RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/C/M/34
20 December 2001
(01-6407)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 27 and 28 November 2001
Chairperson:  Ambassador Bo niface Chidyausiku (Zimbabwe)
Subjects discussed:
A. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
(i) Notifications under Article 63.2
(ii) Notifications under Article 69
B. REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
(i) Responses to initial questions, posed to Kuwait in the review of its legislation
initiated in November 2000, which remained outstanding at the previous meeting
(ii) Responses to initial questions, posed to Bolivia, Cameroon, Congo, Grenada, Guyana
and Suriname in the review of their legislation initiated in April 2001, which
remained outstanding at the previous meeting
(iii) Responses to initial questions, posed to Albania, Argentina, Bahrain, Botswana,
Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Fiji,
Georgia, Honduras, Jamaica, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, the
Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and the United Arab Emirates in the review of
their legislation initiated in June 2001, which remained outstanding at the previous
meeting
(iv) Responses to follow-up questions, posed in the reviews initiated in 2000 or 2001,
which remained outstanding at the previous meeting
(v) Legislation of Members scheduled for review in November 2001 (Antigua and
Barbuda, Barbados, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Gabon, Ghana, India,
Lithuania, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,
Senegal, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Tunisia, Uruguay and Zimbabwe)
(vi) Arrangements for future reviewsIP/C/M/34
Page 2
C. OTHER BUSINESS
(i) Implementation of Article 66.2
(ii) Council meeting dates in 2002
____________
1. In opening the meeting, the Chairperson said that, following consultations with delegations,
the agenda for the meeting had been limited to the items concerning notifications under provisions of
the Agreement and review of national implementing le gislation, in view of the need for delegations to
have more time to consider the implications of the outcome of the Doha Ministerial Conference for
the other agenda items to which the Council had agreed, at its last meeting, to revert to at the present
meeting.
A. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
(i) Notifications under Article 63.2
- Notifications from Members whose transitional periods under Article 65.2 or
65.3 expired on 1 January 2000 or who acceded to the WTO after that date
2. The Chairperson informed the Council that the S ecretariat had updated and circulated its note
reflecting the status of the notifications received from these Members so far (JOB(01)/157).  The note
showed from which of the Members in question notifications had been received by
21 November 2001.  Since then, additional notifications of laws and regulations had been received
from Brunei Darussalam, Ghana and Uruguay;  and additional notifications of responses to the
Checklist of Issues on Enforcement (IP/C/5) had been received from Ghana, India and Malaysia.
From the 74 Members in question, there were now 10 who had not yet submitted any notificationconcerning their implementing legislation.  No tifications from a number of other Members were
incomplete.  Once again, he urged these Members to submit the outstanding material without delay
recalling that pursuant to Article 63.2 of the Agreement the notifications of the laws and regulations in
question were due as of 1 January 2000.  He also urged the delegations in question, if not all the
material to be notified was ready yet, to submit whatever could be notified now and complement the
notification as soon as other parts of the material  to be notified were ready for submission.  He
reminded delegations again that, under the Agreement Between the World Intellectual PropertyOrganization and the World Trade Organization and decisions taken by WIPO's Governing Bodies,
the International Bureau of WIPO was in a position to assist delegations with the translation of their
main dedicated intellectual property laws and regulations, as required.
- Notifications relating to Article 70.8 and 70.9
3. The Chairperson informed the Council that, sin ce the last meeting, a notification received
from Brazil concerning amendments to its legislation relevant to patent applications in respect of
pharmaceutical or agricultural products filed after 1 January 1995 had been circulated as
document IP/N/1/BRA/I/1/Add.1.IP/C/M/34
Page 3
- Other notifications received under Article 63.2
4. The Chairperson informed the Council that, sin ce the last meeting, a notification had been
received from Korea concerning amendments to legislation that it had notified earlier, which would be
circulated in the IP/N/1/- series of documents as soon as possible.
5. The representative of Canada said that his delegation would submit a notification later in the
week.
6. The Council took note of this statement.
(ii) Notifications under Article 69
7. The Chairperson informed the Council that, since the last meeting, a notification of a contact
point under Article 69 of the Agreement had been received from Germany.  This notification would
be made available in the IP/N/3/- series of documents as soon as possible.  There were 109 Memberswho had made the necessary notifications under Article 69.
B. 
REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
(i) Responses to initial questions, posed to Kuwait in the review of its legislation
initiated in November 2000, which remained outstanding at the previous meeting
8. The Chairperson recalled that, at the previous meeting, the Council had noted that Kuwait had
not responded to some initial questions posed in the review of its legislation, which had been initiated
in November 2000.  Since then, Kuwait had provided these responses, which had been circulated in
document IP/C/W/232/Add.5.
(ii) Responses to initial questions, posed to Bolivia, Cameroon, Congo, Grenada, Guyana
and Suriname in the review of their legislation initiated in April 2001, which
remained outstanding at the previous meeting
9. The Chairperson recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Council had noted that responses
from Bolivia, Cameroon, Congo, Grenada, Guyana and Suriname, whose reviews had been initiated
in April 2001, to initial questions remained outstanding.   Bolivia had indicated at that meeting that the
only questions that it had not answered were requests for statistics which it did not have.  Its written
confirmation of this response had since been received and circulated in document IP/C/W/251/Add.2.
No replies had been received since the previous meeting from Cameroon, Congo, Grenada, Guyana or
Suriname.
10. The representative of Cameroon provided a brief introductory overview of the structure of
Cameroon's legislation in the areas covered by the Agreement and of the changes that it had had to
bring about in order to make its legislation comp atible with the TRIPS Agreement.  The records of
this introductory statement as well as the questions put to Cameroon and the responses given
(including responses to follow-up questions given after the meeting) will be circulated in
documents IP/Q/CMR/1, IP/Q2/CMR/ 1, IP/Q3/CMR/1 a nd IP/Q4/CMR/1.
11. Continuing, he wished to convey to the Council some points of concern his Government had
regarding the TRIPS Agreement.  First, Cameroon would appreciate it if the Council could grant a
period of delay enabling his Government to carry out the necessary legal reforms and put in place the
institutions and human resources necessary to facilitate the application of the TRIPS Agreement on
Cameroon territory.  Second, following the example of other African countries, Cameroon was in
favour of provisions to be taken into account in the text of the TRIPS Agreement on the protection ofIP/C/M/34
Page 4
the cultural expressions of peoples, such as folklore.  And third, the protection of geographical
indications for wines and spirits as provided for by Article 23 should be extended to agricultural
products, foodstuffs and handicraft products.
12. The representative of the United States welcomed Cameroon's comments and applauded its
efforts to implement the TRIPS Agreement.  Her delegation continued to examine Cameroon's
progress in implementation.  She recalled the Chair's comment under the previous agenda item
concerning the Agreement Between the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World
Trade Organization, underlining that WIPO's expertise was available to assist developing and least-
developed countries in the implementation of their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.  She
urged Cameroon to discuss with WIPO and the WTO any problems it was facing in the
implementation of the TRIPS Agreement.
13. The Chairperson said that some of the issues raised by Cameroon could be taken up by the
Council at its next meeting.  He urged Cameroon to provide its responses to outstanding initial
questions without delay.  He proposed that he write to the delegations of Congo, Grenada and
Suriname reminding them to submit their responses  to the initial questions posed to them without
delay.
14. The Council agreed to proceed as suggested by the Chair, while taking note  of the statements
made.
(iii) Responses to initial questions, posed to Albania, Argentina, Bahrain, Botswana,
Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Fiji,
Georgia, Honduras, Jamaica, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, the
Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and the United Arab Emirates in the review of
their legislation initiated in June 2001, which remained outstanding at the previous
meeting
15. The Chairperson recalled that, at the previous meeting, some Members had indicated that they
were still analysing responses to initial questions submitted prior to or at that meeting by Albania,
Argentina, Bahrain, Costa Rica, Croatia, Domini ca, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua
and Oman.  Responses to initial questions posed in the reviews of the legislation of the 22 Members
initiated in June 2001 had been received, since the previous meeting, from Egypt, Fiji, Georgia,
Jamaica, Morocco and United Arab Emirates.  These had been circulated in documents
IP/C/W/278/Add.3, 311, 290/Add.1, 266/Add.2, 265/Add.5 and Add. 6 and 291/Add.1, respectively.
There were still responses to initial questions wh ich remained unanswered in the review of the
legislation of Botswana, Egypt, Fiji, Kenya, Mauritius, the Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis and theUnited Arab Emirates.
16. During the course of the meeting, the representative of Kenya provided a response to the only
initial question it had not yet answered.1
17. The representative of the Philippines said that his delegation would submit its responses to all
unanswered questions before the next meeting of the Council.
