97. The Chairman recalled that, organized in paragraph 18 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, the Ministerial Conference had noted that "issues related to the extension of the protection of geographical indications provided for in Article 23 to products other than wines and spirits will be addressed in the Council for TRIPS pursuant to paragraph 12 of this Declaration". Since its last meeting, the Council had received a communication from Australia, Canada, Guatemala, New Zealand, Paraguay, the Philippines and the United States on the implications of Article 23 (document IP/C/W/360). In addition, the Council had just received a new communication from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Chinese Taipei, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, New Zealand, Paraguay, the Philippines and the United States on the same matter (subsequently circulated in document IP/C/W/386).
98. As agreed by the Council at its last meeting, the Chairman had circulated a Checklist of Issues (document JOB(02)/117) in order to have a more systematic discussion on this topic at the present meeting. In preparing it, he had taken into account not only the debates at the June and earlier meetings of the Council but also subsequent communications from delegations and issues raised at informal consultations. He pointed out that the purpose of the Checklist was not to limit discussion, but rather to facilitate the debate and to do so in a more organized and systematic matter. Consequently, he stressed that all issues of significant concern to delegations must be open to discussion and that any checklist would necessarily be non exhaustive. Regarding the relationship between the work under this agenda item and the work done under other agenda items and in other fora, he said that the Council could not exclude issues that some delegations considered important in relation to the Council's mandate. In this regard the Council would have to make sure that when it dealt with questions that were also being examined in other fora, it should take advantage of the work done elsewhere, rather than duplicate it. As to the timing, he recalled that the Council was required to report on this matter to the TNC by the end of the year. Thus, it was necessary that the Council timed the consideration of the items of the Checklist so that they would have been discussed by that time. That meant, in practical terms, that the Council had the present and November meetings for this purpose. If Members so wished and the meeting schedule permitted, an additional informal meeting could also be organized.
99. He noted that he had grouped the issues raised into three categories: The first concerned the legal issues relating to the differences between the general protection for geographical indications provided for in the TRIPS Agreement and the additional protection for GIs for wines and spirits. The second related to broader policy questions such as the impact on producers and consumers of any extended protection. The third concerned the impact on governments, in particular the administrative costs and burdens of the procedures associated with any extended protection. He suggested that the Council focus at the present meeting on the legal issues in the first category, given that they were issues which Members were hopefully equipped to address at short notice, and also because clarity in regard to these legal matters should contribute to a greater and better understanding of the possible impact of extended protection and also of procedural matters, to be discussed at a second stage at the November meeting. The Checklist also referred to a number of issues that could be taken up under the second and third baskets of issues in November.
