134. The representative of Australia recalled that her delegation had participated constructively on the issue of the review under Article 24.2 and had submitted a substantive paper to the Council on it. Her delegation had also been willing to engage in a substantive debate concerning the implications of increased geographical indication protection and the application of Section 3 of Part II in national jurisdictions in general as part of the Article 24.2 review, despite its view that extension of scope was not part of the Council's mandate. It had decided to do so with a view to ensuring that issues concerning geographical indications could be considered in a transparent and factual manner. Her delegation wished to have a dialogue that allowed arguments on the issues involved, both for and against, to be examined, including the effectiveness of the current system, the consequences of increased protection and the costs of implementation for Members, such as Australia, which did not already have TRIPS-plus regimes in place. The debate would also enable those advocating extension of scope to explain the benefits that might be derived from it as well as the deficiencies of existing protection. Her delegation had hoped that the recent meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee on Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications would have provided an opportunity for all Members to examine the matter from both sides in a technical, expert and systematic manner. Discussions in the Standing Committee should have facilitated and enabled all Members to have a greater understanding of the costs, benefits and actual experience of Members implementing geographical indication protection. Instead, her delegation had been disappointed with the way discussions on this issue had been effectively blocked.