18. The representative of Egypt drew attention to the responses submitted by his delegation since
that last meeting and invited those delegations which had posed questions to indicate any which were
still unanswered.
                                                     
1 This response was subsequently circulated in document IP/C/W/294/Add.1.IP/C/M/34
Page 5
19. The Chairperson urged the delegations which had not received responses to questions from
Egypt to respond to its request for clarification and suggested that the Council urge the delegations of
Botswana, Egypt, Fiji, Kenya, Mauritius, the Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis and the United Arab
Emirates to provide responses to unanswered initial questions without delay.
20. The Council agreed to proceed as suggested by the Chair, while taking note  of the statements
made.
(iv) Responses to follow-up questions, posed in the reviews initiated in 2000 or 2001,
which remained outstanding at the previous meeting
- November 2000 review
21. The Chairperson informed the Council that Kuwait had now provided responses to all
follow-up questions and that these had been circ ulated in document IP/C/W/232/Add.6.  Paraguay's
responses to follow-up questions had been  circulated after the last meeting in
document IP/C/W/231/Add.2.  He suggested that the item concerning the reviews of Kuwait and
Paraguay be deleted from the agenda, it being understood that any delegation should feel free to revert
to any matter stemming from those reviews at any time.
22. The Council so agreed.
- April 2001 review
23. The representative of Australia, speaking on behalf of Papua New Guinea , provided a brief
introductory overview of the structure of Papua New Guinea's legislation in the areas covered by the
Agreement and of the changes that it had had to bring about in order to make its legislation
compatible with the TRIPS Agreement.  The record s of this introductory statement as well as the
questions put to Papua New Guinea and the responses given (including responses to follow-up
questions given after the meeting) will be circulated in documents IP/Q/PNG/1, IP/Q2/PNG/1,
IP/Q3/PNG/1 and IP/Q4/PNG/1.
24. The Chairperson informed the Council that Bolivia and Papua New Guinea had provided
responses to all questions, including follow-up questions, and suggested that the item concerning the
reviews of Bolivia and Papua New Guinea be deleted from the agenda, it being understood that any
delegation should feel free to revert to any matter stemming from those reviews at any time.
25. The Council so agreed.
26. The Chairperson recalled that Cameroon, Congo, Namibia and Suriname, the review of whose
legislation had also been initiated in April 2001, had not yet provided responses to follow-up
questions.  He suggested that he write to these delegations reminding them to submit their responses
to the follow-up questions posed to them without delay.
27. The Council agreed to proceed as suggested by the Chairperson.
- June 2001 review
28. The Chairperson recalled that the reviews of the legislation of Bahrain, Costa Rica, Croatia,
Dominica, the Dominican Republic and Honduras had remained outstanding at the last meeting,
because some other Members had indicated that they were still analysing the answers to follow-upquestions received at or prior to that meeting.  Since the last meeting, responses to follow-up
questions had been received from Argentina, Georgia, Jamaica, Morocco and Nicaragua.  These hadIP/C/M/34
Page 6
been circulated in documents IP/C/W /271/Add.5, 290/Add.1, 266/Add.3, 265/Add.5 and 288/Add.3,
respectively.  He suggested that the item concerning the review of the legislation of Argentina,
Bahrain, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominica, the Do minican Republic, Georgia, Honduras, Jamaica,
Morocco and Nicaragua be deleted from the agenda, it being understood that any delegation should
feel free to revert to any matter stemming from those reviews at any time.
29. The Council so agreed.
30. The Chairperson informed the Council that responses to follow-up questions were still
outstanding from Albania, Botswana, Côte d'Iv oire, Kenya, Oman, the Philippines and the
United Arab Emirates.
31. During the meeting, the representative of Côte d'Ivoire provided written responses to the
follow-up questions posed to it.2
32. The representative of Kenya said that he w ould provide responses to outstanding follow-up
questions shortly.3
33. The representative of Oman hoped to provide responses to the follow-up questions that it had
not yet answered before the next meeting.
34. The Chairperson suggested that the Council urge Albania, Botswana, Kenya, Oman, the
Philippines and the United Arab Emirates to provide responses, without delay, to the follow-up
questions that remained unanswered.
