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

6. 
   The Representative of Corporación Latinoamericana de Investigación de la Propiedad Intelectual para el Desarrollo (Corporación Innovarte) stated that there was an indication, in current legislation, that the study of exceptions for educational limitations was not appropriate for countries, and that was a problem for international and learning cooperation in the area of communication. In order to overcome those challenges, the Representative stated that an international agreement, which would enable a minimum of common exceptions and limitations, and which would make it possible to have compatible roles for cross-border use of educational resources, was indispensable.
   

6. 
   The Representative of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP) congratulated the Chair. The Representative stated that coming from a country that has educational exceptions that are open to the use of any kind of work protected by copyright, those exceptions were open to any education-related activity or purpose, and were open to the use by any user, not just restricted to, for instance, teachers or educational institutions. Those rights were subject to a fairness test that made sure the authors and the rights holders were protected within those kinds of uses. That openness in the exceptions environment was part of what enabled the kind of innovations that allowed access to learning materials through new technologies and over the Internet. The Representative stated that Communia and the American University would host a side event on the outcomes of a research project that examined user rights and the value of those user rights. That research indicated that wealthy countries were developing openness in the education environment more quickly and more thoroughly than poorer countries were, but that the problems were not just related to poorer countries. As the Representative of Communia had noted, that was not just a problem with developing countries but was too an issue in wealthy countries. There were environments where the education copyright was too restrictive to enable the basic educational learning processes that were necessary in the current environment. The Representative encouraged that the process moving forward, including the construction of any new charts and agendas, focus the discussions on those values of educational exceptions, where educational exceptions were open to works, open to users, and open to the full range of activities that were expected in the classroom.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Colombia, speaking on behalf of GRULAC, stated that picking up from what GRULAC had previously said, it wished to put forward a recommendation, and that it would like to hear Professor Seng’s response to including in the study, an analysis of the current limitations and exceptions established in national legislations for the cross-border use of works within the framework of education and research. The Delegation stated that when it saw the presentation and the conclusion of that so far, it did not see any reference to the inclusion of that proposal made by GRULAC.
   

6. 
   The Chair addressed that question to the Secretariat.
   

6. 
   The Secretariat stated that it had contacted Professor Seng about whether he could, with the data that he had in his database, which was basically information on the national laws of Member States, provide responsive data on that subject, and he had told the Secretariat that that really was not possible based on the data that he had. Professor Seng had explained that there were a couple of reasons for that, one of which was that, not having seen many versions that directly addressed the question of cross-border transfer within copyright laws he did not anticipate that he would find a lot of data. Professor Seng had explained that what he thought would be required was an analysis of exhaustion requirements, which would be very complicated, and not something that could be simply have drawn from the database. As those particular laws were often found different places, sometimes in copyright law but not always, Professor Seng did not feel, based on the data that he had available, that he was able to undertake further work on that particular topic.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Colombia, speaking on behalf of GRULAC, took note of the comment and stated that it did not have any more questions.
   

6. 
   The Chair requested that the Secretariat present on an initiative that started with a questionnaire that the Committee had received on the availability of materials in Member State countries. The Chair requested, Deputy Director General, Sylvie Forbin, to present on that part.
   

6. 
   The Deputy Director General provided an update on the information, which had been provided in a circular a few weeks earlier. First, it had seemed to the Secretariat that, without prejudice to the work being carried out within the SCCR on the normative agenda, together they could attempt to look at some innovative solutions to facilitate access to educational materials. That included access to textbooks, educational text, and distance learning modules, which could be promoted through the process. The starting point had been to respond to one of the fundamental objectives of the United Nations, Goal 4 of the Sustainable Development Goals, to ensure inclusive and quality education for all. That issue overlapped with WIPO’s mission. Second, education was a driver for innovation and development, and WIPO was the primary organization with a focus on development, through the use of innovation and intellectual property. Third, while there were other organizations working on that goal to ensure inclusive and quality education for all, including UNICEF and other agencies of the United Nations (U.N), within its field, scope and mandate, WIPO did cover the issue of education. They did not wish to duplicate initiatives being carried out by other agencies, but they wanted to complement them through the specificities of their intervention. During the course of that day, they had seen how important education was as an important subject and the panoply of different instruments that it required. Perhaps other instruments could still be developed. They wanted to respond to two main challenges. The first was to contribute to guaranteeing access to educational materials and learning modules of high quality, particularly in low-income countries. The second objective was to ensure the sustainability of the national publishing sector. They had seen that significant private investment had been involved in that process. Market conditions, were also relevant, and public support, existed in most of the countries. However, those public funds were not adequate to respond to all the needs of the education sector. The approach that had been adopted to try to face those challenges, was an approach, which overlapped within three circles. First, research, together with the search for models and innovative licensing schemes. Second, the creation of a trustful environment, thanks to an appropriate level, legal playing field, shared with a maximum of countries. On that playing field everybody had fair and equal access. Finally, an important objective for the project was to strengthen the capacities of the publishing industry within the countries that wished to develop their own educational publishing sector, as one of their medium- or long-term objectives. They had envisioned three pillars. The first, would be articulated around a public-private partnership. There they had defined the objectives, implementation, the achievement of those objectives and a follow-up discussion, which would come from a dialogue between the stakeholders. It would lead to a collaboration between the various different actors, private and public. The second pillar concerned the legal framework. It was necessary to ensure that it created an environment of trust among the various different partners and stakeholders and also facilitated innovative cross-border exchanges. They had looked at the traditional legislative arsenal, but they could also look for unconventional and innovative legislative approaches that could be implemented. The third pillar concerned the means of cooperation that could be developed for countries wishing to develop their local publishing industry, create new educational publishing industries or strengthen the capacities within them. That could be done through a transfer of technology, and a transfer of know-how between publishers in a country where the activity was flourishing, and publishers in countries that wished to develop the same. In order to achieve that, they had sent out a description of the project in a note, which had included a questionnaire that would enable them to analyze and clarify the needs, and look at them from various angles. First, what was the target population for the project? Would it be primary schools, secondary schools, secondary institutions or tertiary education and research institutions? They had envisaged looking mostly at primary and secondary schools, touching a little bit on universities. However, they needed to be fairly modest in their initial approach. Second, looking at the market for educational materials, they already had some basic information through the reports established by the International Publishers Federation. However, they also needed feedback from the Member States about the market that needed to be covered. They also needed to know how educational materials reached the end user. Were they given through public means? Was it a public-private market? Or, was is it totally private? That may be the case in some places, but they needed to have information from the Member States, so that they could see how the import of works compared to works at a local level. They needed to know the level of existence of the local publishing industry in the educational sector, including what percentage of works came from abroad, and what countries they came from. In order to have that information, they needed to have the questionnaires returned quickly. It was a very short timetable, but they were not a university or research center themselves. They wanted practical operational approaches, and for that, they really needed that information from the Member States. They would not have the possibility to verify that information on the ground. In the second phase, they had identified some stakeholders, including the authors of educational works and teaching modules, publishers, the publishing and printing houses, bookstores and libraries. They had indicated that there were printing houses, because it was an important aspect to know whether the printing house was found in the country, or whether books were printed in another country. There were also national educational policymakers, donors, NGOs that were interested in participating in the project, and the U.N agencies and development organizations with whom they would work in close cooperation, to complement their activities. There was also any other partner that had not been mentioned that would be important to include in their efforts. The following step was to begin pilot initiatives. They would try to martial all the conditions for success to kick off the initiatives. It was a progressive and open process. They would begin activities with those who were interested in taking part in the projects, whether it was to receive support or to help provide it. Then they would define the partners, other than the Member States, ready to help with the implementation of the project.
   

