Actas - Consejo de los ADPIC - Ver detalles de la intervención/declaración

Ambassador Federico A. González (Paraguay) (24-25 October) and Mr. Martin Glass (Hong Kong, China) (17 November)
166. The Chairman said that, as requested by the Council, he had held consultations with a number of Members on how best to structure the Council's discussions in order to make the review as useful as possible. In light of these consultations, he had faxed to the Members a list of topics and issues for discussion on 14 October 2011. The list merged the list of six topics for discussion prepared for the System's annual review at the Council's meeting in October 2010 with the list of issues for further discussion or information identified by Members which the then Chairman had faxed to Members in February 2011 to guide the discussion on the follow-up to the annual review at the Council's meeting in March. While the Chairman clarified that while this approach was based on the structure and content of the 2010 review and represented a natural continuation of what was well received at that time, it was not necessarily exhaustive. Members should therefore feel free to raise any additional issues during the review. 167. He said that during his consultations, some delegations had reiterated their proposal for an open-ended workshop involving all the key stakeholders. However, views continued to diverge on that proposal. The last topic on the list, namely "Next steps and recommendations", would enable the Council to continue the discussion of this point. 168. Regarding the purpose of the TRIPS Council's annual review and the report to the General Council, he said that paragraph 8 of the waiver Decision provided that the Council would annually review the functioning of the System set out in the Decision with a view to ensuring its effective operation and annually report on its operation to the General Council. Such a review would be deemed to fulfil the review requirements of Article IX:4 of the WTO Agreement. 169. The Secretariat had circulated a draft cover note for the Council's report modelled on previous years' reports (JOB/IP/4). It contained factual information on the implementation and use of the System established under the Decision, discussions regarding its operation, and the status of acceptances of the Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement. In accordance with the way that the Council had prepared its reports in previous years, the part of the minutes of the meeting that reflected the discussions held under the agenda item could be attached to the cover note. 170. The Secretariat had also circulated an update to the note on the status of acceptances of the Protocol that the Council had requested it to prepare at its meeting in October 2006 (IP/C/W/490/Rev.8). Since the circulation of that document, Argentina and Indonesia had deposited their instruments of acceptance on 20 October, and New Zealand had deposited its instrument on 21 October (WT/Let/830, 831 and 832, respectively). 37 notifications of acceptance of the Protocol, including from the European Union (formerly the European Communities), had thus been received. He reminded Members that the Protocol would enter into force for the Members concerned when it had been accepted by two thirds of the Members. 171. Turning to the consolidated list of topics and questions for discussion in the annual review, the Chairman said that this list combined the list of topics for discussion that had been prepared for the October 2010 review and the list of issues for further discussion or information identified by Members that had been prepared to guide the follow-up discussion at the Council's meeting in March 2011. The follow-up questions were grouped under the appropriate headings. The footnotes indicated the delegations that had posed those follow-up questions and the further information that had already been provided in response to those questions at the Council's meeting in March. Therefore, there was no need to repeat or duplicate what had already been said on the record. He said that structuring the discussion this way should help the Council carry out the review with most continuity on the basis already established, and thus ensure a productive and useful discussion of the System that would help Members better understand the Paragraph 6 System's operation and any concerns related to it.