So after 2 tries the open Internet Society would not post the following comment to their article:

Observations from the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR/24) World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
Posted in Public Policy | Posted on 09 August 2012 | 0 comments By Konstantinos Komaitis

So, what did we learn from the SCCR/24 and what did we observe? After ten days (and many previous meetings) of deliberations and discussions, the WIPO Member States failed to reach concrete conclusions in any of the SCCR/24 thematic areas. But, this should not come as a surprise
http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2012/08/observations-standing-committee-copyrightand-related-rights-sccr24-world-intellectual#comment-1135 Permalink Submitted by john e miller on 11 August 2012 - 6:04am

http://www.internetsociety.org/comment/#commentFrom the above: "To this effect, the question clearly becomes whether, in todays interconnected world, this model of negotiating is coming of age and whether its archaic nature impedes, rather than enriches, true discussions and solutions." I'll bet had there been an Electrical Society or a Railroad Society or a Telegraph Society back when they could have made the exact same argument as you in the Internet Society today. The negotiations last month had a base theme older than even the Berne Convention: You have something; We want it; and Our Rights to what's yours preempt your Rights to what's yours.

Now you can couch the argument in any flavor of 'Fundamental Freedoms' and 'Basic Human Rights' or that rights holders are trying to preserve an outdated obsolete business model given the modern digital world ... But if you read the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), you will find the phrases 'least possible cost', 'affordable cost', 'without additional cost', 'at minimum cost', etc. You will not find the words 'free' or 'no cost' or 'without compensation' to the rights-holder'. ... and therein may lie part of the rub.