6. 
   The Chair thanked the Deputy Director General for a very comprehensive run-through of what seemed to be a meaningful initiative that had been undertaken by WIPO, to help improve access to educational materials and learning modules, and ensure the sustainability of the national printing industry, which was a key stakeholder in all of their education sectors. The Chair inquired whether there was a timeline in which expressions of interest should be forwarded to the Secretariat. He asked if that was something that would only be available to interested Member States.
   

6. 
   The Deputy Director General stated that they could begin immediately if there were some who wished to take advantage of their presence to provide suggestions. As she had mentioned, it was an open process. They hoped that the responses to the questionnaires would enable them to have specific elements to build the first partnerships. Some stakeholders had already expressed their interest.
   

6. 
   The Chair urged all Member States to share the news with their stakeholders. For those who had stakeholders already engaged in the initiative, he encouraged them to get in touch with the Secretariat as soon as possible, to think about ways in which they could tap into the energy behind the initiative. There had been some ideas about what a cross-border seminar would look like, but it would be good to clarify that. Was it going to be a seminar style, conference style, or some other modality?
   

6. 
   The Deputy Director General informed the Chair that on Friday morning - through the exercise they had started in parallel, on the exploratory study on the evolution of legislation regarding digital challenges – the Member States would see how the Secretariat had tried to initiate some thinking that corresponded to the expectations of an international organization. At all the levels of their interventions, they had to think in an international fashion, about the functioning of exceptions and limitations. They had already noted that the topic was a part of the DNA of WIPO and the organization’s Creative and Cultural Industries Sector. They would like for the process to be cross-border in nature, transposed in terms of thinking and reflection. In other words, they believed that to think about the issues, they should gather several brains, and place them together in the same place to exchange equivalent levels of expertise, from different geographical horizons. It was an exercise that had already provided sound results on the topics that the Member States had requested the Secretariat to look into. They proposed that exercise, and not a conference format, to allow the experts to be able to speak and exchange their points directly, without being faced with a roster. It did not mean they were going to do that on camera behind closed doors. In no way did they wish to have a nontransparent or closed exercise. Consequently, they could gather together some academic experts, who would put the topic on the table and think about the main underlying issues. Professor Seng had told them earlier that it was not easy to penetrate the world of contracts. As a result, they needed the stakeholders to be able to discuss that. With their agreement, they would like to bring together a small group of international experts in the coming months. They needed to have a bit of preparation for that complex topic. In the second stage, before the future SCCR, they would include the representatives of stakeholders, who could contribute their experiences, expectations and for some of them their fears, to that academic thinking. It would be a debate limited in number so that it would be very concentrated in terms of energies and intelligence. However, it would help them with common thinking.
   

6. 
   The Chair stated that it was the right time for them to focus their energies on very concrete things that they could do, and had already been doing. The topics should be discussed on a global basis. It was an opportune moment - after having heard the reports from Professor Seng, as well as some comments from other stakeholders and the Secretariat - to look at what could be a possible work program for all the limitations and exceptions. He noted that he was going back and forth, referring to all the limitations and exceptions discussions. He had heard there was some appetite for updating the Crews study. He believed that could be done without much fuss. Mr. Crews had already indicated an openness and interest in doing that. He had also heard that there was some interest in the development of principles, like a DIY kit. It would provide guidance for domestic frameworks regarding cross-border services involving all the institutions of interest on that agenda item. He had also heard that they should have some kind of engagement or dialogue. There had been some discussions that morning about a typical seminar, which would be open, just like the format they had for the resale rights discussion on Friday. However, he had heard from the Secretariat, that maybe they needed to have some kind of expert roundtable, not only with academics, but inclusive of practical and operational experts, to find out what were the cross-border challenges. He assumed that they would produce a report, or some kind of document that would help inform their discussions at the following SCCR. In relation to education, they should encourage Professor Seng to finalize the study. That was something that was uncontroversial.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Senegal, speaking on behalf of the African Group, thanked the Deputy Director General for a very brilliant presentation, which had provided clear-cut information about the role that WIPO could play in attaining the objectives allocated to international community, in reference to education. The Delegation reiterated its desire of having a basic text on which they could envisage future discussions. The summary that had just been made did not reflect that fact. It would like to clarify that, specify it, and think about a formula that would lead them to having a basic text, which could be the object of future discussions.
   

