97. The representative of Australia said that all participants understood that the cost issue was relevant to the negotiations, and that both systems involved costs. The main difference was that one (the EC proposal) was far more costly than the other (the joint proposal). The other point he wanted to make related to the assurances Hungary and the EC kept giving that they would only notify a few names. The fact was that delegations could not negotiate based on how countries might use the system but rather on how they could use the system. As had been said on previous occasions, his delegation was concerned that the EC had recently introduced a wine regulation that they wanted to implement in January 2003; the EC had sought to "clothe" under the TRIPS Agreement regulations that would be quite significantly burdensome and restrictive to many exporters. His delegation appreciated the fact that the EC had decided to defer the implementation of the regulation because a number of WTO Members had raised great objections. The reality was that the EC's decision to come forward with the regulations had tarnished the situation and create concerns about how the register and the issue of extension might be used in a protectionist way.
