WIPO |
|
ORIGINAL: English DATE: April 14, 2000 |
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION | ||
GENEVA | ||
WIPO |
|
ORIGINAL: English DATE: April 14, 2000 |
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION | ||
GENEVA | ||
REPORT
adopted by the Preparatory Committee
1. The meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the WIPO Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of Audiovisual Performances (hereinafter referred to as “the Preparatory Committee”) was held in Geneva on April 12 and 14, 2000.
2. The following States Members of WIPO and/or the Berne Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works were represented at the meeting: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Denmark, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Iran (Islamic Republic of) participated as an observer State (84).
3. The European Community also participated in the meeting in an observer capacity.
4. The draft Agenda, as contained in document IAVP/PM/1, was unanimously adopted. The list of participants appears in Annex I of the present document.
5. The Preparatory Committee unanimously elected Mr. Jukka Liedes (Finland) as President and Mr. Carlos Teysera Rouco (Uruguay) and Mr. Shen Rengan (China) as Vice-Presidents. Mr. Francis Gurry acted as Secretary to the Preparatory Committee.
6. Discussions were based on documents IAVP/PM/3, IAVP/PM/4 and IAVP/PM/5.
7. The Preparatory Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare a basic proposal for administrative and final clauses of the international instrument, containing alternative solutions for a protocol to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) and for a separate treaty, and building on the provisions of the WPPT.
8. The Delegation of Australia asked how, under draft Rule 15(6), precedence could be accorded to a Vice-President who was a member of the Delegation of the European Community, seeing that the precedence amongst Vice-Presidents under that Rule was determined by the place of the State of each of them in French alphabetical order of names of States. The Secretariat replied that when the equivalent to Rule 35 in the Rules of Procedure of the 1996 Diplomatic Conference was applied, the name of the European Community was placed at the end, and this seemed an appropriate guide for the application of draft Rule 15(6).
9. The Delegation of Australia, speaking to draft Rule 17, proposed replacing “the President” with “any President.” The President drew attention to the fact that the same change was required in draft Rule 16(1).
10. The draft Rules of Procedure were approved as proposed, subject to the above-mentioned modifications. The text of the draft Rules of Procedure, as approved, appears in Annex II of the present document.
11. The Delegation of Portugal made the following declaration:
“The Portuguese Delegation is speaking in the name of the European Union on this item. Mr. Chairman, the Member States of the European Union have noted that the list of States that it is proposed should be invited to be represented by Member Delegations at the Diplomatic Conference in their capacity as Member States of WIPO includes Yugoslavia (document IAVP/PM/4, Annex A). In that connection the Member States of the European Union wish to refer to the note verbale that the Permanent Mission of Finland conveyed to the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization on December 16, 1999, in the name of the Member States of the European Union, with the request that he to inform the Member States of WIPO of its contents. We quote the following passage in particular from that note verbale:
‘In the light of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 757 (1992) and 777 (1992) and United Nations General Assembly Resolution 47/1 (1992) the European Union reiterates its position that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cannot automatically continue the membership of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in international organizations, including membership in the World Intellectual Property Organization and the various Unions administered by the latter. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) is only one of several equally entitled successor States.
‘In the absence of the deposit of an instrument of accession or a notification of succession to the constituent instruments of the World Intellectual Property Organization and the various Unions administered by the latter in which the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a member, the Member States of the European Union do not consider the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) a member of these organisations.’
“That position remains unchanged.”
12. With regard to the list of intergovernmental organizations proposed to be invited to the Diplomatic Conference as observer organizations, the Delegation of Cameroon indicated that the name of “Union douanière et économique de l’Afrique centrale (UDEAC),” has changed to “Communauté économique et monétaire de l’Afrique centrale (CEMAC).” The Delegation of Colombia also indicated, that the name of the “General Secretariat of the Andean Community” should be substituted by “Andean Community.”
13. With regard to the list of non-governmental organizations proposed to be invited as observer organizations, the Preparatory Committee was invited to suggest other non-governmental organizations to be invited to the Diplomatic Conference. The Delegation of Canada proposed to invite the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (formerly the Patent and Trademark Institute of Canada). The Delegation further suggested that the representatives of the international association for the hearing impaired be also invited. The Delegation of China proposed to invite the Chinese Federation for Literature and Art Confederation (CFLAC).
14. Subject to the modifications mentioned, the invitation letters and the lists of organizations to be invited were approved as proposed. The text of the draft invitations and the list of States and organizations to be invited, as approved, appears in Annex III A to D of the present document.
15. The Delegation of Spain proposed that the footnote on the draft agenda should be amended to read “Immediately after the closing of the Conference, the Final Act, and the Instrument, if any, will be open for signature.”
16. The draft agenda of the Diplomatic Conference was approved as proposed. The draft agenda as approved appears in Annex IV of the present document.
17. The Preparatory Committee approved the proposal that the Conference take place in Geneva, at the International Conference Center of Geneva (CIGG). Subject to the approval of the WIPO General Assembly, the Preparatory Committee recommended that the Diplomatic Conference should be convened from December 7 to 20, 2000.
Annexes:
