281. The Chairman recalled that Article 24.2 provided that the Council shall keep under review the application of the provisions of the GI Section of the Agreement. The principal tool used to coordinate the review process had been a Checklist of Questions contained in document IP/C/13 and Add.1, which a number of Members had submitted, but many had so far not completed.
282. In addition, at its meeting in March 2010, the Council had agreed to encourage Members to share information on and notify to the Council bilateral agreements related to the protection of geographical indications, which they have entered into. This had already produced some useful and informative material. Peru and Korea had provided information on various bilateral agreements (documents IP/C/W/547 and IP/C/W/547/Add.1, respectively). At the Council's meeting in June 2010, Peru and Korea had provided additional information on bilateral agreements that were under negotiation and which had not yet entered into force. The United States had indicated that it was party to a number of bilateral and regional free trade agreements with provisions that addressed GIs and trademarks, and that these were available from the USTR's website. Brazil and Croatia informed the Council that they had not yet concluded any bilateral agreements on geographical indications.
283. At the Council's meeting in October 2010, the European Union informed the Council that it was party to a number of bilateral and regional free trade agreements with provisions that addressed the protection of geographical indications and that those agreements could be found on the website of the Directorate-General for Agriculture of the European Commission. China also informed the Council of two FTAs which contained a chapter on geographical indications, one of which had already been notified by Peru in document IP/C/W/547. The other FTA could be found on China's portal for FTAs at http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn, which contained English language versions of FTAs.
284. In line with the Council's recommendation made in March 2010, the Chair encouraged any Member that was party to any such bilateral agreement and had not yet shared such information with the Council to do so.
285. As the question of GI protection remained a continuing interest and discussion, he urged those delegations that had not yet provided responses to the Checklist of Questions to consider doing so. Equally, those Members that had already provided responses could provide updates to the extent there had been any significant changes to the way they provided protection to geographical indications. There was a considerable benefit to having up-to-date, accurate and geographically more representative material available as the basis of the on-going review process.