15. The representative of Australia said that her delegation believed that a resolution would be in reach if Members did not try to reinvent the negotiations. In response to the EC's intervention on the Chair's first question, she said that Members were operating in a vacuum of information because it was still not apparent how Members would implement an obligation to consult the register. Canada had noted in the last formal meeting of the Special Session how it could implement this obligation and this type of information was required and necessary before Members could discuss what would be the status of consultation. She said that there were even some options built into the joint proposal. However, Members had not yet had the opportunity to fully unpack the options that could exist within the joint proposal (TN/IP/W/10/Rev.2) because these technical discussions had not been pursued with sufficient engagement and detail. As a co-sponsor of the room document, her delegation supported taking the negotiations on the register forward and called for more technical discussions and information on how these obligations would be implemented. Australia was specifically concerned by bilateral measures that had been taken by other Members regarding the issue of GIs. Regarding the Chair's first question, Members should consider in greater detail the extent to which Members would implement the register in a manner that facilitated, and did not increase, GI protection in a manner that respected territoriality, respected Article 22.1 and complied with the mandate of Article 23.4.
