235. The representative of Brazil said that, while this item posed a great deal of problems for Brazil and other Members, his delegation had tried to deal with it constructively by avoiding the use of words such as "objecting". He wished to find a solution that was adequate and respectful, not only of the position of the Member who wished to make the presentation, but also of the position of the many Members who believed that making the presentation would substantively harm their positions regarding this subject. This was not a procedural issue on which a ruling could be made. It was an issue of substance and part of the agenda item that his and other delegations, in good faith, had accepted to discuss.
236. He said that, if this was the way that meetings on this issue would be carried out, his delegation would object to a proposed agenda for the Council's next meeting that would contain this item. While he believed that all Members should be heard, he also believed that they should have an understanding of the positions of others. This was not a Council just for one Member to put forth its own national experience in a manner that could prejudge the position of other Members regarding whether this was an adequate place to discuss its particular national experience or not. This was a very delicate subject, and if it appeared in the report that the European Communities had made a presentation on its Directive under an item on enforcement of IPRs, next time this could become the precedent and prejudge the position of others who believed that this should not have occurred and that the Council was not the appropriate forum for making these presentations. This was therefore a substantive rather than procedural issue. There should be respect also for those who had already listened to the European Communities on four occasions and had even responded at length to its proposals. Nowhere in this agenda item had there been any forewarning as to the European Communities wanting to make a detailed PowerPoint presentation on its Directive, and nowhere had Members been forewarned that the EC Directive would be the substantive issue to be debated as enforcement or as best practices of intellectual property. The Council should be more balanced in its decisions and more respectful of the position of all Members, and not only of a few Members.
