RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/399  
 
29 September  2017 
(17-5208) Page: 1/14 
Dispute Settleme nt Body  
20 July 2017    
 
 MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 20  JULY 2017 
Chairman: Mr. Junichi I hara (Japan ) 
Table of Contents  
1   SURVEILLANCE OF IMPL EMENTATION OF RECOMM ENDATIONS ADOPTED BY  
THE DSB ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products 
from Japan: Status report by the United  States  ................................ ................................ ...... 2 
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by 
the United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  2 
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European  Union ................................ ................................ ....... 3 
D.  European  Union – Anti-dumping measures on biodiesel from Argentina: Status report 
by the  European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  4 
2   UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT  
OF 2000: IMPLEMENTATION  OF THE RECOMMENDATIO NS ADOPTED BY THE  DSB ...........  4 
A.  Statement by the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ....................  4 
3   MECHANISM FOR DEVELO PING, DOCUMENTING AN D SHARING PRACTICES 
AND PROCEDURES IN TH E CONDUCT OF WTO DIS PUTES  ................................ .................  5 
A  Statement by Canad a ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 5 
4   APPOINTMENT OF APPEL LATE BODY MEMBERS: P ROPOSAL BY 
THE EUROPEAN  UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 9 
5   PROPOSAL REGARDING T HE APPELLATE BODY SE LECT ION PROCESS  .......................  10 
6   DISPUTE SETTLEMENT W ORKLOAD  ................................ ................................ ...........  13 
A.  Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ ............................ 13 
 WT/DSB/M/399  
 
- 2 - 
 
   
 
1  SURVEILLA NCE OF IMPLEMENTATIO N OF RECOMMENDATIONS  ADOPTED BY THE  DSB 
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United  States (WT/DS184/15/Add.174)  
 
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Co pyright Act: Status report by the United  States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.149)  
 
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.112)  
 
