1. The representative of Australia said that his delegation had major procedural and substantive concerns with the new EC paper, in particular with the fact that the paper proposed that the register apply to all products. All Members knew that the Special Session operated under a very specific mandate, set out in the first sentence of paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration, which referred to the "establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits". The EC paper could not be a basis for discussion. There was no way that his delegation could discuss the EC paper in this Special Session without prejudicing its position in discussions which had no relationship to these negotiations. To suggest that Members could discuss one part of this paper in this Special Session and deal with other issues in another forum was not possible. This linkage of ambitions regarding extension and the register in the way made in this paper only confirmed how extreme the demands of the European Communities were. Members should also keep in mind the fact that the European Communities were still not in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement, as had been found in two recent panel reports. Since, in that dispute, the European Communities had requested almost a year to remedy the defects of its own domestic system, it did not seem that this would be the right time to be increasing the demands already on the table. The question facing the Special Session was where to go from here. The minutes of the last meeting had highlighted that discussion on the joint proposal had been sustained and fruitful. Some key points of that proposal included a system that should: facilitate the protection of geographical indications provided for wines and spirits; be voluntary and without legal effects on non-participating Members; maintain the balance of rights and obligations in the TRIPS Agreement; not increase the level of protection afforded to geographical indications; preserve the territoriality of intellectual property rights for geographical indications; allow Members to continue to determine for themselves the appropriate method for implementing the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement within their own legal systems and practices; and recognize that intellectual property rights were private rights. This proposal showed that it was possible to move these discussions forward and was the only one currently on the table that seriously attempted to work within the mandate under which Members had been operating.
