42. The Chairman asked Members whether or not there was scope for balancing the legal responsibility of presenting the facts to the register between the notifying and the consulting Member, so that the consulting country would have all the facts available to make a proper determination. While he could understand the consulting country's concern over an imposition of a decision from the notifying country, there still seemed to be a reasonable source of information on both sides. The notifying country had information and facts which it presumably could use to help justify its position with respect to the notification, and the consulting country would have facts regarding genericness of the term or whether it met the definition in its territory. Leaving aside the issue of participation for the moment and assuming that both the notifying and the consulting Member had decided to participate in the system, there might be scope for a shared responsibility regarding the information on the register while leaving the consulting country in the driving seat in terms of making the decisions based on its own legal system.