D.  European  Union – Anti-dumpin g measures on biodiesel from Argentina: Status report by the 
European  Union (WT/DS473/17/Add.1)  
 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were four  sub-items under this Agenda item concerning 
status reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU . He recalled that 
Article  21.6 required that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the rea sonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved". Under this Agenda item, the Chairman invited delegations to 
provide up -to-date information about compliance efforts and to focus on new developments, 
suggestions and ideas on progress towards the resolution of disputes. He also reminded 
delegations that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings: 
"Representatives should make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeti ng 
on any issue that has already been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have 
been no change in Members' positions already on record". He then turned to the first status report 
under this Agenda item.  
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping m easures on certain hot -rolled steel products 
from  Japan: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS184/15/Add.174)  
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.174, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the impleme ntation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US anti -dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel 
products from Japan.  
1.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 7  July 2017, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. The United  States 
had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of 
anti-dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect 
to the DSB's recommendations and rulings that had yet to be addressed, the US  Administration 
would work with the US  Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would 
resolve this  matter.  
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that his country th anked the United  States for its statement 
and status report. Japan called on the United  States to fully implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in order to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter  at its next regular 
meeting.  
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by 
the United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.149)  
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.149, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning Section  110(5) of the US Copyright Act.  WT/DSB/M/399  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.7.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 7  July 2017, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. The 
US Administration would continue to confer with the EU, and to work closely with the US  Congress, 
in order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this  matter.  
1.8.  The representative of the European  Union  said that his delegation thanked the United  States 
for its status report and its statement. The EU referred to its previous statements on this matter 
and said that it wished to resolve this dispute as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statem ents and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.112)  
1.10.   The Chairman  draw attention to doc ument WT/DS291/37/Add.112, which contained the 
status report by the European  Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of 
biotech products.  
1.11.   The representative o f the European  Union  said that, on 4  July 2017 the European 
Commission had adopted five  authorisations for GMOs (for food and feed use): two  types of 
genetically modified cotton1, two types of genetically modified maize2 and the renewal of one type 
of genetically modified maize.3 The draft authorisation decision for one type of  genetically modified 
soybean4 (for food and feed use) had been submitted for a vote at the Appeal Committee on 
12 July 2017, with a "no opinion" result. Furthermore, as had been stat ed at the 19  June 2017 
DSB meeting, the draft proposals for the authorisation of three types of maize5 (for cultivation 
use) had been submitted for vote at the Appeal Committee on 27  March 2017, with a "no opinion" 
result. The European Commission would now  decide on these authorisations. In  addition, on 
17 July 2017, the draft authorisations for two types of  genetically modified soybeans6 (for food and 
feed use) had been submitted for a vote at the member States Committee, with a "no opinion" 
result. These measures would now be submitted for discussion, and possible opinion, to the Appeal 
Committee in September  2017. The EU said that it continued to be committed to acting in line with 
its WTO obligations. More generally, and as it had stated previously on ma ny occasions, the EU 
recalled that the EU approval system was not covered by the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
1.12.   The representative of the United  States  said that the United States thanked the EU for its 
status report and its statement. The United State s took note that , earlier in July  2017, the EU 
had approved four biotech products, including two varieties of corn. T he EU had also reauthorized 
one product for cultivation in the EU. The United States welc omed these developments. The EU' s 
actions had, non etheless, served to highlight the US concerns with the EU measures affecting the 
approval of biotech products. For example, the EU approval process for t he two  biotech corn 
products had taken six  and seven  years, respectively. The initial applications for approval of the 
corn products had been submitted in 2010 and 2011. Positive opinions from the EU 's scientific 
authority had been issued in the fall of 2016. Despite these positive safety opinions, the EU 
regulatory committee had failed to approve the produ cts. Instead, approvals could not be made 
until the Commission had finally taken up these matters earlier in July  2017. In short, the 
EU measures affecting the approval of biotech products continued to involve prolonged, 
unpredictable, and unexplained dela ys at every stage of the approvals process. Furthermore, 
numerous products remained in the biotech approval pipeline. The United States urged the EU to 
take action to ensure that the safety of pending biotech applications would be evaluated on the 
basis of  scientific evidence, and that decisions be taken without further delay.  
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
                                                
1 Cotton: 281 -24-236 x 3006 -210-23 x MON 88913 and GH B119.  
2 Maize: Bt11 × 59122 × MIR604 × 1507 × GA21 and DAS -40278 -9. 
3 Renewal of maize: MON810.  
4 DAS-68416 -4. 
5 Cultivation:  Bt11, 1507 and MON810 (renewal).  
6 DAS-44406 -4 and FG72 x A5547 -127. WT/DSB/M/399  
 
