US embassy cable - 05PARIS3245

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 003245 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
FOR IO/T - ROBERTS AND COWLEY, EB - PAUL ACETO 
PLEASE PASS TO USPTO - M KLEPINGER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC, KIPR, UNESCO, WIPO, WSIS 
SUBJECT:  USUNESCO:  171st EXECUTIVE BOARD ITEM 65: 
PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF BROADCAST ORGANIZATIONS - 
PROPOSED BY INDIA 
 
 
1. Summary.  India's proposal to place a new UNESCO 
convention on broadcasting on the agenda of the next General 
Conference (GC) in October 2005 was derailed during the 
recent Executive Board meeting.  The U.S. Mission 
successfully intervened to have the feasibility of such a 
convention considered first at a scheduled meeting of the 
Intergovernmental Council of the Rome Convention at UNESCO 
headquarters on June 27-28, 2005.   This step makes it 
difficult to have the convention considered at the upcoming 
GC. 
 
2. India's proposal was an attempt to derail work on a 
related treaty, supported by the US and currently underway 
at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).  A 
U.S. observer delegation, expected to include 
representatives from the U.S. Mission to UNESCO, USPTO and 
the Library of Congress, will work with 12 UNESCO Member 
States represented on the Intergovernmental Council to 
obtain a recommendation from the Council that development of 
a broadcasting convention by UNESCO is not appropriate.  End 
Summary 
 
3.  During UNESCO's 171st Executive Board, the Indian 
delegation offered a draft resolution proposing that UNESCO 
begin work on a convention "on broadcasting and emerging 
technologies to protect and enhance access and sharing of 
knowledge and information."  The proposal sought to place 
this item on the agenda of UNESCO's next General Conference 
in October. 
 
4.  The draft proposal refers to a World Intellectual 
Property Organization (WIPO) treaty already in progress that 
will update the Rome Convention for the Protection of 
Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting 
Organizations (Rome Convention, 1961).  While the U.S. 
supports the WIPO process and has submitted its own proposed 
text, India, with the support of Brazil, has unsuccessfully 
attempted to block any progress on the WIPO treaty.  The 
proposal to have UNESCO take up a broadcasting convention 
could be viewed as another attempt by India to derail the 
proposed WIPO treaty on broadcasting by shifting 
negotiations to a new forum.  This attempt runs counter to 
recent USG efforts to limit the number of new conventions at 
UNESCO. 
 
5.  During discussion at UNESCO's last Executive Board, 
USDEL initially sought an opportunity to have the proposal 
withdrawn.  When that proved not possible, USDEL managed to 
get the convention proposal modified so that it would not 
come before the Executive Board for consideration.   The 
final decision asked that the proposal   be referred for 
consideration at a scheduled meeting of the 
Intergovernmental Council of the Rome Convention at UNESCO 
headquarters on June 27-28, 2005.  (Note:  India tried 
unsuccessfully to change the final language.  The Indian 
delegation, however, continues to maintain that a decision 
was made to go forward at UNESCO with a convention on 
broadcasting.  In separate conversations, the Australian, 
Canadian and French delegations strongly agreed with our 
position that this was definitely not the case.) 
 
6.  Countries supporting the U.S. position were Russia, 
Australia, Indonesia, Iceland, Ecuador, Canada and France. 
India was supported by Venezuela, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. 
Brazil did not intervene in support of India though Brazil 
had supported India's efforts at WIPO. 
 
7.  Member states of UNESCO's Intergovernmental Council of 
the Rome Convention are: 
 
Belgium 
Burkina Faso 
Colombia 
Denmark 
France 
Germany 
Hungary 
Japan 
Latvia 
Mexico 
Poland 
United Kingdom 
 
8.  Comment:   Along with the cultural diversity convention, 
this could be viewed as one more attempt by countries to 
venue shop for their pet project.  USDel worked hard during 
the last Executive Board to stop new proposals like this and 
to make it more costly for states to push their projects by 
insisting that signatories pay for new conventions and the 
meetings to draft conventions be paid out of UNESCO's core 
budget.  We are pleased that plans are evolving for an U.S. 
Observer Delegation to take part in the upcoming 
Intergovernmental Meeting at UNESCO.  We see possible 
additional actions to accomplish our objective as follows: 
--engagement with the 12 UNESCO Member States on the 
Intergovernmental Council to the Rome Convention to build 
support for a decision that will keep the proposal by India 
from going forward to the Executive Board; 
--demarches to the 12 Council members and other like-minded 
states before the meeting to seek support for our position; 
and 
--stopping/delaying development of a preliminary study of 
the legal and technical aspects of the problem for 
consideration by the UNESCO Executive Board.   End Comment. 
 
OLIVER