57. The Chairperson said that the Draft Text was based on the Elements/Options paper that he circulated on 20 March 2003 (JOB(03)/60) and on the discussion that Members had had on the basis of that text.
58. The Preamble was self-explanatory. The language in the sixth consideration, which was in square brackets, corresponded in effect to the Option A equivalent of the Option B proposals for challenge and other mechanisms to address possible differences regarding eligibility for protection found in paragraph 3.1. At the top of page 3 of the English text, the nature of the action to be taken, for example whether to "decide" or to "adopt" had been left open. In the same vein, at the top of page 2 the body which would take this action had been left unspecified. This was in order to avoid prejudging the type of legal instrument, for example whether it would be a decision or an agreement.
59. In regard to paragraph 1 on participation, the action to be taken by a Member wishing to participate in the system had been left unspecified for the same reason.
60. The section on notification attempted to take into account the discussion that had taken place on the basis of the Elements/Options paper. In the chapeau to paragraph 2.1 and also in paragraph 12, the question of the "body administering the system" had been left open, whether for example this might be the WTO Secretariat or the International Bureau of WIPO. The second part of subparagraph (a) of paragraph 2.2, which referred to transliteration into Latin characters, attempted to take into account points that were made about the difficulties that could arise from the use of different types of characters in the various languages of origin. The proposed approach was drawn from the experience of WIPO under some of its registration treaties. For the second part of subparagraph (b) of paragraph 2.3, the text had also drawn inspiration from WIPO experience in order to respond to some points that had been raised about the feasibility of notifying information on the natural or legal persons that had the right to use the geographical indication. In paragraph 2.5, and also in paragraph 9.2, there was a reference in square brackets to the "committee responsible for managing the system". Obviously, this question of the appropriate intergovernmental committee of the participating Members that would have this responsibility would be linked to that of the administering body and might also be linked with that of the legal form and perhaps participation. Options for such a committee could include the TRIPS Council, a newly created subsidiary body of the TRIPS Council, a body in WIPO or some other body; it was deemed preferable to leave this matter open. The issue of the committee responsible for managing the system was flagged in square brackets in paragraph 11, as a matter for further discussion in due course.
61. Under registration, there were two main options for paragraph 3.1. Option A was based on the Joint Proposal. Option B reflected the proposals put forward by the European Communities and Hungary, with this option bifurcating into an Option B.1, that put forward by the European Communities, and an Option B.2, that put forward by Hungary. The Chairperson said that, obviously, the European Communities and Hungarian ideas took more space, because they were more complex. However, he said that delegates were too sophisticated to think that a mere difference in the number of lines reflected any difference in the respective importance of options.
62. The notation for the various options under legal effects in paragraphs 4 and 5 were the same as for paragraph 3.1.
63. Paragraph 8 concerned arrangements for withdrawals of notifications and registrations. Some specific ideas were put forward for consideration.
64. Paragraph 13 dealt with the possible withdrawal of a participating Member from the system as a whole. Since this matter was linked with that of legal form and with the procedures by which a Member opted to participate in the first place, the Draft Text only flagged the issue for discussion at the appropriate stage.
65. Paragraph 14 related to the issue of the review of the instrument after a certain period had elapsed. The text referred to the "competent committee" rather than the "committee responsible for managing the system" because it could be that the review would be undertaken by another body, for instance at a higher policy level.
66. The Chairperson finally recalled that the text remained exclusively on his own responsibility and did not prejudice the position of any delegation, in accordance with the normal WTO practice that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."
