72. The representative of Brazil thanked Canada for its clarification, but said he found it difficult to understand how voluntary participation for all could be equated with special and differential treatment. If this resulted in a situation where a developing country had expectations of benefiting from facilitated protection of GIs by participating in the register, but developed countries opted out, it was not clear how this could be called "special and differential treatment". For his delegation, the main development benefit contained in proposal TN/C/W/52 was the one related to a mandatory disclosure requirement and its relationship with the CBD, and not an opt-out clause, especially if this opt-out clause applied also to developed countries.
73. To reply to the Chair's fourth question, his delegation did not see the need for any specific special and differential treatment provisions at this point, but would like to see the final form of the register before giving due consideration to this issue. At this juncture it felt comfortable with the idea of a mandatory register while remaining open to consider any requests for special and differential treatment, especially if they came from developing countries.