6. 
   The Chair stated that he had mentioned the proposals that addressed the points on which they could focus. He was aware that there was a strong desire, on the part of some Member States, to see the work move towards a normative instrument. However, he sensed from the room that there was also a sizable number of Member States who were of the view that the timing would not be right for that. The discussions about the work program ahead were not prejudged. The more engagements they had, the more they had information, and the more they could get their stakeholders involved. That led to a good basis on which they could move towards consensus on the normative instruments. However, perhaps at that point in time he would ask the Member States to address the comments that had been made by the Delegation of Senegal. The Delegation had indicated unequivocally, the desire of some Member States to move towards a normative agenda.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Benin inquired whether they needed to react to The Deputy Director’s presentation on publishing. When they were talking about publishing, they were within the framework of fundamental provisions that addressed the access to knowledge and the fluid transmission of knowledge. The Deputy Director General had stated that WIPO would play its role, providing provisions at an international level to ensure the transmission of knowledge. She had spoken of a note, but the Delegation was surprised to hear a memo had been transmitted to respond to a questionnaire. How could they have access to the questionnaire to be able to respond to it in an intelligent fashion?
   

6. 
   The Chair stated that the note had been sent out fairly recently on April 21, 2017.
   

6. 
   The Deputy Director General stated that a note had been transmitted through the Permanent Missions in Geneva. They had to provide that information to the authorities at the Member States’ Ministries of Foreign Affairs. The note had been sent out on April 21, 2017. She could also give it to the Delegate personally.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Nigeria expressed its support of the statement made by Senegal on behalf of the African Group. The Delegation had taken note of the summary that had been provided. First, the Chair had spoken of an update of Professor Seng's study. He had also mentioned developing examples and principles, as a guide for cross-border uses, and for further engagement, through a seminar or conference of experts, on selected issues. There had also been mention of the need to finalize the study on educational exceptions. The Delegation shared the view that it would be important and helpful to finalize the study on educational exceptions, and for Professor Seng to update the study. However, speaking to what the Delegation of Senegal had said, there was an incredible number of participants present, including Member States, that wished to move forward with text-based, norm setting on that very important issue. It had not seen that presented. It understood that the Chair had just provided a summary, taking the sentences of what Member States had said. The Delegation inquired about the status of the Chair's chart on education and research institutions. Where was it in the summary that had been provided? What work would be continued on the Chair's chart, if that was the lowest-hanging fruit that the Committee could adopt to continue the discussions?
   

6. 
   The Chair thanked the Delegation of Nigeria for having mentioned the informal chart that had been introduced by the former Chair during the previous session. They had requested views on that chart intersessionally. However, there had not been a single comment. The chart did present a chance to organize the discussions around structures and themes. However, they had not received any comments on it. Perhaps there was an opportunity for them to open that up for conversation to see whether there was an appetite for that chart to be a basis towards discussions leading to a normative instrument.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the United States of America provided preliminary feedback on the rich range of choices that the Committee had been presented with. As the Chair had summarized, there was a great deal of sentiment in the room to update the Crews study, and it agreed with that. It was also keen, as had been signaled before, on moving towards some kind of statement of objectives and principles, coming out of the Committee, that could be used by national policymakers to help inform their decisions. National choices typically provided the best possibilities to advance educational, social, and information policies. That was very important and it wanted to be a strong member of that conversation. It was also quite supportive of finalizing the Seng study. That was a major contribution, and it looked forward to that work. At that point, it still had some questions with respect to the seminar on cross-border uses. It looked forward to finding out more about that study. The Delegation understood they would to hear more on that during the week. More broadly, many Delegations had the sentiment that they came and brought experts to the room. They would be interested in learning more about the complex process of experts informing experts.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of European Union and it Member States thanked the Chair for the proposal that he had made under the previous Agenda Item. The Delegation also thanked the Deputy Director General for her interesting presentation, and the information she had provided on a possible event addressing the cross-border impact of limitations and exceptions. Notably, with regards to the composition of the panel, it was very interested in hearing more about the process involved in due time. The Delegation would like follow that actively. Concerning the timing of such an event, the European Union and its Member States proposed that it should take place during the following session of the Committee to allow them to profit most from such an event. As had been said earlier that day, it was of the opinion that an update of the Crews study would provide valuable support, to the work of the Committee, as well as also to those involved in reform at a national level. It was also supportive of the finalization of the Seng study regarding the present Agenda Item. The European Union and its Member States shared the view the Chair had expressed earlier, that a model or draft law was not needed and was not desirable. It supported the idea to develop guidance and benchmarks for the national implementation of exceptions and limitations that could guide legislators. Such benchmarks would be particularly useful. They would build on the work carried out in the context of the studies commissioned by the Committee. Finally, there should be a clear understanding that such work should not lead to any textual or normative work. At that point, the European Union and its Member States could not support giving a more formal status to the chart.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Colombia speaking on behalf of GRULAC repeated that it welcomed the proposals regarding the Committee’s future work in that field. It thanked the Deputy Director General for the presentation which had been made. It was very important that the Secretariat received the input and information required, specifically contained in the circular that had been handed out. It was absolutely essential that the information was as comprehensive as possible so that they could continue their work.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Nigeria referred to its previous intervention on the Chair's informal chart. It recalled the process that they had undergone for that informal chart. The expectation of asking the Chair to develop a chart was that it would guide the discussions. It was not intended to lead to any outcome, which had been noted in the Chair's summary. The Delegation wondered to what extent they had made the Chair and Member States engage in the discussions, only to not give consideration to the Chair's chart, to start the discussion on education exceptions. That would not be fair to both exceptions because they had gone through the chart for exceptions and limitations on libraries and archives. Many of the elements were similar. They needed to be able to discuss them. The Committee needed to be able to address the elements that had been identified by the Chair. All Member States had accepted that the Chair develop that chart.
   