35. The Council so agreed, while taking note  of the statements made.
(v) Legislation of Members scheduled for review in November 2001 (Antigua and
Barbuda, Barbados, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Gabon, Ghana, India,
Lithuania, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,
Senegal, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Tunisia, Uruguay and Zimbabwe)
- Requests for postponement
36. The Chairperson recalled that, by means of a communication dated 1 November 2001
(document IP/C/24), Senegal had informed the Council of its new status as a least-developed country
Member, invoked the provisions of Article 66.1 and any further extensions that might be granted
under it, and requested that the Council postpone the review of its legislation.
37. The representative of the United States said that her delegation had concerns about Senegal's
new least-developed country status and wished to consult with it regarding this matter.  Whilst the
United States would not oppose a consensus to accede to Senegal's request to postpone the review of
its legislation, her delegation wished to enter a rese rvation pending further analysis of the situation
and consultations with Senegal on its status.
38. The Council agreed to postpone the review of Senegal's legislation, taking note  of the
reservation of the United States.
                                                     
2 These were subsequently circulated in document IP/C/W/287/Add.3.
3 During the meeting, the representative of Kenya provided written responses to all but one of the
follow-up questions.  These were subsequently circulated in document IP/C/W/294/Add.1.IP/C/M/34
Page 7
39. The representative of Qatar said that the State of Qatar had recently finished the process of
bringing its intellectual property laws into comp liance with the TRIPS Agreement.  The Ministry of
Finance, Economy and Commerce had finished ame nding Copyright Law No. 25 of 1995.  A new law
would soon be issued by the Council of Ministers containing such amendments.  The new
amendments would bring the law in line with the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement.  Regarding
trademarks, the Ministry of Finance, Economy and Commerce had also finished amending the
1978 law on trademarks with support from, and in cooperation with, WIPO.  As a result, the new law
dealt with trademarks, geographical indications and industrial designs, and was fully compatible with
the TRIPS Agreement.  With regard to patents, trad e secrets and integrated circuits, a new law for all
Gulf Cooperation Council countries had just been enacted.  This law had recently been reviewed by
WIPO and its compatibility with the TRIPS Agreement had been confirmed.  Furthermore, the
necessary implementing legislation was currently under way in all the respective Gulf Cooperation
Council countries.  This implementing legislation would be entering into force for the State of Qatar
during 2002.  The State of Qatar reiterated its strong commitment to the rules of the multilateral
trading system, especially in the area of intellectual property protection.  He regretted that his
delegation was unable to answer the questions raised by Canada, Japan and the United States at this
stage, due to the heavy involvement of the Department of Commerce at the Ministry of Finance in thepreparations for the 4
th Ministerial Conference.  He therefore requested the Council to kindly postpone
the review of Qatar's legislation until the second half of 2002.
40. The Chairperson asked the delegation of Qatar to consult with its authorities on postponing
the review of its legislation until the first half of 2002.  The representative of Qatar said that he would.
41. The representative of Nigeria expressed his delegation's concern that it had not been able to
conclude the work required to participate in the re view of its legislation at the present meeting due to
the preparatory process for the Doha Ministerial Conference.  Nigeria had notified its legislation to
the Council in September 2000.  This had been circulated in documents IP/N/1/NGA/2,
IP/N/1/NGA/C/1 to 5, IP/N/1/NGA/D/1, IP/N/1/NGA/I/1 to 3, IP/N/1/NGA/P/1 and IP/N/1/NGA/T/1
and 2.  However, the burden of carrying out the preparatory process for both the MinisterialConference and the review of TRIPS legislation within one month had been too heavy and caused
such a delay in the preparations for the review that Nigeria had only submitted its responses to the
Checklist of Issues on Enforcement (document IP/N/6/NGA/1) in the week prior to the meeting.  He
therefore requested that the Council reschedule the review of Nigeria's legislation until the next
meeting of the Council, in March 2002.
42. With respect to the review of the legislation of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the
Chairperson informed the Council that he had received a fax from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Commerce and Trade informing him that the preparations for the Doha Ministerial Conference had
absorbed the attention of the officials responsib le for WTO matters over the preceding three months
under very uncertain circumstances.  More specifically, the officers with direct responsibility for
TRIPS matters were unavailable during the period in which preparations for the review of legislation
should have been finalized.  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines therefore regretted that it was not ableto participate in the scheduled review on 27 Novemb er 2001 but would ensure that it would be in a
position to comply with the conditions and procedures  for an effective review of its TRIPS legislation
at the next meeting of the Council.  It would therefore be grateful for the Chairperson's personal
cooperation and the kind approval of the Council for the review of the legislation of Saint Vincent and
the Grenadines to be postponed.
