1. The representative of the United States said that, given that enforcement was the subject matter of Part III of the TRIPS Agreement, item N was perfectly consistent with the mandate of the Council. The delegations who had requested this agenda item had met all the procedural requirements for filing an item and consensus had been reached on the item title in October 2011 as well as on including the item on the agenda of the October Council meeting. If Members had questions regarding the subject-matter of the item, which was evident from the previous interventions, he would welcome the discussion.
2. As indicated in October, Members had raised questions in the past and there had been requests for additional information at the October meeting as well. Transparency lay at the foundation of the agenda item. Many Members, and not only proponents of the item, had explicitly supported the objective of promoting transparency at the Council's last meeting, and they had done so at the present meeting by suggesting that the item be discussed under "Other business". This was reflected in paragraphs 5 through 31 of the minutes of the October TRIPS Council meeting (document IP/C/M/67). To call for transparency and yet to oppose the proposed agenda item was curious and internally inconsistent. To deny a response from the ACTA participants to Members who had asked questions and sought additional information was difficult to reconcile.
3. He said that "Other business" was inappropriate since the proposed agenda item was not limited to an announcement, as was the purpose of "Other business". He also referred Members to Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedures, which confirmed this point. Instead, this item was a substantive item in nature and intended to promote a good exchange of views. With respect to the reference made to past ministerial statements, he recalled paragraph 3 of the statement of Ministers from the December 2011 Ministerial Conference (document WT/MIN(11)/W/2), where "Ministers underline the importance of the work of regular WTO bodies including their role in the oversight of implementing existing Agreements; dispute avoidance; transparency through monitoring and reporting and as a forum for the consideration of trade-related issues raised by Members". In his view, the proposed agenda item was fully in line with the intent of Ministers. In contrast, it was difficult to understand how opposing this item fulfilled that intent.
