41. In conclusion, the Chairman said that, judging from the statements made, views, if not in total opposition, did not seem to gel very easily one with another. Some delegations regarded the review of national implementing legislation in the context of Article 63.2 as sufficiently satisfying the obligations of the Agreement under Article 24.2. Other delegations had expressed the view that the Council was required to undertake a separate review of Article 24.2. Clearly, delegations needed time to study the Community non-paper, while some had indicated that they were prepared to come back to it at the November meeting of the Council. He noted though that there seemed to be a view that it would be appropriate to consider the review of Article 24.2 not only in conjunction with but subsequent to the discussion on national implementing legislation. This made sense, since that discussion would no doubt generate useful information on various issues including those referred to in the non-paper. He proposed, therefore, that the Council take up work on this matter by including on the agenda of its November meeting an item "Review of the Application of the Provisions of the Section on Geographical Indications under Article 24.2" and address this agenda item after and taking into account the review of national implementing legislation in the areas of trademarks, geographical indications and industrial designs scheduled for that meeting.
