As of Tuesday 12 JUN 2012 the following comment to KEIonline.

org/node/1433 article Statement by Brazil at June 2012 WTO TRIPS Council on the state of play of WIPO negotiations on a Treaty for the Blind was still awaiting moderation. Note that well over 50% of the below listed disabilities would qualify as Article B Beneficiaries Persons under the definition in the WIPO SCCR 23/7 current document. Preview comment Your comment has been queued for moderation by site administrators and will be published after approval. 'Misleading' Treaty Beneficiary numbers Submitted by jem40000 on 10. June 2012 - 23:12. The following numbers are from the US Department of Education December 2011 report on Accessible Instruction Materials (AIM) for Students with Disabilities in PostSecondary Education: Students with a range of disabilities enroll in postsecondary institutions. The 2011 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)survey data and the 2011 AHEAD survey data report similar distributions of disability types represented by students enrolled in post-secondary institutions. (Note that the percentages below represent disability types within the 10.8% of students with disabilities reported in post-secondary settings.) Disability distributions: post-secondary student population

Disability Type AHEAD % NCES % Learning Disabilities 28.16% 31% ADD or ADHD 20.21% 18% Psychological condition 15.59% 15% Health impairment 9.25% 11% Mobility impairment 6.20% 7% Hard or Deaf of hearing 3.25% 4% Traumatic Brain Injury 2.79% 2% VISION IMPAIRMENT 2.61% 3% Intellectual disabilities 2.40% 3% Temporary impairment 2.01% N/A Autism 1.94% 2% Speech/language impairment 0.72% 1% Deaf-blind 0.09% N/A Other 4.79% 3% So at the post-secondary level in the USA only one out of 50 (or maybe 30) students with a disability has a 'vision impairment' as their primary disability. Yet you, other WIPO Treaty proponents, and even the President of Brazil speak about the needs of "visually impaired persons and persons with print disabilities as if the persons with print disabilities other than the visually impaired is the smaller component. The current SCCR 23/7 negotiating document would approach 10% -- as similar to the 10.8% above -- as the Beneficiary class of persons world-wide who would be exempt from copyright provisions... and then you wonder why Treaty negotiations are where they are at nearly 4 years after your July 2008 WBU treaty drafting session.

BTW as to the upcoming WIPO SCCR 24 I sent this memo to some of the Members of the US WIPO Delegation: Pre-SCCR 24 observations & Beijing Take 2 As we are approaching the next WIPO SCCR24 and the discussions that are now represented by SCCR23/7 & SCCR23/5 with the recently released 23/8 comments on libraries, I have the following observations: IMHO the most tangible developments in entering the SCCR24 session are these: -- The statement by you and your office to Question 71 of the WIPO Questionnaire as regards exports of 'Specialized Format' renditions of Copyrighted material under existing US Copyright Law as per Sections 602, 106, & 121. -- The December 2011 Statement by the UK Intellectual Property Office in their Consultation On Copyright: 7.165 Although UK law does not explicitly prevent such accessible works being exported to other countries, licensing schemes that cover this exception do limit use to the EU. It has been my published position that under certain conditions of Section 31A of the UK Copyright VIP Act of 2002 that exports of 'lawful use' materials are already allowed. -- The interventions of the National Foundation for the Blind (NFB) in the Authors Guild v. Hathi Trust as pertains to Sections 108 and 121 of US Copyright Law. -- The statement in the Authors Guild v. Google original settlement document that if your book has been scanned as part of the Hathi Trust project:

You should assume that you own a U.S. copyright interest in your Book, unless you are certain that your Book was published in, and that you reside and are located in, one of the few countries that have not had or do not now have copyright relations with the United States. The Copyright Office has published a list of countries with which the United States has copyright relations, available at www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf. All the rest -- while part of the ongoing and necessary diplomatic process -- is just air. I presume that you will be going to Beijing in June. I spent much time there in the late 1980s and up to mid-1990s. When people ask me what has changed most since those days I simply answer: When I was spending time in PR China, they were poor. Regards to you.... /JEM 27/05/2012 12:13 PM