108. The representative of Australia said that it was conceivable that countries would not take their responsibility so genuinely and they might start notifying terms whose association with a GI was questionable. These were precisely the sort of circumstances that he had referred to earlier in the discussions, i.e., when terms like "tawny" or "ruby" or other traditional expressions had been listed by the EC in a wine regulation. He recalled that the EC had on occasions given the impression that traditional expressions might fall within the definition of GIs. If such expressions were notified by the EC, the onus would be on Australia for example to get involved in a lengthy dialogue on whether such expressions met the definition of a GI. That was precisely the sort of dialogue that Members had been engaged in with the EC at a bilateral level and in the discussions on the wine regulation in the TBT Committee. His delegation wanted to avoid such lengthy and costly discussions about interpretation of what a GI was because, under the TRIPS Agreement and under the joint proposal, this would be for national authorities to do. His delegation could not envisage the Secretariat having this role of trying to interpret whether a term either fitted the definition or was inconsistent with one of the exceptions. He reiterated that the system proposed by the joint proposal was preferable, would have fewer implications for the Secretariat and be more consistent with the current TRIPS Agreement.