6. 
   The Chair invited the Delegates to think about specific work programs overnight. He would need to start talking to the regional coordinators about that. At the same time, perhaps the following morning, they could begin the session by going through the informal chart that the previous Chair had prepared. Since there had been no comments intersessionally, they should not assume it was due to indifference. The following morning, they would have a chance to go through that. They would then move on to a presentation from Professor Ncube, and the people from Colorado would present on the disabilities issue.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Tunisia thanked the Deputy Director General for her presentation, and for her commitment to the very pertinent project she had proposed. It supported the statement of Senegal on limitations and exceptions. The Delegation would like to continue the discussions on the basis of text-based work, which they could look at throughout the work of the Committee.
   

6. 
   The Chair reminded the Delegates that they had spent the previous day discussing exceptions and limitations on a number of items. It had been very instructive to hear the views of not only Delegations but also NGOs. That had included libraries, archives, educational and research institutions. They also had the chance to talk about the documents and the informal papers that had been the subject of so much work over the last few months, and indeed perhaps the last few years. They had also begun to discuss the possible future steps ahead. Sometime that morning, perhaps after the presentation, he proposed that they move their energies towards discussing the outcome on limitations and exceptions. Perhaps the later part of the morning or maybe after the lunch break, they would address resale rights. There would also be an exciting video conference, with Professor Grady who would be able to talk to them about what had happened last Thursday and Friday, and more importantly about the overall landscape of resale rights. He welcomed Professor Ncube, Professor Reid and the Colorado students to the Committee. They would take them through a presentation and a scoping study on persons with disabilities, apart from the print disabilities.
   

6. 
   Professor Reid, his students and Professor Ncube, presented their progress report on the study on, Limitations and Exceptions for Persons with other Disabilities, not currently covered by the Marrakesh Treaty. The video of that presentation can be found at (Thursday, May 4, 2017 Morning Session): http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/?event=SCCR/34#demand
   

6. 
   The Chair thanked the Professors for having provided an overview of the challenges that people with other disabilities faced, including how that interacted with the copyright and related rights regime. One of the challenges they had faced in Singapore - where there was a fairly sizable number of people with visual and hearing disabilities - was that after about a year of implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty, cross-border aspects became very important. Even though they had been given the right to have materials for persons with disabilities, there were other countries where the bulk of those materials were being produced. He inquired whether smaller countries had had the same experience. He asked the Member States to share their thoughts on the cross-border aspects.
   

6. 
   Professor Reid affirmed that it was an issue they had been thinking about a lot. There had not been enough of responses to the survey to speak definitively on it. However, it could be said that it was obviously an issue that had been explored in a lot of depth in the context of the Marrakesh Treaty. New technologies would force them to reexamine the cross-border aspects in a new way. For example, one could imagine if a machine learning service was operated in one country and used in another, it might raise some of those issues. They could think of some other hypotheticals as well. It was something that they would be taking a hard look at in the study.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Argentina stated that some of the other disabilities had been covered in a number of national processes and national legislations when implementing the Marrakesh Treaty. Would it be sufficient once a state had ratified the Treaty to extend the concept of disability, defining it not only as audio or visual, but also any neurological disability that affected people and prevented them from acting in a conventional way? In that way, the same resources available under Marrakesh could be made available to people with those disabilities. Would that be enough to cover those difficulties? Could that be considered as a promising way forward, or should they depend on the international regime?
   

6. 
   Professor Reid stated that it was a positive step to consider expanding the list of disabilities to include cognitive and intellectual disabilities. They had seen some sort of expansions in the context of the Treaty’s implementation and in the responses they had already received. It was definitely one possible approach. The question was whether the scope of works covered under the Treaty was sufficiently exhaustive. Thinking about audio visual works, obviously they were worried about closed captions, audio descriptions and those sorts of things. He was not sure if it covered the waterfront to expand the list of disabilities, but it was certainly an important step a good start.
   

6. 
   Professor Ncube suggested that if a country was expanding the list of disabilities in the domestic legislation, it was probably apt to also extend the list of works. If they keep it to the Treaty’s works, it would not be sufficient.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the United States of America observed that one of the central concepts in the Marrakesh Treaty was the notion of an authorized entity, which had a very specific focus and context in the Treaty. While they had such an array of experts with them, the Delegation was interested in hearing more about what corollary groups to authorized entities existed in relation to the range of disabilities that had been discussed that morning. It was a question of fact, rather than law.
   

6. 
   Professor Reid affirmed that that was a very important question. In the cognitive and intellectual disability space, because there was no specific copyright exception in the United States addressing that in particular, there was no formal definition of an authorized entity such as there was in the Marrakesh Treaty. But in their conversations with both cognitive and intellectual disability stakeholders, the primary group that was engaged in the transformative work that had to happen was educators. In the context of elementary school, or kindergarten up through to grade 12 education, there were a lot of disability services, and professionals who specialized in adapting curricula for people with cognitive and intellectual disabilities. As a result, if they were to think about defining a class of entities that might be engaged in that kind of work, he would start there. Obviously, there weren’t legislative examples to work off yet, so he could not answer that question directly. However, it was something they would be thinking about in the study.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Mexico shared its country’s experience. Mexico had deposited its ratification to the Marrakesh Treaty on September 31, 2016. In its legislation, the Treaty was already part of law. As they all knew, the purpose of the Marrakesh Treaty was to provide people with visual disabilities with access to books in general. But also in force in Mexico was the possibility of providing access to people with all other disabilities. Currently, Mexican legislation covered what had been provided in the Marrakesh Treaty, as well as all other disabilities. It was a law that was in force in the country, which had been introduced to cover all of the country’s international human rights obligations.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Chile looked forward to seeing the outcome of the study after Member States had sent in the requested information. Referring to the question that had been posed by the Delegation of Argentina, the Delegation observed that they had been talking about the need or not to have a binding international treaty on exceptions. They already had one of those examples, which was the Marrakesh Treaty. The Delegation inquired whether they could see an impact from the replies that they had already received. Additionally, had there been greater exceptions in that area because there was already a treaty in force? The value of their study, which was going to cover all disabilities, would be in analyzing that possible difference. Of course, the Treaty had not been in force very long. As a result, the analysis might be preliminary. It would be interesting to confirm the impact of an international treaty on exceptions for the purpose of national implementation.
   