- 4 - 
 
  D.  European  Union – Anti-dumping measures on biodiesel from Argentina: Status rep ort 
by the  European  Union (WT/DS473/17/Add.1)  
1.14.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS473/17/Add.1, which contained the status 
report by the European  Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning anti -dump ing measures on biodiesel from Argentina.  
1.15.   The representative of the European  Union  said that the EU intended to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings by the agreed reasonable period of time (RPT), which would 
expire on 10  August  2017. The Europ ean Commission had launched a review investigation, which 
was ongoing. The Commission had disclosed its intention to amend the Implementing Regulation 
(EU) No . 1194/2013 to Argentina and other interested parties, which had been given the 
opportunity to pro vide comments.  
1.16.   The representative of Argentina  welcomed the status report submitted by the EU in 
accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. Argentina was an interested party to the review initiated 
on 20  December  2016 by the EU, pursuant to its "WTO Enabling  Regulation", with regard to the 
anti-dumping measures imposed on Argentine biodiesel, and was closely monitoring developments 
in these proceedings. Argentina hoped that the EU would publish its dumping and injury findings 
before the expiry of the reasonab le period of time for implementation and reiterated its firm belief 
that a review, consistent with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute, should result 
in full access to the EU market for biodiesel from Argentina.  
1.17.   The DSB took note  of the s tatements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
2  UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT  OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTED BY THE  DSB 
A.  Statement by the European  Union  
2.1.  The Chairman  said that  this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European  Union and he invited the representative of the European  Union to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of the European  Union  said that, once again, his delegation requested the 
United  States to stop transferring anti -dumping and countervailing duties to the US industry. Every 
disbursement that still took place was clearly an act of non -compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. The EU renewed its call on the United  States to abide by its clear 
obligation under Article  21.6 of the DSU to submit status reports on implementation in this 
dispute. The EU would continue to place this matter on the Agenda until the United  States 
implemented the WTO ruling.  
2.3.  The representative of Canad a said that his country thanked the EU for placing this item on 
the DSB's Agenda. Canada shared the EU's view that the Byrd Amendment remained under the 
DSB surveillance until it was no longer applied.  
2.4.  The representative of Brazil  said that, once again, hi s country thanked the EU for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda. As one of the parties to the Byrd Amendment disputes, Brazil wished to 
refer to its previous statements made on this matter. In particular, Brazil wished to refer to its 
statements regardi ng the continuation of illegal disbursements, which should cease immediately. 
Brazil renewed its calls on the United States to fully comply with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute. Until then, the United States was under an obligation to  submit status 
reports, pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU.  
2.5.  The representative of the United  States  said that, as the United States had noted at previous 
DSB meetings, the Deficit Reduction Act – which included a provision repealing the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 – had be en enacted into law in February  2006. 
Accordingly, the United States had taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes. The United States recalled, furthermore, that the 
EU had acknowledged that the Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties 
collected on goods entered after 1  October  2007, over nine  years ago. With respect to the EU' s WT/DSB/M/399  
 
- 5 - 
 
  request for status reports in this matter, as the United States had already explained at previous 
