WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/AB/WP/W/8* 
8 April 2004 
 (04-1599) 
  
 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE  WORKING PROCEDURES  
FOR APPELLATE REVIEW  
 
Communication from the Appellate Body  
  
 The following communication, dated 8 April 2004,  from the Chairman of the Appellate Body, 
addressed to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settl ement Body, is circulated in accordance with 
Article 17.9 of the  Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes . 
 
_______________ 
 
First, may I congratulate you on your appointment as Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body.   I write at the request of, and on behalf of, a ll seven Appellate Body Members.  As you know, 
the principle of collegiality, in general, and Rule 4(1) of the  Working Procedures for Appellate 
Review (the " Working Procedures "), in particular, direct Appella te Body Members to "convene on a 
regular basis to discuss matters of policy, practi ce and procedure."  In our discussions, we have 
observed that the  Working Procedures , adopted prior to the lodging of the first appeal in 1996, have 
operated smoothly and effectively.  Nevertheless, th e experience of the last eight years has revealed 
certain gaps in these provisions .  Accordingly, we believe that the time is ripe to consider certain 
"improvements" to the text of the  Working Procedures .
1 
 
 To this end, we set out below an explanation of  particular issues that we consider need to be 
addressed, as well as how we intend to deal w ith each issue through amendment(s) to the Working 
Procedures .  We also attach, as an Annex to this le tter, the text of the amendments we are 
considering.  
 
 We would welcome the views of WTO Members on these proposed amendments—or as to 
how any of our  Working Procedures might be improved, and would appreciate your assistance in 
obtaining their views.  We have been followi ng closely the ongoing negotiations on the improvements 
and clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Unders tanding, and we realize that one of our proposals, 
namely that related to the contents of the Notice of  Appeal, has also been raised in the context of 
those negotiations.  In addition, we realize that  the results of the negotiations may well require 
additional amendments to the Working Procedures .  Nevertheless, we believe that it is useful to start 
the process of consultation now.  As our consu ltations advance, and the negotiations process 
continues, it may be appropriate to consider at a later date whether the two sets of amendments would 
more suitably be made simultaneous ly, or on two separate occasions. 
 
 
                                                      
*NOTE CONCERNING DOCUMENT NUMBER:  This Communication was originally issued on 
8 April 2004 as document WT/AB/WP/8.  For technical reasons (explained in WT/AB/WP/W/9), it has been   
re-issued on 4 January 2005 as document WT/AB/WP/W/8. 
1A copy of the current Working Procedures , WT/AB/WP/7, is enclosed for your information.   WT/AB/WP/W/8 
Page 2  
 
  We have informed the Director-General that we are considering amending the Working 
Procedures  and have provided him with a copy of this letter and the amendments we are considering.  
We intend to consult with him further once we have  completed our consultations with you and in the 
light of any comments we receive from Members.    I. General Background 
 We wish briefly to recall the legal frame work within which any amendments to the Working 
Procedures would eventually be made.  As you know, Article 17.9 of the  Understanding on Rules 
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes  (the "DSU") provides: 
 
Working procedures shall be drawn up by the Appellate Body in 
consultation with the Chairman of the DSB and the Director-General, 
and communicated to the Members for their information. (emphasis added) 
Rule 32(2) of the  Working Procedures  provides: 
The Appellate Body may amend these Rules in compliance with the 
procedures set forth in paragraph 9 of Article 17 of the DSU. 
 Furthermore, in December 2002, the DSB a dopted additional procedures for consultations 
between Members and the Chairperson of the DSB with respect to amendments to the Working 
Procedures .
2 
 
 Having set out the legal framework for amendments to the Working Procedures , we turn to 
the specific improvements we are considering.  
II. Notices of Appeal 
A. Introduction  
Rule 20(1) of the  Working Procedures   provides that an appeal shall be commenced by filing 
a notification in writing of the appeal.  Rule 20(2) of the Working Procedures  sets forth rules on the 
requirements for the contents of the Notice of Appeal: 
A Notice of Appeal shall include the following information: (a) the title of the panel report under appeal; (b) the name of the party to the dispute filing the Notice of 
Appeal; 
(c) the service address, telephone and facsimile numbers of the 
party to the dispute;  and 
(d) a brief statement of the nature of the appeal, including the 
allegations of errors in the i ssues of law covered in the panel 
report and legal interpretations developed by the panel . 
(emphasis added) 
                                                     
