116. The representative of Argentina shared the same concerns as Australia with regard to the role of the Secretariat and fully endorsed the suggestions made by Australia regarding the task for the Secretariat. She further said that she was concerned about the proposal to examine the formalities of the notification, notably to avoid an "avalanche" of unfounded notifications and oppositions. The Secretariat should not have such tasks. Moreover, that would constitute an additional requirement compared to the EC proposal. What was suggested amounted to having, instead of two phases (notification and registration), three stages: pre-notification, notification and registration. It would appear that, if the Secretariat felt that the term notified by a Member did not comply with certain requirements, that notification would be rejected. To the best of her knowledge, there was no precedent in the WTO which allowed the Secretariat to decide whether a notification could be communicated to Members. In her delegation's view, Members could notify as they saw fit, complying with the formalities and other Members could judge whether there was compliance or not in the notification.
