56. The representative of New Zealand wished to make a few observations in relation to some of the previous interventions. Before doing so, he noted that Article 23 was the result of the negotiations during the Uruguay Round and that, in the context of the Uruguay Round, it had had to be recognized that for many countries the notion of geographical indications and their protection as a form of intellectual property was rather a novel one, and, as shown by the review under Article 24.2, was something Members were still getting used to. His delegation's reasons for supporting the United States/Japanese proposal as opposed to the EC proposal, as explained at previous meetings, could be summed up best by a reference to this learning process. Consequently, the United States/Japanese proposal was preferable: it was voluntary in nature and it did not attempt to add any further obligations to those stipulated in the TRIPS Agreement. The EC proposal constituted a WTO-plus proposal, since it purported to add an additional layer to the already existing obligations, which were not even five years old. It also did not recognize the distinctness of how Members could implement those obligations. As some of the Members had already indicated, it was a compulsory system and not voluntary; one could not just opt out in order to gauge the potential scope and nature of what some other countries regarded to be geographical indications. He expressed doubts about the idea of the WTO dispute settlement system applying to the registration system and also having an opposition procedure in place, given the resource burden, both financial and human, this would place on Members. Moreover, he was not sure that Members were in a position to take on board the prospect of being taken to dispute settlement on these issues, given the state of thinking on geographical indications. On Hungary's suggestions, he believed the proposal that the Secretariat be given the task of carrying out some analysis and to liaise with WIPO in doing so was rather premature, certainly as long as there was no consensus among Members on the type of system to be established. Hungary had indicated that the system could be along the lines of the EC proposal, but interventions earlier in the meeting had shown that a number of Members were not comfortable with that. Similar considerations applied to the proposal to involve WIPO in the administration of the notification and registration system. On extended coverage, he reiterated the views of New Zealand that Article 23 was limited as to the scope of products and Article 23.4 was even more limited to wines. It was, therefore, outside the scope and mandate of the TRIPS Council to start discussions on extending the scope of these provisions to other products. If Members wanted to see the coverage extended to other products, they could make a proposal to this effect in the General Council, as a number of countries had indeed done. Discussion in the TRIPS Council could only be on issues mandated by the TRIPS Agreement. He disagreed with what Hungary had said in relation to the first three provisions of Article 23. New Zealand had fully implemented these provisions as had been illustrated in the Council's review of national implementing legislation.
