12. The representative of Australia said that he took the EC's remarks as stating that none of the obligations proposed by the EC proposal were subject to dispute settlement and asked the EC delegation to confirm that understanding. He said he did not detect much agreement between the EC and the United States on the subject of costs, as the EC proposal shifted most of the costs, e.g. for enforcement of rights, from the private right holders to the Members and provided for bilateral negotiations which were not necessary under the current system. In contrast, the joint proposal would be less costly and still have benefits. Finally, he said that Australia did not see the relevance of Article 24.1 in this context and regarded a discussion of that provision as being outside the current mandate.