DSB meetings, there was no obligation under the DSU to provide further status reports once a 
Member had announced that it had implemented the DSB' s recommendations and rulings, 
regardless of whether the complaining party d isagreed about compliance. As the United  States had 
noted previously, the EU had demonstrated repeatedly that it shared this understanding, at least 
when it was the responding party in a dispute. Once again, at the present meeting  in July  2017, 
the EU had provided no status report for disputes in which there was a disagreement between the 
parties on the EU 's compliance. If the EU considered that it had no obligation to provide status 
reports once it had announced that it had implemented the DSB' s recommenda tions and rulings in 
a dispute, then surely the same applied to other Members under any reasonable reading of the 
DSU. 
2.6.  The representative of the European  Union  said that his delegation had provided status 
reports in all disputes that involved the EU (i.e. DS291 and DS473). The EU did not believe that 
there were any cases in which the EU should have submitted status reports.  
2.7.  The representative of the United  States  said that, as the United States had noted at prior 
DSB meetings, the EU had not submitted stat us reports in the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" (DS316) 
dispute, despite a disagreement between the parties on the EU's compliance.  
2.8.  The representative of the European  Union  said that in the EU's view the dispute DS217 was 
different the Airbus dispute since t he DS217 the dispute had been fully adjudicated and no further 
compliance proceedings were pending.  
2.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
3  MECHANISM FOR DEVELO PING, DOCUMENTING AN D SHARING PRACTICES AND 
PROCEDURES IN THE CO NDUCT OF WTO DISPUTE S (JOB/DSB/1)  
A  Statement by Canada  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Canada and he invited the representative of Canada to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of Canada  said that in July  2016, 17  Members had endorsed a 
"Mechanism for Developing, Documenting, and Sharing Practices and Procedures in the Conduct of 
WTO disputes". These Members had considered that the Mechanism would improve the operation 
of the dispute settlement system. Recently, Members had been discussing four new practice 
documents, which had been circulated prior to the present meeting as JOB documents. Copies of 
these documents were available in the meeting room. The documents related to:  (i) streamlining 
panel composition by inviting nominations and app ointments of non -governmental third -party 
nationals and suitable candidates who had not previously served on a panel (JOB/DSB/1/Add.7); 
(ii) promoting electronic filing and service procedures in disputes (JOB/DSB/1/Add.8);  
(iii) encouraging prompt response s to third party requests to participate in consultations 
(JOB/DSB/1/Add.9); and (iv) publishing disputes' procedural documents and preliminary rulings 
(JOB/DSB/1/Add.10). Canada was pleased that a number of Members had indicated that they 
would endorse th ese documents. Canada encouraged Members that had not yet done so to 
endorse the Mechanism and embrace it as the best means through which incremental 
improvements could be made to the dispute settlement system. Canada recalled that, in his 
speech on the oc casion of the presentation of the Appellate Body's 2016  Annual Report, Appellate 
Body Chairman  Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia had noted that the WTO dispute settlement system should 
not be taken for granted and that it required nurturing through timely intervention s. Canada 
agreed with Mr.  Bhatia and hoped that others would join with Canada in nurturing the system both 
through these practice documents and through engagement with the Mechanism. Canada said that 
it would circulate an updated endorsements document (JOB /DSB/1/Add.1) in advance of the 
August DSB meeting.  
3.3.  The representative of Australia  said that her country welcomed Canada's initiative in 
developing and circulating the proposed practice documents, under the Mechanism for Developing, 
Documenting and Sharin g Practices and Procedures in the Conduct of WTO Disputes. Australia 
believed that the dispute settlement system was the cornerstone of the multilateral trading system WT/DSB/M/399  
 