 
2WT/DSB/31.  WT/AB/WP/W/8 
 Page 3 
 
 
 The Appellate Body has had in several appeal s occasion to consider issues relating to the 
Notice of Appeal.3  Our experience in this regard has led us to the view that the content of the 
Working Procedures  could be clarified with respect to:  (i) the sufficiency of Notices of Appeal; and 
(ii) amendments to a Notice of Appeal.  In addition, we believe that the current Working Procedures  
are not symmetric in their treatment of appellant s and so-called "other" appellants.  Specifically, 
although the  first  appellant is obliged to give notice of its appeal, the  other   appellant is not required 
to give any notice whatsoever.  Instead, an other appe llant simply files an other appellant's submission 
on day 15, five days after the appellant has subm itted its appellant's submission.  Thus, we are 
considering amendments to the Working Procedures to deal with these three issues relating to Notices 
of Appeal, each of which is discussed below.   
B. Content of the Notice of Appeal  
 Notices of Appeal sometimes do not disclose very clearly what is appealed.  This may be due, 
in part, to the fact that existing Rule 20(2)(d) of the Working Procedures  provides little guidance as to 
the manner in which an appellant is to "briefly" stat e the "nature of the appeal" and the "allegations of 
error".  The practice of Members regarding the conten t of their Notices of Appeal has also varied over 
the past eight years.  In some cases, Members fo cus on describing the legal issues on which the panel 
allegedly erred, in others on identifying the releva nt paragraphs of the panel report in which the 
alleged errors are contained, and in still othe r cases on identifying the relevant provisions of the 
covered agreements that the panel allegedly erred in interpreting. 
 Ambiguities in the Notice of Appeal can creat e difficulties for an appellee because, as we 
stated in US – Shrimp, the Notice of Appeal does not serve merely  to "trigger" an appeal, but also to 
provide adequate notice to the appellee of the "nature of the appeal" and the "allegations of error".  In 
other words, one purpose of the Notice is to enable the appellee to exercise fully its rights of defence.4   
In the light of the difficulties experienced with Notices of Appeal, we believe that it would be 
helpful to Members if Rule 20(2)(d) of the Working Procedures  were revised to give further guidance 
on the required contents of the Notice of Appeal.5  We emphasize that our purpose in making this 
proposal is not to increase the burden placed upon a ppellants in the preparation of their Notices of 
Appeal.  Rather, it is to encourage consistency in th e content of Notices of Appeal and to ensure that 
appellees are, from the outset of an appeal, afford ed full opportunity to exercise their rights of 
defence.   
                                                      
3See, for example, our Reports in European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas , WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September 1997, DSR 1997:II, 591, para. 152;  United 
States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products , WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, 
DSR 1998:VII, 2755 , para. 95;  United States – Counterva iling Measures Concerning Ce rtain Products from the 
European Communities ("US – Countervailing Measures on Certain EC Products "), WT/DS212/AB/R, adopted 
8 January 2003, paras. 62 and 70;  United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 , 
WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R, adopted 27 January 2003, paras. 191-205;  and European Communities – 
Trade Description of Sardines  ("EC – Sardines "), WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 23 October 2002, paras. 137-152. 
4Another view holds that the notice of appeal serves only to signal the decision of a Party to launch an 
appeal of a panel report, with the result that the notice need indicate only which findings of the panel are being 
appealed.  Members may wish to comment on this approach. 
5We are aware that a similar proposal has been made in on-going negotiations on the DSU by India, on 
behalf of Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Jama ica, Malaysia and Hondur as.  These Members have 
proposed the addition of a footnote to Article 17.6 of th e DSU requiring the appellant to "identify the issues of 
law covered in the panel report and legal interpretations developed by the panel sufficiently clear enabling the 
other party and the third parties to a dispute to understand the issues under appeal."  (TN/DS/W/47)   WT/AB/WP/W/8 
Page 4  
 
