62. The representative of Argentina said as a general remark that the notification aspects in the joint proposal were simple. With regard to the body responsible for receiving notifications, what the joint proposal had proposed, namely the WTO, was more appropriate. Her delegation had already said at previous meetings that it would not be appropriate to negotiate in the WTO an instrument which would then be administered by another organization. The WTO had no authority to impose administrative burdens of, or secretariat support to, this system on another organization which was absolutely independent of the WTO.
63. She asked why the EC proposal had proposed two different bodies, the "administering body" in its paragraph 2.1, and the "committee responsible for managing the system" in its paragraph 2.5.
64. With regard to paragraph 2.1(a) of the EC proposal, she noted that it expressly referred to the requirements set out by Article 22.1. By contrast, the joint proposal simply said that the notification "shall ... identify the geographical indication as it appears on wine and spirit goods ...", which corresponded to the definition in Article 22.1. The joint proposal group did not think that it was necessary to add the requirement that the notified term satisfy the definition of a geographical indication. It was within the purview of each Member to determine in accordance with its own national law whether or not a term was a geographical indication in accordance with Article 22.1.
65. In regard to paragraph 2.1(b), it was not clear to her delegation the basis on which the European Communities had proposed the requirement that the geographical indication be protected in its territory and had not fallen into disuse. For her delegation, it was optional for Members to grant protection or not to geographic indications of other Members which did not meet this criteria.