- 6 - 
 
  and that it was essential for the health of the WTO that its effectiveness and efficienc y was 
maintained. The four  proposed new practice documents that had been circulated at the present 
meeting sought to improve key practices and procedures for the benefit of all Members by:  
(i) simplifying the filing procedure by way of electronic filing of  all documents;  (ii) expanding the 
range of eligible panellists and by doing so, contributing to a more efficient panel composition 
process providing greater transparency to the procedures and timetabling of disputes by timely 
publication on the DS documen t series for the dispute;  and (iii) reducing unnecessary delays, by 
seeking prompt responses by Members to a dispute to third party requests. These added to the 
positive contribution made by the practice documents circulated in July  2016 in relation to: wr itten 
notifications, transparency of dispute settlement proceedings, participation of third parties in 
dispute proceedings, and improving and streamlining dispute proceedings. The endorsement of 
both the new and previously circulated practice documents wou ld produce much -needed efficiency 
gains in the dispute settlement system, which had come under increased workload pressures. 
Australia was happy to join other Members in endorsing these documents. All Members shared a 
responsibility to continue to work to support and improve the operation of the WTO dispute 
settlement system. Australia was committed to working to make improvements and encouraged all 
Members to do likewise by giving positive consideration to supporting the Mechanism itself and to 
endorsing t he practice documents which had been circulated under it. Australia also considered it 
important to thank the WTO Secretariat staff from the Rules Division, Legal Affairs Division and the 
Appellate Body Secretariat for their hard work and dedication. The d ispute settlement system 
could not function without them and their efforts were greatly appreciated.  
3.4.  The representative of Singapore  said that, in July  2016, his country had supported the 
"Mechanism for Developing, Documenting and Sharing Practices and Pro cedures in the Conduct of 
WTO Disputes." At the present meeting Singapore was pleased to indicate its endorsement of 
four new practice documents under the Mechanism such as electronic filing (JOB/DSB/1/Add.8); 
panel composition (JOB/DSB/1/Add.7); responses  to third party requests to participate in 
consultations (JOB/DSB/1/Add.9); and the publication of Working Procedures, Timetables, Working 
Schedules, and preliminary or procedural rulings (JOB/DSB/1/Add.10). All Members recognized the 
importance of the dis pute settlement system for the security and predictability of the multilateral 
trading system. However, various issues affected the functioning of the dispute settlement system, 
including the workload issue. The Mechanism, or the relevant practice document s, would not 
necessarily resolve the issues, but they would certainly play a small part by developing, 
documenting and sharing practices and procedures for WTO disputes. This would, in turn, help 
with the resolution of disputes by reducing procedural disag reements and delays, and by 
generating practical experience.  
3.5.  Singapore wished to highlight some elements and safeguards in the relevant practice 
documents, which would allow for more Members to participate  in the Mechanism. With regard to 
electronic filing , Singapore noted that electronic filing was already used by most, if not all, 
Members. Singapore also noted there was a "without prejudice" clause on the endorsing Members' 
positions on the Digital Dispute Settlement Registry. With regard to panel composi tion, the 
documents aimed to simply invite nominations by the Secretariat and appointments by the 
Director  General of certain individuals as possible panelists. This would not prejudice the right of 
the endorsing Member to object to nominations proposed by  the Secretariat, if there were 
compelling reasons. With regard to the responses to third party requests to participate in 
consultations, Singapore noted that the requirement of an endorsing Member to respond within a 
stipulated time -frame was simply on a "best endeavour" basis. With regard to the publication of 
working procedures, time -tables, working schedules and preliminary or procedural rulings, 
Singapore believed that there must be flexibility on this practice that such publications were as the 
endors ing Members determined them to be appropriate. Singapore looked forward to more 
Members participating in this Mechanism and the relevant practice documents, which would 
provide all Members with more information and could assist with the ongoing discussions  in the 
DSB Special Session. With more information flowing through this Mechanism, there could be 
greater awareness and acceptance of certain practices. This could, in the long run, lead to possible 
codification of certain practices, with the agreement of all Members. Singapore thanked Canada 
and other Members for their efforts in this initiative.  
3.6.  The representative of Chinese  Taipei  said that her delegation wished to join other Members 
who had expressed their appreciation for Canada's efforts. In Chinese  Taipei's view, the 
streamlined procedures provided in these practice documents facilitated coordination among 
disputing parties. It would reduce delays and improve the overall effectiveness of the WTO dispute WT/DSB/M/399  
 