 The issues of law that may give rise to an a ppeal stem from the panel's interpretation and/or 
application of a provision of the covered agreemen ts, for instance Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  
Even where the appellant alleges that the panel has erred in its treatment of the measure or in its 
assessment of the facts, the appeal must be based  on a provision of a covered agreement, such as 
Article 11 of the DSU.  Accordingly, we propose that the  Working Procedures   be amended to 
require the appellant to identify which specific legal provision, in a covered agreement, is the subject 
of its appeal. 
In many cases, however, simply identifying a le gal provision will not adequately identify the 
nature of the appeal.  The appellee would have no  notice as to the nature of the error(s) that the 
appellant considers the panel made in reaching its  final conclusion(s).  Therefore, we propose to 
amend Rule 20(2)(d) further to:  (i) require the appe llant to describe the specific error(s) of law that 
the panel made in its treatment of the provision at issue; and (ii) encourage the appellant to identify 
specific paragraphs of the panel report which contain the alleged error(s).  We do not wish to suggest 
that the prescribed "description of the alleged errors  of law in the panel report" in Rule 20(2)(d)(i) 
should be a comprehensive statement of the arguments .  It should be sufficient simply to identify the 
main errors that the panel is alleged to ha ve made in its reasoning and/or findings.   
C. Notice of Other Appeal  
At present, the  Working Procedures   do not provide for an other appellant to file a Notice of 
Other Appeal, although there is provision for filing an other appellant's submissi on in Rule 23(1).  An 
other appeal is commenced simply by filing an other appellant's submission on day 15 of the appeal, that is, five days after the appellant's written subm ission.  At no point does the other appellant give 
formal notice of the nature of the other appeal.  
The requirement of a Notice of Appeal for the or iginal appeal but not for an other appeal now 
seems to us to be anomalous.  As noted above, a Notice of Appeal enables th e appellee to exercise its 
right of defence effectively.  Yet other participants (in particular the original appellant) must also be 
entitled to the same opportunity where there is an other appeal.   
 Further, we believe that the absence of a No tice of Other Appeal can create a risk of 
confusion as to the scope of the other appeal.  Th is is because, under the present rules, an other 
appellant is not required to identify, in a concise manner, the scope of its appeal, and such scope may 
not always be clear from the arguments contained in the other appellant's submission.   
 We, therefore, propose that the  Working Procedures   be modified to include a requirement 
for the other appellant to file a Notice of Other A ppeal.  The rules on the content of this Notice would 
be the same as those applicable to the Notice of A ppeal.  We also consider that, like the original 
Notice of Appeal, the Notice of Ot her Appeal should be filed simult aneously with the Appellate Body 
Secretariat and the DSB, so that Members would receive notice of both appeals.  
Providing for the filing of a Notice of Othe r Appeal, however, would affect the appeal 
timetable.  In the same way that a Notice of Appeal  is intended to provide an  advance notification of 
the content of the original appeal, a Notice of Other Appeal should provide a preliminary, brief 
indication of the content of the other appeal, suffi cient to allow the other appellee the opportunity to 
begin the preparation of its defence.  Accordingly, we consider that the Notic e of Other Appeal should 
be filed in advance of the due date for th e other appellant's submission (day 15).  
At the same time, a Member's decision as to whet her or not to file an other appeal may be 
dictated, in part, by the scope of the original app eal.  This may only be clear to the potential other 
appellant once the original appellant has put forth its detailed arguments, in writing, in its appellant's 
submission.  The present procedures allow the potentia l other appellant an opportunity (5 days) to WT/AB/WP/W/8 
 Page 5 
 
