101. The Chairperson outlined some of the points that had been made under this agenda item. Delegations had welcomed the new proposal put forward by Japan and the United States; the proposal had aroused a valuable discussion. A large majority, if not all speakers, had stated that the document had not yet been reviewed in detail in their capitals and more time was required to enable analysis. Preliminary comments had been divergent. Many comments had been in favour of the proposal, especially in relation to the issues of voluntary participation, transparency, simplicity, the fact that it did not add obligations to those already imposed in the Agreement and the low cost involved. Others had expressed doubts, disagreements and divergent ideas on the proposal, for example regarding coverage, i.e. whether the system should be extended to other products, beyond wines and spirits. The multilateral nature, which the system should have, had been addressed and compared with systems at the national level. The legal basis for the Council's work under this agenda item had also been addressed and a comparison had been made between commitments in the TRIPS Agreement and those flowing from the Singapore Ministerial Declaration. Many countries had, once more, commented on the EC proposal and had mentioned the interesting elements contained therein; others had posed additional questions about it. He said that the discussion had been useful and that the subject merited additional reflection in the light of a more detailed examination of the proposals which had been made. Other delegations had announced that they would submit their own proposals shortly. He believed that the Council had a good basis to carry on its work. As regards useful work that could be done by the Secretariat at this stage, he called for further comments.
