326. The representative of Australia said that, in line with the Chairman's proposal, he believed that the Council's report to the TNC should provide a short factual account of discussions on implementation issues in the TRIPS Council. In his view, all implementation issues should be treated in the same way. The Doha outcome certainly had not established any hierarchy. The suggestions from some Members that GIs should be treated differently were completely unacceptable to him. He said that while he was prepared to deal with GIs in the context of the discussion on outstanding implementation issues, he had always been confused about how the issue of extension ended up in the implementation basket. Extension was all about establishing new rights and obligations, and certainly not about the implementation of existing obligations. In his view, the proposal by the demandeurs suggesting that there was already some kind of agreement on negotiations on this issue was not a factual reflection of the Doha outcome. He associated his delegation with the language that had been put forward by the United States, which he believed was a much better reflection of the discussions the Council had had that year. There remained a number of Members opposed to the extension of the protection of GIs. The Council had had detailed and exhaustive discussions, which illustrated that many costs, burdens and new legal rights would be imposed on Members. If instead of a brief factual report the Council wished to go into details, it would be appropriate to reflect in the report that the Council had completed its discussion on the issue of the extension of the protection of GIs and that no further action was needed.