6. 
   Professor Reid stated that they very much intended to look into that during their analysis, and thanked the Delegation of Chile for its the suggestion. They would try to do some longitudinal tracking of legislation that had come in after the adoption of the Marrakesh Treaty.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Nigeria observed that during the presentation, it had heard that 15% of the world’s population, or about 1 billion people lived with a disability. The Delegation had also heard that it disproportionately affected people in developing countries and was on the rise. In their preliminary survey, would they speak about particular exceptions for persons with disabilities, where there was a commonality across many Member States? In that regard, would it be an easier platform to gain consensus amongst Member States for pushing exceptions in those areas?
   

6. 
   Professor Reid stated that they were at too much of preliminary a stage to answer that question. However, one of the goals of the study was to see if there were common threads, whether that was through the implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty, or through other statutes that countries had adopted either in advance of the Treaty or since. They would definitely be looking for those threads and hoped to have something interesting to report back to the Member States.
   

6. 
   The Representative of the World Blind Union (WBU) asked whether the study had taken into consideration the impact of remuneration or compensation schemes in the application and implementation of exceptions for persons with disabilities. In the case of people with a visual disability, the European Union and its Member States had proposed to allow remuneration schemes basically “à la carte”, which had created great concerns, as far as legal uncertainty. It had also created greater costs, and had to do with discrimination. Was it discriminatory that a person with a visual disability, would have to put up, either to the authorized entity or state, a greater cost of remuneration and compensation, when many other types of exceptions to copyright for sighted people had no compensation at all? He had been told by legal experts that it could be a violation of the rights of persons with disabilities and it was a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
   

6. 
   Professor Reid stated that he did not know that they would be taking a position one way or another on that in the paper. However, the issue of remuneration was certainly something that they would be looking at in their analysis. Hopefully the study would be useful in illuminating the debate to which the Representative had referred, and would provide some additional data points that people could look to, in terms of which countries had taken what stance on the issues the Representative had raised. They appreciated the question and would make sure to address it.
   

6. 
   The Representative of the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) wished to underline that in many countries that had a library law, there was a clear mandate for their institutions to serve all of their communities, including those groups who may otherwise struggle to access information. The statistics had shown the role of libraries in serving disadvantaged communities. The Representative’s organization had played an active role in developing guidelines and best practices, including within the U.N context. Clearly, they had engaged closely on the Marrakesh Treaty and had welcomed progress towards effective ratification, without unnecessarily harmful barriers to the effectiveness of its provisions. The work of the European Commission on that had been admiral, as the opposition of some national governments had been regrettable. Given the lack of evidence on piracy, or measures such as commercially available checks, or supplementary remuneration, such as those that had been mentioned by his colleague, over and above the costs of buying and converting texts, what reason was there for maintaining that? Second, to what extent was WIPO's commitment to Article 30 of the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to take part in the cultural right on an equal basis with everyone else?
   

6. 
   The Chair stated that he understood the passion that the NGOs had on those issues. However, the scope of study, may not necessarily address the questions and the issues that they had raised.
   

6. 
   Professor Reid stated that on the one hand, taking a normative position on the very important questions that had been raised was probably beyond the scope of the study. However, they would do their best to identify those points of contention and identify arguments on both sides, to the extent that that further aided the discussion around both of them. They would do their best to address those points.
   

6. 
   The Representative of Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) stated that his mother was deaf. It had been a disappointment to them when the Marrakesh Treaty had narrowed the works that were to be covered, and had also effectively narrowed the disabilities in the Treaty, to exclude people who were deaf. The presentations by the experts had been great because they had highlighted the complexity of the other disabilities. The Marrakesh Treaty had been a step backwards in terms of the inclusiveness that had been seen in the U.N. Convention, and also in some countries' legislations. In the document, SCCR/18/5, Article 15, subparagraph b was the original version of the Treaty that had become the Marrakesh Treaty, the initial negotiating textsubmitted by the Delegations of Brazil, Paraguay and Ecuador.  . It was based on the draft by the World Blind Union (WBU). The WBU draft initially had language, which stated, “contracting parties shall extend the provisions of this treaty, to persons with any other disability, who due to that disability, needed an accessible format of a type that could be made under Article 4, in order to access a copyright work to substantially the same degree as a person without a disability.” That had been dropped from the Marrakesh Treaty. Could WIPO consider at a General Assembly meeting, a joint recommendation stating that countries who implemented the Marrakesh Treaty, should include something along the lines of what had been in Article 15b of the document SCCR/18/5, along with whatever additional text was needed to address the unfortunate narrowing of the works, which were covered under the Marrakesh Treaty?
   

6. 
   The Chair pointed out that that question was best answered by the Committee and not by Professor Reid. If there was a written statement on that point, it would be best shared.
   

6. 
   Professor Reid confessed his lack of knowledge regarding the protocol on the question that had been asked. They had received a lot of feedback from the deaf and hardofhearing community in particular, that echoed the disappointment that had been raised about issues not being addressed in the Marrakesh Treaty, such as, closed captioning. They had seen those issues arise several times in the United States of America. There was currently ongoing litigation, about song lyrics being excluded from closed captions, over concerns that were apparently rooted in licensing disagreements. So that was an issue that had had some real practical concerns for the deaf and hardofhearing community. It was one of the reasons they had endeavored to make sure to include that in the scope of the study. He was not sure to what extent the issues related to cognitive and intellectual disabilities had come up during the discussions around Marrakesh. However, the people they had spoken to in that community were very interested in seeing those issues addressed. There were educators that were very worried about those issues. They appreciated the spirit of the comment and would try to make sure that the study was inclusive in terms of describing all of those issues.
   

