97. The representative of Canada expressed his delegation's support for the comments made by the delegations of New Zealand, the United States, Australia and others concerning the utility of having a substantive technical proposal from the TN/C/W/52 co-sponsors. His delegation had demonstrated in past TRIPS Council meetings how the joint proposal would be implemented domestically in Canada. His delegation had taken up the call to see if it could seek to do the same with the TN/C/W/52 proposal but it simply could not do so because its being a modality proposal and as such was technically incomplete. A proposal should include all relevant elements and not leave them for future discussions, for example, the notification elements. He reiterated the need for a substantive technical proposal from the TN/C/W/52 co-sponsors in conjunction with further technical information that could emerge from the types of questions that the Chairman had put before the Special Session.
98. Referring to paragraph 88 of the minutes of TN/IP/N/26, where the European Union had indicated that, under its proposal on genericness, a party making a claim must do so through a clear and sufficient demonstration of their case so that the other party could reply, he asked regarding sub question 2 whether or not there were criteria or guidelines regarding what constituted a clear and sufficient demonstration.
99. Referring to paragraph 90 of the same minutes, where it was reflected that under the EU submission third parties might file "duly substantiated" objections, he asked the delegation of the European Union what would constitute a duly substantiated objection.