43. The Chairperson suggested that the Council post pone the reviews of the legislation of Nigeria
and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines until its next meeting in March 2002.
44. The Chairperson suggested that the Council re vert to the review of the legislation of
Swaziland at its next meeting, noting that Swaziland was not represented at the present meeting.IP/C/M/34
Page 8
45. The Council agreed to proceed with the suggestions by the Chairperson as reflected in
paragraphs 40, 43 and 44 above, while taking note of the statements made.
- Review of the legislation of 16 Members
46. Turning to the 16 other Members whose legislation was scheduled to be reviewed by the
Council at the present meeting, the Chairperson informed the Council that 12 of these 16 Members
had provided notifications of their implementing le gislation prior to the meeting, although not all of
these notifications were comprehensive.  Eleven had provided responses to the Checklist of Issues on
Enforcement (IP/C/5).  The Members under review had received questions from Australia, Canada,
the European Communities and their member States, Japan, Switzerland and the United States, which
had been circulated in documents IP/C/W/228, 314, 320 and Add.1, 322, 315 and 316, respectively.
Despite the short time available to answer questions, some responses had been received prior to, or
during, the meeting from Antigua and Barbuda, Ba rbados, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, India,
Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tunisia, Pakistan, Uruguay and Zimbabwe;  these had been circulated
in documents IP/C/W/317 to 319, 321 and 323 to 331 and addenda, respectively.
47. In accordance with the procedures for the review of legislation, the delegations of Antigua
and Barbuda, Barbados , Brazil , Brunei Darussalam , Cuba , Gabon , Ghana , India , Lithuania , Malaysia ,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka , Thailand , Tunisia , Uruguay  and Zimbabwe  each provided a brief introductory
overview of the structure of their legislation in the areas covered by the Agreement and of the changes
that they had had to bring about in order to ma ke their legislation compatible with the TRIPS
Agreement.  The records of these introductory statements as well as the questions put to them and the
responses given (including responses to follow-up questions given after the meeting) will be
circulated in the following documents with the following symbols:
Antigua and Barbuda IP/Q/ATG/1;  IP/Q2/ ATG/1;  IP/Q3/ATG/ 1;  IP/Q4/ATG/1;
Barbados IP/Q/BRB/1;  IP/Q2/BRB/1;  IP/Q3/BRB/1;  IP/Q4/BRB/1;
Brazil IP/Q/BRA/1;  IP/Q2/BRA/1;  IP/Q3/BRA/1;  IP/Q4/BRA/1;
Brunei Darussalam IP/Q/BRN/ 1;  IP/Q2/BRN/1;  IP /Q3/BRN/1;  IP/Q4/BRN/1;
Cuba IP/Q/CUB/1;  IP/Q2/CUB/1;  IP/Q3/CUB/1;  IP/Q4/CUB/1;
Gabon IP/Q/GAB/1;  IP/Q2/GAB/1;  IP/Q3/GAB/1;  IP/Q4/GAB/1;
Ghana IP/Q/GHA/1;  IP/Q2/GHA/1;  IP/Q3/GHA/1;  IP/Q4/GHA/1;
India IP/Q/IND/1;  IP /Q2/IND/1;  IP/Q3/IN D/1;  IP/Q4/IND/1;
Lithuania IP/Q/LTU/1;  IP/Q2/LTU/ 1;  IP/Q3/LTU/1;  IP/Q4/LTU/1;
Malaysia IP/Q/MYS/1;  IP/Q2/MYS/1;  IP/Q3/MYS/1;  IP/Q4/MYS/1;
Pakistan IP/Q/PAK/1;  IP/Q2/PAK/1;   IP/Q3/PAK/1;  IP/Q4/PAK/1;
Sri Lanka IP/Q/LKA/1;  IP/Q2/LKA/1;  IP/Q3/ LKA/1;  IP/Q4/LKA/1;
Thailand IP/Q/THA/1;  IP/Q2/THA/1;   IP/Q3/THA/1;  IP/Q4/THA/1;
Tunisia IP/Q/TUN/1;  IP/Q2/TUN/1;   IP/Q3/TUN/1;  IP/Q4/TUN/1;
Uruguay IP/Q/URY/1;  IP/Q2/URY/1;   IP/Q3/URY/1;   IP/Q4/URY/1;
Zimbabwe IP/Q/ZWE/1;  IP/Q2/ZWE/1;   IP/Q3/ZWE/1;  IP/Q4/ZWE/1.
