Compte rendu ‒ Conseil des ADPIC ‒ Afficher les détails de l'intervention/la déclaration

Ambassador Eduardo Pérez Motta (Mexico)
Adoption of the Agenda
16. The representative of Bulgaria agreed that the question was about procedure. He was concerned that, if the Council did not discuss the substance of GI extension and the United States disagreed to discuss the substance at the TNC level, Members would continue spending time on debating the mandate rather than what to do about it. Bulgaria and many other delegations wanted all outstanding implementation issues to be treated procedurally on an equal footing. He said that paragraph 19 contained exactly the same reference to paragraph 12 as paragraph 18. 17. He said that there seemed to be no disagreement about the general principle that an item is not proposed for the agenda if the relevant deadline has expired. He reiterated that he was willing to go along with this but that he would be making the same point in other bodies, including the Committee on Agriculture. The reason for not excluding the issue of TRIPS and public health from the agenda after the expiration of the relevant deadline was probably that there was a tacit agreement to that effect, but there was no such agreement on other items. There could be only two grounds to exclude an item from the agenda: first, the above-mentioned general principle, and, second, an agreement to do so. His delegation could not agree to a proposal to exclude the items in question from the agenda.