182. The representative of Australia said that for some time his delegation had been keen to encourage more informed discussions on geographical indications in the TRIPS Council. The review under Article 24.2 was a useful way to carry forward this work. In his view, a range of additional information could come out of this kind of discussion, such as how many Members had implemented their existing obligations under the TRIPS Agreement; how they had implemented those obligations under the distinct levels of protection under Articles 22 and 23; what problems did Members encounter when implementing these provisions; and what were some practical examples of GI protection. The point of such an exercise would not be to single out any particular delegation, but rather to seek an overall picture of the implementation, the problems Members were experiencing and a sense of the costs and benefits stemming from the Uruguay Round Agreement. He believed that it was important to have a structured discussion under the Article 24.2 review and supported the kind of approach set out by the Chairman in his introductory comments, in particular the preparation of an update of document IP/C/W/253 to reflect the most recent responses. It could also be useful if the Secretariat would send another reminder to delegations to respond to the checklist of questions that was first distributed in 1998, since only 44 Members had responded to that survey so far. He wondered whether, in the longer term, the information that was already available to the Council through the regular notification process could be used to build a more complete picture of how Section 3 of Part 2 of the Agreement had been implemented.