48. The representatives of Australia, Canada , the European Communities , Japan , Switzerland  and
the United States congratulated those delegations who had been able to respond to questions and
participate in the review and expressed appreciati on for the presentations made and the information
provided.  The representative of the United States said that her delegation took the reviews seriously
and believed that they were important for the proper implementation of the TRIPS Agreement.  Some
Members under review had already provided responses to her delegation or given assurances that their
responses would be submitted shortly.  She urged those delegations to provide their responses as
quickly as possible and thanked them in advance.IP/C/M/34
Page 9
49. The Chairperson urged those Members who were under review to submit their notifications of
laws, where they had not already done so, and suggested the following arrangements for the
subsequent follow-up:
- that outstanding responses to initial questions be submitted to the country concerned
and the Secretariat by 11 January 2002;
- that the texts of any further follow-up questions be submitted to the country
concerned and the Secretariat by 1 February 2002;
- that a target date of 5 March 2002 be set for the submission by the countries under
review of responses to follow-up questions that may be submitted before the
1 February 2002 deadline;  and
- that the Council revert to the sub-item concerning the reviews of these Members'
legislation at its next meeting.
50. The Council agreed to proceed as suggested by the Chair.
(vi) Arrangements for future reviews
51. The Chairperson recalled that, at the previous meeting, the Council had agreed to take up the
review of the legislation of Moldova at its first meeting in 2002, i.e. at its meeting scheduled for
5 to 7 March 2002.4  Therefore, in accordance with the procedures for the review of legislation, he
proposed that the Council set the following target dates for the submission of questions and answers
in this review:
- questions should be submitted to Moldova, with a copy to the Secretariat, by
20 December 2001, i.e. 10 weeks before the meeting in March 2002;  and
- responses to questions posed within that deadline should be submitted by
5 February 2002, i.e. four weeks before the meeting in March 2002.
He suggested that the same date for responses to questions posed should also apply to Nigeria and to
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the review of whose legislation the Council had agreed to postpone
until the meeting in March 2002.
52. The Council so agreed.
53. The Chairperson reminded Moldova to make its notification of legislation under Article 63.2
(IP/C/2) without delay, and to reply to the Checklis t of Issues on Enforcement (IP/C/5) without delay,
so that its legislation could still be circulated to Members well in advance of the meeting in
March 2002.5
54. The Chairperson recalled that, on 11 December 2001, China would become the 143rd Member
of the WTO and that the accession of Chinese Taipei as the 144th Member of the WTO was also
imminent.  Consequently, the Council would have to  decide, at its next meeting, on when it would
                                                     
4 See under "Other business" below.
5 See also paragraph 2 above.IP/C/M/34
Page 10
take up the review of the legislation of China and, a ssuming that it would accede in the near future as
planned, Chinese Taipei, and set dates for the submission of questions and answers in this review.6
C. OTHER BUSINESS
(i) Implementation of Article 66.2
55. The Chairperson said that, as some delegations might be aware, he had been informed
recently by UNCTAD that it would like to introduce,  at the present meeting, the written information
that it had recently submitted in response to the request from the Council at the last meeting on the
outcome of the UNCTAD Expert Meeting on Internat ional Arrangements for Transfer of Technology
in June 2001.  However, UNCTAD had just informed him that it wished to withdraw its request for
the floor explaining that, following contact it had ha d with Members, it would appear to be preferable
for it to make its statement at the next meeting,  when the Council would revert to the agenda item
concerning the implementation of Article 66.2.
(ii) Council meeting dates in 2002
56. The Chairperson said that the Secretariat had pe ncilled in, tentatively, the following dates for
formal meetings of the Council in 2002:
5 to 7 March
25 to 27 June
18 to 20 September
25 to 27 November
57. He said that, while the Council might need to make adjustments to its schedule of meetings or
organize additional meetings in the light of how it would decide to respond to the Doha Declaration,
he suggested that these dates be tentatively reserved, given the likely intense demand for meetings
next year.  In addition, he announced his intenti on to hold informal consultations, early in 2002, on
how the Council should organize its work in the light of the Doha Declaration.  He said that he would
convey the arrangements for such informal consultations at a later date to Members.
____________
                                                     
6 Subsequently having submitted the instrument of ratification of its Protocol of Accession to the WTO,
Chinese Taipei will become the 144th Member of the WTO on 1 January 2002.