76. The Chairperson recalled that the discussion on this matter, after the information-gathering exercise in 1997, had focused on the question of what the next step should be for carrying forward work concerning negotiations for the establishment of an international system for the notification and registration of geographical indications under Article 23.4. A proposal on the matter received from the European Communities and their member States (document IP/C/W/107) had been discussed at the meetings of the Council in September and December 1998. At the last meeting, it had been agreed that, with a view to organizing the discussion on the implementation of Article 23.4, the Chair should come forward with suggestions for a more structured approach to the issues under debate. In this context, the responses to the Checklist on Article 24.2 and proposals made could also be taken into account. In an informal document, No. 800 of 12 February 1999, such suggestions had been circulated by the Chair. They consisted of a list of seven points that delegations might wish to address in their contributions to the debate on the matter at the present meeting. These suggestions were, of course, without prejudice to adaptations that might be necessary as a result of further proposals submitted to the Council and were not intended to be exhaustive. He said that a joint proposal from Japan and the United States for a multilateral system for notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits based on Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement had been received and was available in photocopied form in the back of the room.3 A second paper, from the United States alone, was also available and contained a suggested method for domestic recognition of geographical indications for WTO Members to produce a list of nationally protected geographical indications.4
