60. The representative of the United States said, as a preliminary comment on the non-paper that had just been presented by the European Communities, that it illustrated why his delegation believed, once it would have had the opportunity to give a full consideration to the responses to the questions posed during the review of national implementing legislation, the Council might be able to identify what types of issues would in fact be relevant in terms of further work, if any, under Article 24.2. He also would like to recall that Article 24.2 spoke of a review of the application of the provisions of the Section on geographical indications, which contained a number of specific obligations that WTO Members had accepted as part of a prolonged negotiation, and that the European Communities' non-paper, at first glance, would not seem to have any relation to what was specifically provided for in the Agreement. Before engaging in a course of future work, he believed that it would be helpful to take as a first topic how that work should be structured so as to reflect what the obligations under the Agreement were. The most appropriate first step that might be taken under Article 24.2 was to look at the July meeting of the Council, which he assumed would be devoted, inter alia, to follow-up questions to the November 1996 review. At that time, the Council might be able to discuss fruitfully what steps would be necessary, if any, to obtain information which might be missing. He also wondered whether it would not be more appropriate for the European Communities to provide information regarding the application of the provisions in question in the Member States of the European Communities.