 
 examine the written submission of the original appe llant before deciding whether to file an other 
appeal.  We think that there is merit in maintain ing the present rule of allowing the potential other 
appellant such a period of time to read the appella nt's submission before filing a Notice of Other 
Appeal.  Thus, we believe that the Notice of Other Appeal should be due  after  the appellant's 
submission is filed. 
In our view, the only practical way to meet these two objectives (filing the Notice of Other 
Appeal after the appellant's submission but before  the other appellant's submission), while continuing 
to ensure respect for the 90-day d eadline for appeals, is to move up the date on which the appellant's 
submission would be due.  We are therefore consider ing requiring that the appellant's submission be 
filed 7 days after the filing of the Notice of App eal, and that the Notice of Other Appeal be filed 
12 days after the filing of the Notice of Appeal .  The other deadlines for the filing of written 
submissions and third participants' notificati ons would remain unchanged.  Hence, the only 
modification to existing timelines would be changing  the date for filing the appellant's submission 
from day 10 to day 7.  Of course, the 60 days within which to file a Notice of Appeal following the circulation of a panel report would no t change under this new approach.   
In addition, and also for reasons of symmetry , we are considering adding a definition of 
"other appellant" to the Working Procedures , which currently define an "appellant", but not an "other 
appellant". 
D. Amending Notices of Appeal  
The present rules do not provide procedures for amending a Notice of Appeal.  In the light of 
issues that have arisen in certain appeals
6, we consider that it is in the interests of orderly procedure 
for the  Working Procedures   to be modified to clarify whether, and in what circumstances, an 
appellant can supplement the Notice of Appeal. 
We consider it essential to preserve the Notice of  Appeal as the single, key document that 
defines the scope of appeal.  At the same time, we  wish to avoid confusion that may arise when an 
appellant seeks to file different doc uments elaborating on or adding to its Notice of Appeal.  For these 
reasons, we believe that it may be useful to provi de for the possibility that an appellant may be 
authorized to amend its Notice of Appeal.7 
We emphasize that we are not considering an unf ettered right to change the Notice of Appeal.  
This could prejudice the interests of participants as well as create difficulties for the Appellate Body.  Rather, we are considering making any appellant or other appellant's  ability to amend its Notice of 
Appeal contingent upon the receipt of leave from th e Division hearing the appeal.  In order to obtain 
leave to amend the notice, an appellant or other ap pellant will be required to show cause.  What is 
required to show cause will depend upon the circum stances of each case.  Factors that we would 
expect to take into account in assessing any requ est to amend a Notice of (Other) Appeal would 
include the nature and extent of the proposed ame ndment, due process, the timing of the request to 
amend the Notice of (Other) Appeal, and any reas ons why the proposed amended Notice was not or 
could not have been filed on its original due da te.  Changes to the appeals timetable would be 
minimized and, in any event, the 90-day period with in which an appeal is to be completed would not 
be extended.   
                                                     
 
6See, for example, Appellate Body Report, US – Countervailing Measures on Certain EC Products , 
supra , footnote 3, paras. 58-75 and Appellate Body Report, EC – Sardines , supra , footnote 3, paras. 137-152. 
7The same reasoning applies,  mutatis mutandis , to Notices of Other Appeal. WT/AB/WP/W/8 
Page 6  
 
 The Appellate Body would afford all participan ts and third participants an opportunity to 
comment on the justification for the proposed ame ndments before reaching a decision on whether to 
accept an amended Notice.   
III. The Three-Day Deadline for Correcting "Clerical" Errors 
Paragraph 5 of Rule 18 of the Working Procedures   allows Members to "correct" their written 
submissions, subject to three qualifications.  First,  correction may occur only "upon authorization by 
the division";  secondly, the types of errors that may be corrected are "clerical errors";  and, thirdly, 
the correction "shall be made within 3 days of  the filing of the original submission".   
Members have occasionally had recourse to this provision over the last eight years.  Their 
practice in this regard has demonstrated to us tha t:  (i) the meaning of the word "clerical" is not 
always clear;  and (ii) the 3-day requirement is too inflexible. 
Accordingly, we are considering amending Rule 18(5) of the Working Procedures  to 
eliminate the three-day time limit and to replace the wo rd "clerical" with "minor".  We also propose to 
add, in parentheses, an illustrative, though not exha ustive, list of what could constitute a "minor" 
error:  for example, typographical errors, errors in syntax, or words or numbers in the wrong order.   
Authorization to amend pursuant to this pr ovision will be made on a case-by-case basis.   It is 
also our intention, whenever a request is made pursu ant to Rule 18(5), to afford all participants and 
third participants in the appeal an opportunity to comment upon the request.  
IV. The Oral Hearing  
At present, the first paragraph of Rule 27 prov ides that the oral hearing "shall be held, as a 
general rule, 30 days after the date of the filing of the Notice of Appeal."  In practice, oral hearings 
are usually held between 40 and 45 days after the date of the filing of the Notice of Appeal.  
Accordingly, we are considering amending Rule 27(1) , as well as Annex I, to reflect the consistent 
practice of the Appellate Body, that is that "30"  be replaced with "35-45".  We also propose to 
simplify the wording of Rule 27(4) by deleti ng therefrom the superfluous words "as necessary". 
V. Calculation of the 60 and 90 Day Time Limits  
A. Current Rules  
The calculation of relevant time frames for appeals is dealt with in Rule 17 of the Working 
Procedures ,  which provides:  
(1) Unless the DSB decides otherwise, in computing any time 
period stipulated in the DSU  or in the special or additional 
provisions of the covered agreements, or in these Rules, 
within which a communication must be made or an action 
taken by a WTO Member to exercise or preserve its rights, the day from which the time period begins to run shall be excluded and, subject to paragraph 2, the last day of the time-period shall be included. 
(2) The DSB Decision on "Expiration of Time-Periods in the 
DSU", WT/DSB/M/7, shall apply to appeals heard by divisions of the Appellate Body. WT/AB/WP/W/8 
 Page 7 
 
