6. The representative of China said that that her first concern was that there was an inconsistency between the proposed agenda item and the supporting documentation. While IP enforcement was a broad issue on which Members had various views, the document provided for the item was solely focused on ACTA. In her view, ACTA could not represent IP enforcement trends in general. She said that she did not understand the intention of the proponents and could not accept the proposed item as such.
7. Secondly, the Council had been instructed and mandated by Ministers at Doha and Hong Kong to focus its discussion on implementation-related issues. While those issues remained not fully resolved, it would not be appropriate for the Council to deviate from those instructed topics. Thirdly, the proposed item had already been on the agenda of the Council's last regular meeting and detailed presentations had been made on various parts of ACTA. A repetitive exercise would be redundant, except if there were further explanations. Finally, she emphasized that ACTA was not part of the TRIPS Agreement. It went beyond the enforcement requirements of the TRIPS Agreement and was a TRIPS-plus provision. It was concluded only between some Members of the WTO and therefore was neither a multilateral agreement among the whole WTO membership nor a plurilateral agreement as listed Annex 4 to the WTO Agreement. Therefore the content of ACTA should not be a topic for TRIPS Council meetings. If the proponents wished to share information on ACTA with other WTO Members, they could do so under item Q on "Other Business" or make a notification under Article 63 of the TRIPS Agreement.
