11. The representative of the European Communities1 said that his delegation was committed to making progress in these negotiations and had already shown a lot of flexibility in this regard in the past. He recalled that 108 Members were willing to make progress regarding the three TRIPS issues in parallel, i.e. not only regarding the GI register, but also regarding GI extension and TRIPS/CBD.
12. In response to the Chair's first question about what legal obligation would be acceptable for the register to facilitate protection, he said that the first important element was that all Members agreed that there should be a legal obligation. He noted that the opponents to the proposal by the alliance of 108 Members, part-sponsored by his delegation, agreed and had put down in writing that there should be an obligation to consult the register and that that information should be taken into account. However, even in the room document circulated by some delegations there was still no explanation of how the information on the register should be taken into account. As the EC had lowered its expectations regarding the legal obligations that would be linked to this register, there was now an agreed position between 108 Members of the Organization. While there was a point of convergence regarding the consultation of the register, and while the alliance supported by his delegation was very clear on how this information should be taken into account, there was no information on what the proponents of TN/IP/W/10/Rev.2 thought on this issue. It was therefore unclear whether this was a point of divergence or a point of convergence. In order to make progress, it was essential to understand what were the points of convergence on this fundamental issue.
