106. The representative of Canada said that, contrary to paragraph 32 of the EC document (JOB(02)/70), her delegation did make a distinction between "notification" and "registration". There were two separate steps. "Notification" was the first step. It would be the responsibility of an individual Member to identify and submit its list of domestic geographical indications, for example to the WTO Secretariat. Registration would be the second step in the process: it would be the WTO Secretariat's responsibility to compile a database of all notified geographical indications in order to facilitate the sharing of that information with all WTO Members. "Registration" of a geographical indication should not be interpreted as conferring any new legal obligations. Canada recognized that it had been useful to divide Article 23.4 to facilitate discussion in the Special Session. However, it was of the view that registration should be interpreted in the context of the Article as a whole. Negotiation of a system of notification and registration should not have the effect of adding to the obligations contained in the Article. Regarding the Chair's question about whether the WTO Secretariat or the International Bureau of WIPO could further contribute to the Council's work, her delegation believed that both had already made substantial contributions. As a result of the Doha mandate, it was a matter of completing negotiations before the Fifth Ministerial Conference. However, contributions from both organizations would always be appreciated.