6. 
   The Representative of Corporation Innovarte asked whether they could agree that according to humanitarian law, and the rights of person with disabilities, Member States that did not have adequate copyright law, had to provide full access to all types of works, for persons with print disabilities, or risk noncompliance with their international obligations, with regard to persons with disabilities? If that was the case what should be the role of WIPO?
   

6. 
   The Chair stated that while questions of that nature were interesting, they were not really within the scope of the study. If it was something the study took on board it would reflect both sides of the discussion.
   

6. 
   Professor Reid stated that answering that question directly was probably beyond the scope of the study. However, as they had heard at the beginning of the presentation, which had begun with reference to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), that was an issue they would at least describe, although, he did not know that they would reach a normative conclusion.
   

6. 
   The Representative of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) expressed his enthusiasm about reading the study when it was published. He inquired whether it would address technological measures. The Article 7 had been fought over for quite some time. Eventually the text they concluded stated, “Contracting Parties must take appropriate measures to ensure that the beneficiaries of the Treaty have access, notwithstanding the absence of technological protection measures.” Would that be a subject of that study?
   

6. 
   Professor Reid stated that the short answer was yes. There had been a lengthy history of working through that particular issue in the United States, in the context of the Section 1201 review. To the extent that the Member States had had experience with that, or had addressed the particular issue of technological protection measures, or digital rights measures in the implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty, they would be keen to learn about that in their responses to the survey. To the extent that they received responses on that, it would definitely be addressed in the survey.
   

6. 
   The Chair stated that the authors of the study would need the views and inputs of the Member States on the questionnaire, in order to be able to get enough information to finalize the report and produce something that would further enrich their discussions. A deadline for the responses had been set for June 2, 2017. He urged them all to submit answers to the questionnaire to Disability[e-mail]. If there were any questions about the questionnaire, it could be sent to the Secretariat.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Argentina stated that, with regards to other disabilities, when Argentina was drafting the implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty, they had recognized that there was the need for other types of disabilities. They had proposed the question of cognitive disabilities, which could benefit other communities, not merely the visually disabled. It had not yet been adopted by their Congress, but they had recognized that it was not going to be that easy to allow those other groups to benefit from the trans-border benefits of the Marrakesh Treaty. It was in the legislation, despite their concerns about the possibility of difficulties. Nevertheless, they had covered those who were hard of hearing and those who had learning difficulties. A person would could not read, who was blind, could not go to the text. They needed a parent or another individual to give them access to the written word. However, after some years of learning sign language, they could then read for themselves and no longer needed specially adapted works. But that was still a problem at the trans-border level. While they could establish broad exceptions nationally, they could not yet resolve the problem at the international level. So once again, the Delegation expressed its concern and desire that they examine the cross-border aspect of exceptions and limitations for those who had cognitive disabilities other than visual disabilities.
   

6. 
   The Chair stated that the Member States would address what could be done in relation to the general topic of limitations and exceptions. In that regard, the Delegation of Canada had a proposal in relation to limitations and exceptions for museums.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Canada reiterated the point it had made previously. In addition to supporting the updating of the Crews study, it might be helpful for the Committee to consider an update of the study on limitations and exceptions for museums. There had been some support amongst other Member States for that.
   

6. 
   The Chair stated that at that point he wished for them to focus their energies on the next steps. He had come partly from the corporate world, which liked to look at roadmaps and work plans. He suggested that they spend the last day and a half talking about the different kinds of activities that could be done under that part of the Agenda. They had heard from Member States that there was a desire to have larger discussions about the normative developments in that area. With that in mind, he suggested that perhaps one of the things they could report to the General Assembly in October was a roadmap, that would draw together all of the different initiatives under five strands. The first strand would be on data and knowledge. Under that rubric, they would look at whether they would update and finalize the Crews study. That included the update on museums. Since the Crews study would be looking at libraries and archives, perhaps museums were best placed in that category, rather than in education. The second theme would be on engagement. There, they had a number of suggestions. One, was to ask the Secretariat to consider a seminar, symposium or expert round table, where there would be discussions on the cross-border nature of exceptions and limitations. They had heard that morning from the presenters, as well as from many interventions, that many of the limitations and exceptions could not, or should not be tackled from the domestic angle. The third theme was projects. They had heard the presentation of the Deputy Director General and had responded very positively to that. As part of that project, they could create a DIY toolkit that would allow Member States to have access to guidelines and examples. GRULAC and other countries had been quite keen to have a look at and use those examples and guidelines, to help guide legislators and policymakers in shaping a domestic legislative agenda. The fourth element was more of a process to review those activities at the upcoming meeting of the SCCR in November. Finally, the fifth element would be to evaluate all of those activities at the SCCR in May of the following year, with a view to seeing if at that point in time, they could move towards discussion that would move the normative agenda. He would ask the Secretariat to circulate a short paper that described that proposal of the roadmap. They would ask the regional coordinators to consult with the Member States and then they would hear some views and get some feedback.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Colombia speaking on behalf of GRULAC recognized the Chair’s leadership role in the debates. It requested that the initiatives be provided in writing. It also noted that GRULAC had expressed its support of the Canadian proposal, in the area of exceptions and limitations for museums. The Delegation observed that the Chair had not mentioned the question of the charts, which had been presented by the previous Chair, and how they could be included in the roadmap. They had been considered useful up to a point, and could, perhaps, be included as documents. It was a possibility and a step forward.
   

