4. The representative of Australia associated her delegation with the intervention made by Chile. She said that, for some time now, it had seemed to the co-sponsors of document TN/IP/W/9 that a critical mass of delegations, whether or not they had directly co-sponsored the Joint Proposal, had supported the creation of a system that was in accordance with certain principles which had also been provided for in the mandate for these negotiations. The system that Members would agree to would not alter the TRIPS Agreement as it was presently constituted, nor would be a means of amending the TRIPS Agreement. In other words, the system would not alter the current balance of rights and obligations that was presently found in the TRIPS Agreement. By that, her delegation meant that the system would not be a de facto means of amending the TRIPS Agreement. It would provide individual Members with a choice about whether or not to be a participating Member. In simple terms, participation in the system would be voluntary. The system would not prevent Members from determining the appropriate method for implementing their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement in accordance with the principle of territoriality. That also meant that the system would not take the ultimate decision about whether or not a term was a geographical indication out of the hands of national decision-making authorities. Geographical indications would not be set above, and apart from, other forms of intellectual property which were ultimately determined by national decision-making processes. There were other points of the proposed system on which the co-sponsors thought there was a good deal of convergence, namely the minimization of the level of bureaucracy and regulation that was required to protect geographical indications and as far as possible of the costs that were associated with the recognition and protection of geographical indications.