 
 B. Assessment of the Current Rul es and Options for Consideration  
Over the last eight years, the Appellate Body has worked diligently to ensure circulation of its 
reports within the 90 day limit specified in Article 17.5 of the DSU.  It has been successful in doing so in all but four cases.  Neverthele ss, meeting this time limit has proven exceptionally difficult when the 
appeal period runs over certain holiday periods, pa rticularly when the Appell ate Body has been faced 
with a large number of simult aneous appeals during these peri ods.  We understand that these 
circumstances have also proved onerous for Members.  Therefore, we would like to mitigate some of the 
additional pressures and difficulties that the 90-day limit has in the past imposed during particular 
periods of the year.   
To this end, we are consider ing amending Rule 17(1) of the Working Procedures to provide for 
two periods, each of three weeks' duration, during which time would not  run for purposes of calculating 
the end of the 90 day period for appeals.  Th ese periods would occur in August and over the 
December/January holidays.  We anticipate that, for a ppeals that run over these periods, it may also be 
necessary for the Division, after consultation with the participants and third participants, to make 
appropriate modifications to the Working Sc hedule for Appeal on a case-by-case basis. 
We do not anticipate that this amendment would af fect many appeals.  In some cases, it would 
eliminate the need that has arisen in three cases of withdrawing Notices of Appeal and filing them at a later date, in order to accommodat e the 90-day appeals timeline.  It would also provide certainty to 
WTO Members in planning appeals during the relevant periods.   
VI. Amendment to Annex I 
 Certain of the above amendments would also require minor amendments to Annex I to the 
Working Procedures , as indicated in the Annex attached to this letter.   
 
VII. Request for Written Comments  
Members have considerable experi ence with the provisions of the Working Procedures  that 
we are considering amending, and their perspectives  will be highly valuable to us in finalizing our 
decisions.   
  As mentioned at the outset of this letter, we would be pleased to receive comments from Members on the amendments we are considering.  To  that end, we would be grateful if you would 
bring the contents of this letter to the attention of Members, and seek their views in accordance with 
the additional procedures for consultations between  Members and the Chairperson of the DSB with 
respect to amendments to the Working Procedures .
8  It would be particularly  helpful for us to receive 
written comments from Members no later than 1 June 2004.    
_______________
                                                     
 
8Supra , footnote 2.  WT/AB/WP/W/8 
Page 8  
 
 Annex A
 
 
Proposed Amendments to the  Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
 
 A. Content of the Notice of Appeal 
Rule 20 could be amended as follows: 
 
Rule 20 (Commencement of Appeal) 
 (2) A Notice of Appeal shall include the following information: 
 
(a) the title of the panel report under appeal; (b) the name of the party to the dispute filing the Notice of Appeal; (c) the service address, telephone and facsimile numbers of the party to the 
dispute;  and 
(d) a brief statement of the nature of the appeal, including:
 
 (i) a description of  the allegations of  alleged  errors in the issues  of law 
covered  in the panel report and legal inte rpretations developed by the panel ;. 
 (ii) a list of the legal provision(s) of the covered agreements that the 
panel is alleged to have erred in  interpreting or applying;  and  
 (iii) an indicative list of the paragra phs of the panel report containing the 
alleged errors of law.  
 
