in italics as it required a decision from the Committee. The text of paragraph 1, subparagraph II had been harmonized with the wording of subparagraph 1 by referring to retransmission and program carrying signal, and in the last paragraph, paragraph 2, which was still in italics, related to the possible inclusion of prebroadcast signals and the rights to be granted, and the protection which was provided and the rights to be granted was now in the form of a right to prohibit being authorized with transmission by broadcasting organizations of their own prebroadcast signal by any means. The text contained a new chapter on other issues, which appeared for first time in that consolidated document. Other issues consisted, essentially of provisions relating to the beneficiaries of protections, to limitations and exceptions, to obligations concerning technological measures, obligations concerning rights management information. Those provisions were addressed for first time on the basis of that consolidated text and the drafting had been based namely on existing documents, such as SCCR/27/2 rev. The provisions closely followed recently adopted provisions in international treaties such as the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) and the Beijing Treaty. The Secretariat noted that in some cases it was necessary to adapt or take into consideration the broadcasting and the cablecasting environment and that was in particular the case for the provision relating to technological protection measures and rights management information.
   

6. 
   The Chair stated that the Committee was moving to informal and requested that the Secretariat make the necessary announcement concerning that.
   

6. 
   The Chair stated that there had been very intense and comprehensive discussions in the informal setting about the Chair's consolidated text. The Chair stated that upon having those discussions it was clear as to which issues were disagreements and divergences at the policy or political level. The Chair stated that further technical drafting work needed to be done to sort those things out. The Chair stated that in his view, perhaps the key policy difference, along with one or two others, was the issue of deferred transmissions. There were other issues, but the Chair singled out that one as he felt it was one of the most difficult issues. Discussions had started, and there were some that had been going on for quite some time. The Chair hoped that that was the chance for Member States to engage anew on those issues and carry on talking about them. In terms of what was next, the Chair stated that upon discussions with the regional coordinators, the Committee was not going to be able to propose a consensus recommendation to the General Assembly that was ready to move towards a diplomatic conference. The Chair stated that the SCCR had to show some progress under the Chair as well as under the hard work from the Secretariat, the Member States, all the experts, there had been movement. That movement was reflected in the amazing work that had been done by the previous Chair as well as the Secretariat to have a consolidated text. The Chair stated that there was a structure that everyone was comfortable with, and elements which everyone was prepared to engage with. The Chair raised for consideration, to move the Chair's text into a Committee text. That move from Chair to Committee required everyone in that room to feel secure, to feel that their views on issues, which may not be political or technical, that they were reflected in some way in the document, and that there was space for those proposals to be considered. The Chair stated that he would like to see reflected in some way in the Committee working document the proposals that had been tabled. The Chair stated that the Secretariat would attempt to do a first cut at incorporating those proposals in a way that gave everyone comfort. On that basis, the Chair stated that the Committee put a recommendation to the General Assembly. The Committee working document, which used to be the Chair's consolidated text, could be a basis for further discussions, with a view to considering whether that may at some time lead to a diplomatic conference without specifying the time for that diplomatic conference. In that case, the work done by the Committee would be properly reported to the General Assembly and show that work had been done in the last year. The Chair opened the floor for reactions.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Senegal stated that in its meeting with the Chair, it had proposed for the regional coordinators to consult with members of their group on the various proposals that had been made. The Delegation wished to have group meetings before coming back to the issue.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the Russian Federation supported the proposal made by the Chair. The Delegation considered that a small step forward and stated that it was really important to make that Committee document and actually to start working properly. The Delegation stated that it had been in the Committee for more than ten years and the plenary was an effective way of working.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the European Union and its Member States stated that there was much wisdom in the proposal that was put forward by the Delegation of Senegal that Member States have some time to consider the Chair’s proposal. The Delegation stated that it had a number of questions relating to the methodology of the Chair’s approach. The Delegation stated that certainly the European Union would subscribe to the Chair’s proposal to turn that document into a Committee document as it made sense. However, the document that was there going into that session had achieved a certain degree of stability and maturity. All the comments and all the bracketed text had been discussed. It had been refined over the previous sessions. The Delegation asserted that what was before the Committee was now a situation where potentially new elements, elements that may possibly not have been discussed at length, would now suddenly find themselves inserted into that new document which would therefore be more varied than the one that was there coming into that week. The Delegation asked the Chair if he had imagined ways of differentiating those elements that had already been discussed at length and had achieved a certain level of stability with the new elements that would be added in as a result of that week's discussions.
   

6. 
   The Chair stated that the reason of moving that document from a person document to a 190-country document naturally meant that there would additional factors added in there. The Chair asked the Delegation of the European Union and its Member States if it had any specific proposals in mind. The Chair stated that he would also look to whether the other countries would have any strong views as to that. The Chair asked the Delegation of the European Union and its Member States if it was referring to an annex.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the European Union and its Member States stated that the general sense of direction that it had experienced in the last few sessions of the SCCR had been one towards streamlining the text and one in the opposite direction, which was unfortunate. The Delegation stated that it understood that in changing the status of the document, then it was normal that all Delegations would want to see national positions reflected in that document that belongs to the whole of the Committee. The Delegation stated that it was not necessarily talking about an annex but thought it interesting to differentiate the existing text from those new additions, some of which had not been discussed before.
   

6. 
   The Chair stated that some way of differentiating would be useful not just from the temporal perspective, but would also be useful for people back home who needed to understand and grapple with what was very fresh. A way to differentiate could be to use a different font, bold or a different color. The Chair stated that he would consult with the Secretariat.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Colombia, speaking on behalf of GRULAC, stated that GRULAC would like to review the proposal with fresh eyes, obviously taking into account the high level of participation it saw in the informal with Member States, including those of its group. The Delegation wished to think about the proposal as well as the text that was presented by the Secretariat.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Italy supported the statement made by the Delegation of the European Union and its Member States. The Delegation stated that as an alternative it could think to a list of discussed issues with the alternatives that could be circulated and be the object of a more detailed, in particular, the first transmission, extension in time of secondary transmission, even over the Internet and all the issues that were already listed.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Brazil expressed its thanks to the Chair for his leadership. The Delegation stated that it wished to see some of the items that were reflected in document SCCR/27/2 somehow included in the new draft that would be submitted to the Committee. Those items were: Article 2, the general principles; Article 3, the protection and promotion of cultural diversity; and also Article 4, defense of competition.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of China thanked the Chair for his leadership and stated that it supported the proposal to convert the Chair's text into the Committee's text. The Delegation supported the suggestion by the Delegation of the Russian Federation. The Delegation also thought that the plenary discussions were more effective than the informal discussions. The Delegation supported the proposal by the Delegation of the European Union and its Member States that in the consolidated text there should be a differentiation between the discussed rather mature text and the new text, so as to avoid any duplication.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the United Kingdom thanked the Chair for his leadership. The Delegation stated that the Chair had made mention of two elements in the deliberations of moving the Chair's text to the Committee's text. The Delegation stated that it could only support what had been said to be considered by the Committee. The Delegation expressed that the second recommendation the Chair had mentioned was a sweet and short recommendation for the General Assembly from the Committee. That was somewhat of a new element and where the Chair made mention of the fact that it would be sweet and short, the Delegation stated that it would really appreciate it if there would be a proposed wording of that as well.
   

6. 
   The Chair thanked the Delegation of the United Kingdom for that suggestion. The Chair stated that it would receive suggestions and have those circulated around the room and beyond. The Chair thanked the Committee for its engagement and opened the floor for announcements.