69. The representative of Japan stated that his country was fully committed to engage in a constructive discussion to find a solution by the deadline set by the Doha Declaration and hoped that the Chairperson's note would help delegations focus on the differences and find possible solutions even though the differences were still very wide. He reiterated that Japan believed that the Special Session should establish, as elaborated in the Joint Proposal (TN/IP/W/5), a system that facilitated the current level of protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits and at the same time did not have any legal binding effect and minimized the burdens and costs for Members. He further asked how to interpret the relationship between the third paragraph of the preamble which says that "the purpose of the multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits shall be to facilitate the obtaining of the level of protection which is provided for in the TRIPS Agreement for geographical indications and not to increase that level of protection" and the additional legal effects under some options under paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Draft Text, which might expand the scope of protection under the present TRIPS Agreement. Another question was how to interpret the relationship between the multilateral legal effects proposed under a couple of options and Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, which stated that "Members shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of this Agreement within their own legal system and practice".