B. Notice of Other Appeal 
Rules 1, 21 and 23 could be amended as follows: 
 
Rule 1 (Definitions) 
 
"appellant" means any party to the dispute th at has filed a Notice of Appeal pursuant 
to Rule 20or has filed a submission pursuant to paragraph 1 of Rule 23 ; 
 
… 
 
 
"appellee" means any party to the dispute that has filed a submission pursuant to 
Rule 22 or paragraph 3  4 of Rule 23; 
 
... 
 "documents" means the Notice of A ppeal, any Notice of Other Appeal
 and the 
submissions and other written statem ents presented by the participants; 
 
… 
 
"other appellant" means any party to the disp ute that has filed a Notice of Other Appeal 
pursuant to paragraph 1 of Rule 23;  
 
... 
 WT/AB/WP/W/8 
 Page 9 
 
 
 "participant" means any party to the dispute that has filed a Notice of Appeal pursuant 
to Rule 20, a Notice of Other Appeal pursuant to Rule 23  or a submission 
pursuant to Rule 22 or paragraphs 1 or 3  5 of Rule 23; 
 
 
Rule 21 (Appellant's Submission)  
 
 (1) The appellant shall, within 10  7 days after the date of the filing of the Notice of 
Appeal, file with the Secretariat a writ ten submission prepared in accordance with 
paragraph 2 and serve a copy of the submi ssion on the other parties to the dispute and 
third parties. 
  
Rule 23 (Multiple Appeals)  
  (1) Within 15 days after the date of the filing of the Notice of Appeal, a
 A party to the 
dispute other than the original appellant may  shall notify the DSB in writing within 12 
days after the date of the filing of the Notice of Appeal if it wishes to  join in that  an 
appeal or to  appeal on the basis of other alleged e rrors in the issues of law covered in 
the panel report  file a Notice of Other Appeal.  and legal interpretations develo ped by 
the panel  That party shall simultaneously file a Notice of Other Appeal with the 
Secretariat.  
 (2) Any written submission made pursuant to pa ragraph 1 shall be in the format required 
by paragraph 2 of Rule 21.   
A Notice of Other Appeal shall in clude the following information:  
(a) the title of the panel report under appeal;  
(b) the name of the party to the dispute filing the Notice of Other Appeal;  
(c) the service address, telephone and facsimile numbers of the party to the 
dispute;  and either  
(i) a statement of the issues raised on appeal by another participant with 
which the party joins;  or  
(ii) a brief statement of the nature of the other appeal, including:  
(A) a description of the alleged errors of law in the panel report;  
(B) a list of the legal provision(s) of the covered agreements that 
the panel is alleged to have erre d in interpreting or applying;  
and 
(C) an indicative list of the pa ragraphs of the panel report 
containing the alleged errors of law.  
 (3) The other appellant shall, within 15 days after the date of the filing of the Notice of 
Appeal, file with the Secretariat a writte n submission prepared in accordance with 
paragraph 2 of Rule 21 and serve a copy of the submission on the other parties to the 
dispute and third parties.  
 
(3) (4) The appellant, any appellee and any other party to the dispute that wishes to respond 
to a submission filed pursuant to paragraph 1  3 may file a written submission within 
25 days after the date of the filing of the Notice of Appeal, and any such submission 
shall be in the format require d by paragraph 2 of Rule 22. 
 (4)
 (5) This Rule does not preclude a party to the dispute which has not filed a submission 
under Rule 21 or a Notice of Other Appeal under  paragraph 1 of this Rule from 
exercising its right of appeal pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the DSU. WT/AB/WP/W/8 
Page 10  
 
  
(5)
 (6) Where a party to the dispute which has not filed a submission under Rule 21 or a 
Notice of Other Appeal under  paragraph 1 of this Rule exercises its right to appeal as 
set out in paragraph 4 5, a single division shall examine the appeals. 
 
 
C. Amending Notices of Appeal 
Possible new Rule: 
 
Amending Notices of Appeal  
 
(1) Upon cause shown, the division may author ize an original appellant to amend the 
Notice of Appeal or an other appellant to amend the Notice of Other Appeal.  
 (2) A request to amend a Notice of Appeal or a Notice of Other Appeal shall be in writing 
and shall state the cause for the requ est and identify precisely the specific 
amendments that the appellant or other a ppellant wishes to make to the Notice.  A 
copy of the request shall be served on the ot her parties to the dispute, participants, 
third participants and third parties, each of whom shall be given an opportunity to 
comment in writing on the request.  
 
