6. The Chairperson said that, based on the consultations he had had, he would like to start by making some suggestions on the organization of the work of the Special Sessions. He recalled that Members were required by the Doha Ministerial Declaration (document WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1) to complete their work by the Fifth Ministerial Conference, that is to have negotiated a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits. While the exact date of the Fifth Ministerial Conference was not known, it seemed that Members would have to plan on the basis that it would occur some time in the second half of 2003. The best way of considering the organization of the work in this body would seem to move backwards from the Fifth Ministerial Conference and consider what would need to be done in order to have completed the negotiations by that time. He said that the approach he was suggesting was based on three considerations. First, the time constraint, that is to say a clear mandate from Ministers to have negotiated a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications by the Fifth Ministerial Conference. Second, there were constraints regarding the frequency of meetings due to the need for scheduling meetings of the various negotiating and other WTO bodies. Third, the Special Session of the Council for TRIPS had the advantage that Members had already discussed the issue for some time; it should build on the past discussions and ideas in the work during 2002.
7. He suggested that in the interest of the efficiency of the negotiations, the work be split into two phases. The first would be based on the discussions and ideas already put forward; if necessary, new ideas would have to be injected. In this phase, the discussions and ideas might help Members identify the options before moving into the second phase, that is the final negotiating phase aimed at finding mutually agreed solutions to points on which differences remain. Factual information might be needed to help Members in the process.
8. With regard to the first phase, he suggested three issues for consideration:
- First, how could Members organize a more structured and engaged discussion of the proposals on the table than had been possible so far in the Council? To that end, he proposed to submit to Members a brief note in advance of the June meeting of the Special Session that would identify a number of points and topics which he would invite participants to address at that meeting. While he intended to consult closely with delegations in the preparation of this informal note, the note would, of course, be on his own responsibility and without prejudice to the different positions that delegations held. The purpose would be to facilitate a more organized and engaged discussion.
- Second, it would be desirable that, to the extent possible, all the main proposals that delegations might put forward should have been tabled and fully discussed before the final negotiating phase got under way. The Special Session might establish a target of no later than the third meeting in 2002 for the submission of the delegations' main proposals, while encouraging Members to table their ideas before that time if possible and not ruling out the possibility of subsequent new or revised proposals at a later stage. Indeed, proposals aimed at bridging gaps would be an essential part of the final negotiating stage.
- Third, there was also the question as to whether Members might wish to ask the Secretariat to prepare any further factual information.
9. With regard to the second phase - namely the final negotiating phase - the Chairperson pointed out that this phase might take place in the last few months before the deadline for the negotiations. Usually, the final phase of a negotiation took place on the basis of a text which was treated by the various parties as a common basis for the negotiations. Given the deadline of the Fifth Ministerial Conference, he suggested trying to ensure that such a common negotiating basis be available by the end of 2002 or early 2003, depending on the timing of the Ministerial Conference. By a common negotiating basis, he meant a single document which contained common language on the various areas where there would be essential commonality of position and identified options, for example through square brackets or alternatives, in regard to areas where significant differences remained. There were two ways in which such a text could come into being: one would be through a paper presented by some delegations which all delegations were willing to treat as a common negotiating basis; the other was through the Chairman, with the help of the Secretariat, tabling such a paper as a basis for the work. Obviously the former approach had many advantages. But if it did not prove possible, then he, in his capacity as Chair, would be ready to assume his responsibility and table such a paper.