6. 
   The Chair stated that the informal charts had been well received by a sizable number of Member States. There were two charts. The chart that had been more extensively discussed was on libraries and archives. There was a second chart that the Delegation of Nigeria had mentioned, which was the chart on educational institutions. One possibility was to have those charts be part of the data pillar of the roadmap, and to consider whether they could become documents of the Committee. The charts had been very neutrally drafted. It was not clear that they were pressured to mention the discussion. The former Chair had been very careful to drop a chapeau. They could be something to be considered under the data and the knowledge pillar. He saw the charts as informing and enriching their discussions.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the United States of America supported the suggestion of Canada to integrate museums, given their function. The Delegation viewed the charts as a very useful tool, or a gift, as it were, from the outgoing Chair, and they embraced them in that spirit. They also noted, however, that many of the topics went beyond a mere summary of the discussions. Those additional elements, that had been provided by the outgoing Chair had not yet been subject to discussion in the Committee. In that respect, it would be very important to continue to have those documents available to the Member States because they would certainly enrich and inform their discussion. However, the Delegation was of the view that it might be premature to transform them into Committee documents. However, they remained open to hearing other views.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of China supported the proposal by the Chair to develop a roadmap on that issue. It also agreed with the proposal of Canada regarding updating and expanding relevant study outcomes. It was ready to provide its feedback questionnaire to the Secretariat, so that the various national legislations and the practices could be taken into account. The Delegation hoped that the Chair and the Secretariat would provide information in writing about the roadmap.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Senegal speaking on behalf of the African Group stated that it was flexible. It had displayed a great deal of constructive spirit in its work, and it was in that spirit that it had accepted many of the proposals made in the room. In the same spirit, the Delegation had expressed a preference for an international legal instrument. They hoped that the Chair’s roadmap covering the five points would go in that direction. The African Group considered that it was very useful and relevant to keep the Chair's diagram as a future document for discussion at forthcoming sessions. It was a well-structured document. It set out a lot of information, in terms of approach and also obstacles that required further discussion.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Benin stated that it had received the note and the questionnaire. Having read that document it considered it to be a very interesting questionnaire. It required national collaboration from Member States. It required cross cutting work by a country because many Ministries were involved if they were to provide useful answers to the questionnaire. In order to be useful, the document needed a roadmap, as had been suggested, that would go hand in hand with practical mechanisms for followup and evaluation. In that way, they would know where they had been coming from, where they were going and what to do with the results. If the work was done in that spirit, they would be able to have information and results that would be useful for the work of the Committee.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that most of the Chair’s proposal was okay for the Delegation. However, in its view, for one of the topics, exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives, it was important to have a clear roadmap for the future. That topic had been a separate agenda item in the SCCR since the twenty-third session of the Committee in 2011. They had a clear mandate from the General Assembly in 2012 to continue discussion towards an appropriate international legal instrument, and to submit some recommendation to the General Assembly in that regard. They also had had three different studies commissioned by WIPO in 2008, 2014, and 2015. The Chair’s chart, had been discussed adequately in the Committee, and the Delegations had exchanged their views and experience in that regard. With the General Assembly mandate and the development of the topic in the past years, in its view, the topic had been addressed sufficiently at a preliminary level. It was now mature enough to be considered by Member States at a normative level. Accordingly, it was of the view that the Chair's chart was a useful tool for further discussions on that issue in a normative manner. It should become a working document of the Committee as a part of the roadmap for the future.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Egypt stated that African countries had in fact, adopted very flexible positions in order to drive the work of the Committee forward, and overcome the current frozen state of the various items on the agenda. That flexibility, in fact, extended to limitations and exceptions for educational and national archives. As they were seeking to establish several legal instruments in that matter, and considering the unjustified reluctance of certain parties to establish such an instrument, the Delegation wished to endorse the statement made by the Distinguished Delegate of Senegal on behalf of the African Group. That proposal had been to have the chart that had been submitted by the previous Chair be considered an official document of the Committee for its future sessions. It also welcomed the Chair’s proposal to hold one or several seminars on the question of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. At the same time, that required them to work on the drafting of that instrument or those instruments they were aiming for. Referring to the proposal by the Russian Federation, the Delegation supported the idea to consider merging all limitations and exceptions into one item on the Committee’s Agenda for future sessions. The digital environment should also be included. It was a sound idea, which they could further examine, so that it may become a proposal for the future. The Delegation also welcomed the proposal for updating the various studies.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Colombia speaking on behalf of GRULAC thanked the Secretariat for its efforts in attempting to collect information useful to Member States and the activities of the Committee. The Delegation expressed its gratitude for the presentation by the Deputy Director General, as well as the presentation of the initiative for the study presented that day. Many of the discussions had been held up because they did not have useful information from the Member States.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Chile thanked the Chair for setting out the four areas for actions with future evaluations. It was a pragmatic approach with regards to the future work. It was a good way to allow them to put their ideas into force. On the subject of libraries and archives, it had reacted to the Chair’s suggestion regarding the chart and what had been proposed by the previous Chair. It saw that a company treatment for exceptions and limitations was beginning, but they should recognize that there were differing levels of development in that work. They were thankful for what the Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran had said, and for the review of what had happened since 2011 to date. There were differing levels of development and there were different disabilities. They had the experts there on that. As a result, they wanted to stress once again that the chart on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives should be a working document. In view of the varying positions in the Committee, that was important. It should be on the table as an informal document, together with other documents. The Delegation hoped that that would be received positively. With regards to changing the items on the agenda, that was something they still had to consider. They had not discussed that in the group and they would like to hear what other Delegations thought.
   

