24. The representative of the United States said that he too remained unconvinced by the statement made by the EC representative. His delegation did not consider that the use of the word "multilateral" as opposed to "plurilateral" by the drafters of the TRIPS Agreement in the Uruguay Round could in any way be construed to override the clear intent of the words "those Members participating in the system". That was clearly an indication that the negotiators in the Uruguay Round intended that the system be voluntary. Probably, the drafters at that time were unable to establish how many countries would participate in the system, so it was not wrong of them to use the term "multilateral". Moreover, there was certainly a possibility that all Members would choose to participate in the system, although there was nothing in the text that would require all Members to do so. He expected that, if Members were discussing a multilateral system to establish a certification mark procedure that provided for national treatment to all Members' GIs, the EC would read the relationship between "multilateral" and "participating in the system" in just the way his delegation did.