(3) In deciding whether to authorize, in full or in part, a request to amend a Notice of 
Appeal or Notice of Other Appeal, the divisi on shall take into account the interests of 
fairness and orderly procedure, as well as the requirement to circulate the Appellate 
Body report within the time period set out in Article 17.5 of the DSU or, as 
appropriate, Article 4.9 of the  SCM Agreement . 
 
(4) The division shall notify the parties to the dispute, participants, third participants, and 
third parties of its decision.  In the event that the division authorizes an amendment to 
a Notice of Appeal or a Notice of Other Appeal, it shall provide an amended copy of 
the Notice to the DSB.  
 
 
D. Correcting Minor Errors 
Possible Amendment to Rule 18(5): 
Rule 18 (Documents) 
 
(5) Upon authorization by the division, a par ticipant or a third participant may correct 
clerical  minor  errors in any of its submissions  documents (including typographical 
mistakes, errors of syntax, or words or numbers placed in the wrong order) .  Such 
correction shall be made within 3 days of the filing of the original submission and a 
copy of the revised version  The request to correct minor errors shall identify the 
specific errors to be corrected and  shall be filed with the Secretariat.   A copy of the 
request shall be  served upon the other parties to the di spute, participants, third parties 
and third participants, each of whom shall be given an opportunity to comment in 
writing on the request.   The division shall  notify the parties to the dispute, 
participants, third parties and third participants of its decision.   
 
 WT/AB/WP/W/8 
 Page 11 
 
 
 E. Calculation of Time Periods 
Possible amendment to paragraph 1 of Rule 17: 
 
Rule 17 (General Provisions)  
 
(1) Unless the DSB decides othe rwise, in computing any time -period stipulated in the 
DSU  or in the special or additional provisions of the covered agreements, or in these 
Rules, within which a communication must be made or an action taken by a WTO Member to exercise or preserve its rights,
 : 
 
(i)  the day from which the time -period begins to run shall be excluded;    
 (ii)  the following periods shall be excluded:
 
 
(a)  a period of 21 days beginning on the first Monday in August of each 
year;  and  
 (b)  a period of 21 days beginning on the third Monday in December of 
each year;   and 
 (iii)
  subject to paragraph 2, the last day of the time period shall be included.  
 
 
F. Oral Hearing 
Possible amendments to paragr aphs 1 and 4 of Rule 27: 
 
Rule 27 (Oral Hearing) 
 
(1) A division shall hold an oral hearing, wh ich shall be held, as a general rule, between  
30 35 and 45  days after the date of the filing of the Notice of Appeal. 
 
… 
 
(4) The Presiding Member may, as necessary,  set time-limits for oral arguments and 
presentations .   
 
  WT/AB/WP/W/8 
Page 12  
 
 G. Timetable for Appeals 
 
Possible amendments to Annex I to the  Working Procedures  : 
 
 
TIMETABLE FOR APPEALS
1 
 
 General Appeals  Prohibited Subsidies Appeals  
 Day Day 
Notice of Appeal1 2 0 0 
Appellant's Submission 2 3 10  7 5  4 
Notice of Other Appeal4 12  6  
Other Appellant(s) Submission(s) 3 5 15 7 
Appellee(s) Submission(s)4 6 
Third Participant(s) Submission(s)5 7 
Third Participant(s) Notification(s)6 8 25 
25 
25 12 
12 
12 
Oral Hearing 7 9 30  35-45  15  17-23  
Circulation of Appellate Report 60 – 908 10 30 – 609 11 
DSB Meeting for Adoption 90 – 12010 12 50 – 8011 13 
 
    
1Rule 17 applies to the computation of the time-periods below.  
1 2Rule 20. 
2 3Rule 21(1) . 
3 4Rule 23(1).  
3 5Rule 23(3 1). 
4 6Rules 22 and 23(5 3). 
5 7Rule 24(1). 
6 8Rule 24(2). 
7 9Rule 27. 
8 10Article 17: .5, DSU. 
9 11Article 4: .9, SCM Agreement . 
10 12Article 17: .14, DSU. 
11 13Article 4: .9, SCM Agreement . 
 
__________