6. 
   The Chair shared his preliminary reactions to the proposals by some Member States to put all of the limitations and exceptions together. From a certain conceptual and architectural point of view, there was some attraction towards that because, after all, limitations and exceptions shared a common theme; how they could make the copyright regime work to support different causes that had more of a social or cultural aspect, that went beyond what was purely industrial or economic. That was not to say it was too exclusive, but there was a certain feeling that they needed to address some of the unmet needs. There were cross cutting measures in limitation and exceptions themes, as well as cross-border issues. As much as they tried to sort things out internally, a lot of the issues required cooperation. However, at the same time, from a process point of view, the Delegates had also pointed out that the discussions on libraries and archives were a lot more mature. The Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran had said that that discussion went back to the twenty-third session of the SCCR, whereas the discussions on the other limitations and exceptions were a bit more recent. In the area of disabilities, on the one hand they had the Marrakesh Treaty, which was a very mature expression on the treatment of people with visual or print disabilities. On the other hand, there were other types of cognitive disabilities that the Delegation of Argentina had addressed, which had not acquired the same level of maturity. He urged Member States to consider and reflect on that because while they did want to address the issues, they could be recognized from the study perspective, or from the data or knowledge gathering perspective. They could be viewed as a whole, but perhaps from the process or from the work agenda perspective, they may have to remain as they were at that time.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Brazil believed that the mandate of 2012 should be borne in mind, and that they should still work towards the necessity of an international instrument in whatever form for limitations and exceptions and other issues. It also believed that whatever the form of that international instrument, they would need a minimum set of agreed rules, in the absence of which any limitations and exceptions would lose much of their effectiveness. In that sense, they wished to support the statement made by the Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. They also supported the Chair’s suggestion for a roadmap. They thought it was sensible but they called attention to the importance of ensuring that exceptions and limitations, to the best extent possible, were dealt with in separate tracks. It seemed to them that the treatment of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives had been moving faster and making more progress than, for example, educational and research institutions. It supported the comments made by the Delegation of the United States of America about the importance of including museums. It also supported Egypt's suggestions that the Committee to begin reflecting more intensely on limitations and exceptions for the digital environment. However, in all of those cases, it was important that their concern about separate tracks was taken into account. Finally, it agreed with the other Delegations about the importance of keeping the two valuable charts as working documents in the future work. With those conditions, the Delegation fully support the idea of a roadmap.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Georgia emphasized the fundamental role that libraries, archives, educational and research institutions and museums played in social and cultural development. The discussions over the issues that day had facilitated a fulfillment of the public interest undertaken by those institutions. Therefore, it acknowledged the importance of a more complex approach that the Chair had presented, and would be in favor of studying that roadmap. It believed that such an approach would provide the rich exchanges of best practices, to be elaborated in national, legal frameworks that integrated the local needs. The Chair had mentioned engagement as one of the strategies under the proposed roadmap, and had suggested organizing seminars that would include discussions on exceptions and limitations with cross-border, cross cutting elements. It needed to consider that idea. Likewise, it looked forward to studying what had been presented by the deputy Director General the previous day. The Chair’s proposal was very interesting but at that stage, it would be good to see the details of the roadmap. As it had understood, the work would be bring them not to the legally binding international instrument, but rather to the exchange of experience, in order to find solutions to any specific issues under the international and national legal instruments.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Indonesia believed that exceptions and limitations were of critical importance and thanked the Secretariat for all the hard work it had done in preparing all the documents, and making sure that there was time allocated for the issues of exceptions and limitations. It also appreciated the presentation delivered by the Deputy Director General, as well as the presentation that morning. It looked forward to seeing much more progress on the issues of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives, educational and research institutions and for persons with other disables. The Delegation reminded the other Member States that they had a mandate from the 2012 General Assembly, that the Committee should work towards an appropriate international legal instrument or instruments in whatever forms on the topic of exceptions and limitations. They needed to continue to substantively engage in discussions on that issue. Indonesia supported the suggestion of a roadmap that the Chair had proposed, and echoed what the other Delegations had already stated. A separate track for exceptions and limitations would be preferable because for libraries and archives, there was a different level of maturity. They had spent a lot of time discussing those issues that were now in the informal chart on limitations and exception for libraries and archives. The Delegation would like to see the chart adopted as a Committee working document. The Delegation also supported the idea of including the discussions on exceptions and limitations for museums with those on libraries and archives. It also stressed that they needed a constant reminder that the intended purpose of copyright was the right to culture, science and education. Indonesia believed that needed to be in the copyright regime. They still had the incentives for people to be creative, but they should also remind themselves that the copyright regime was there to advance culture, science and education. It should be balanced. It should take into account commercial rights, and equally it should take into account other competing interests, including the public interest in scientific, cultural and social progress, as reflected in Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement. They needed to maintain a balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, particularly education, research and access to information.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Nigeria supported the Chair’s proposal for a roadmap. It believed that it would be very useful and would provide predictability and clarity on the activities of the SCCR. It hoped that the roadmap that was prepared would take into account the different levels of maturity of the different topics in the Committee. It supported the idea of seminars or original events to enhance and build a common understanding on the different issues. It hoped that careful consideration would be given to the role that the Chair's charts on library and archives and research institutions would play.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the European Union and its Member States welcomed an opportunity to comment on the specifics of the Chair’s proposal as they stood.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the Russian Federation supported the position of the Delegation of Brazil, which was a very wise approach. It was not important what document they produced in the final analysis. But they needed to produce an understanding that minimum standards on exceptions and limitations were needed. This was extremely important. For that purpose, the main step was to adopt a roadmap. As in the past, the Delegation could not agree to the fact that they had made more progress in some areas or others. When they had the roadmap, they would be very clear about what direction they were moving in. The nature of exceptions and limitations were exactly the same in character. Once they had defined them, they would realize their importance, both for museums and archives, and educational and other learning institutions. It agreed with the Delegation of the United States of America that they should include museums as well. That would be a very good decision. The Delegation stressed that a roadmap would enable them to make very serious progress in all of those directions.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of India appreciated the Chair’s proposal for a new roadmap for future SCCR sessions. However, it emphasized that discussions on the existing documents on exceptions and limitations should be considered with the objective of forming an international instrument. With regards to libraries and archives, it supported the proposal by the Delegations of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Egypt.
   

6. 
   The Chair stated that they had received a number of comments and suggestions and had managed to come up with a draft document. They would make hard copies as soon as possible for the regional coordinators and would send a soft copy so that they could share the draft with all of the Member States. They had adjusted a couple of things in the course of the discussions. They believed that the word “action plan”, was more proactive and more action oriented. They had incorporated the suggestion to include a museumrelated data and knowledge aspect, based on the comments from some Member States that museums were an important element. They had put in square brackets the question of whether or not they should adopt, or consider the adoption of the informal chart. They would have a meeting with the regional coordinators to discuss that.