113. The Chairman recalled that Article 24.2 required the Council to keep under review the application of the provisions of the section on geographical indications of the Agreement. The principal tool used to coordinate the review process was a checklist of questions contained in document IP/C/13 and Addendum 1, which a number of Members had submitted, but many had not yet completed. In addition, at its meeting in March 2010, the Council had agreed to encourage Members to share information on bilateral agreements they had concluded relating to the protection of geographical indications, and to notify them to the Council. That had already produced some useful and informative material. However, the material that had been provided to the Council was certainly incomplete and not up to date, bearing in mind the considerable developments nationally, regionally and bilaterally having taken place since the review process had commenced over a decade ago.
114. As the question of GI protection remained of continuing interest and a point of discussion, Members were likely to benefit from a more complete and up-to-date picture. He therefore urged those delegations that had not yet done so to consider providing their responses to the questions. Likewise, he encouraged those Members having already responded to the checklist to provide updates to the extent there had been any significant changes in the way that they provided protection to geographical indications. He added that there was a considerable benefit in having up-to-date, accurate and geographically more representative material available as the basis of the on-going review process.
115. In line with the Council's recommendation made in March 2010, he also encouraged any Member that was a party to any bilateral agreements related to the protection of GIs to share information on such agreements, if it had still not done so.