80. The representative of New Zealand noted that the Special Session did not have a mandate to enhance the level of protection in the TRIPS Agreement, nor did it have a mandate to change the level at which this protection was afforded. The purpose of the register should be to "facilitate" the implementation of protection at the national level, as currently required in the TRIPS Agreement; in other words, the obligation to protect geographical indications was derived from the Agreement and not from the register. It should do that in a concrete way and not create a new layer of supranational legal effects. She thought that there might be some convergence in that regard: paragraph 17 of the EC paper (JOB(02)/70) stated that "facilitating GI protection via a multilateral registration system necessarily [referred] to the implementation of existing obligations and not to the creation of new ones". The difference between Members came in interpreting which proposals in fact did that and the US clearly pointed out why the EC's proposal did not meet that test. Regarding the provisions of Article 24 and the exceptions contained therein, she said that there should be no curtailment of existing rights provided in those exceptions.