- 7 - 
 
  settlement system. Delays faced by the system we re pressing matters and required Members' 
immediate attention. Chinese  Taipei believed that the practice documents circulated by Canada 
accommodated such concerns while their voluntary nature allowed some flexibility. All this made 
the Mechanism to be prag matic and constructive. Therefore, Chinese  Taipei welcomed the 
approach adopted by Canada. Chinese Taipei had endorsed the practice documents relating to 
written notifications and participation of third parties in dispute settlement proceedings in  2016. 
Among the documents circulated recently, Chinese  Taipei would endorse the practice document  
related to responses to third party requests to participate in consultations (JOB/DSB/1/Add.9). The 
other documents were still under consideration by capital and Chin ese Taipei hoped to receive 
positive instructions soon. Chinese  Taipei thanked Canada for its contribution, thanked the 
Secretariat for its hard work and encouraged all Members to participate in the Mechanism.  
3.7.  The representative of Norway  said that her cou ntry thanked Canada for its efforts in order to 
bring this initiative forward and for working with other Members in developing new practice 
documents under the initiative. Norway believed that the Mechanism would continue to be a useful 
contribution in tac kling some of the current challenges faced by the WTO dispute settlement 
system. Norway had previously endorsed document  JOB/DSB/1 as well as the practice documents 
on transparency and written notifications. Norway would endorse the four  new practice docum ents 
on: (i) responses to third party requests (JOB/DSB/1/Add.9); (ii) electronic filing 
(JOB/DSB/1/Add.8); (iii) publication of working procedures, timetables and working schedules 
(JOB/DSB/1/Add.10); and (iv) panel composition (JOB/DSB/1/Add.7). In Norwa y's view these 
four practice documents covered topics that would contribute to a prompt and effective dispute 
settlement procedure. Norway encouraged Members, who had not already done so, to endorse and 
use the Mechanism and its practice documents.  
3.8.  The rep resentative of Costa  Rica said that his country thanked Canada for its update on the 
Mechanism for the Development, Documenting and Sharing of Practices and Procedures in the 
Conduct of WTO Disputes. Costa Rica was not an active user of the dispute settlem ent mechanism 
but attached great importance to the system. As such, Costa  Rica endorsed the Mechanism as a 
way to contribute to and improve the dispute settlement mechanism. Costa Rica also supported 
some of the practices proposed, in particular those rela ted to requests of third parties to 
participate in consultations (JOB/DSB/1/Add.9) and electronic filing (JOB/DSB/1/Add.8). 
Costa  Rica considered the Mechanism to be a valuable initiative and therefore encouraged other 
Members to join this Mechanism.  
3.9.  The r epresentative of Japan  said that his country thanked Canada for its statement and its 
initiative to circulate four new documents setting out additional practices and procedures. Japan 
was among the WTO Members that participated in the Mechanism. It was a v oluntary, 
Member -driven, incremental, non -binding, transparent, and experimental exercise which, in 
Japan's view, could enhance the transparency and predictability of the system, reduce procedural 
uncertainty and unnecessary burden in dispute proceedings, and, importantly, "generate practical 
experience"7 which could be collectively shared by the entire Membership. With respect to the new 
documents circulated by Canada, Japan could support the following three documents: the 
document on "Electronic Filing"8; the document on "Responses to Third Party Requests to 
Participate in Consultations"9; and the document on the "Publication of Working Procedures, 
Timetables, Working Schedules, and Preliminary or Procedural Rulings".10 In supporting these 
documents, Japan said that it understood that the language used in these documents was flexible 
enough to allow the actual implementation of these documents to be adapted for the particular 
needs and circumstances of each individual dispute.  
3.10.   The representative of New Zeala nd said that her country was pleased to have endorsed the 
Mechanism in 2016 and thanked Canada for its ongoing efforts to progress this initiative with the 
new practice documents that had been tabled at the present meeting. New Zealand agreed that 
such eff orts could make incremental progress by removing ambiguity, facilitating coordination, and 
reducing workload and delays on specific issues. While New Zealand was not in a position to 
endorse the documents at the present meeting, Wellington was actively con sulting on them.  
                                                
7 JOB/DSB/1  
8 JOB/DSB/1/Add.8  
9 JOB/DSB/1/Add.9  
10 JOB/DSB/1/A dd.10  WT/DSB/M/399  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.11.   The representative of the Ukraine  said that his country wished to join other Members in 
thanking Canada for its efforts to improve practices and procedures in the context of WTO disputes 
and for presenting four new practice documents in th is regard. Ukraine had already endorsed the 
previous documents relating to the Mechanism in July  2016 and said that it was pleased to indicate 
its readiness to endorse the new practice document in respect of electronic filing 
(JOB/DSB/1/Add.8). He said tha t the Capital was still evaluating the rest of proposed new practice 
documents and that he would be able to update on its status within further discussions. Once 
again, Ukraine thanked Canada and the Secretariat for the Mechanism which, in Ukraine's view, 
could provide a practical opportunity for improving a number of technical and procedural aspects 
of dispute settlement proceedings.  
3.12.   The representative of Switzerland  said that his country was among the Members that had 
endorsed the Mechanism in 2016. Switz erland remained fully supportive of the innovative and 
pragmatic initiative, particularly considering that even the most modest changes to the DSU 
continued to elude Members and that the system was under strain. Accordingly Switzerland 
welcomed the new set  of practices documents, especially where these could contribute to easing 
the workload on the system. Switzerland thanked Canada for its ongoing, able leadership and 
encouraged more Members to join the Mechanism.  
3.13.   The representative of Colombia  said that h is country wished to thank Canada. As an original 
signatory to the Mechanism, Colombia said that it was pleased to endorse the practice documents 
on: responses to third party requests (JOB/DSB/1/Add.9), electronic filing of documents in 
disputes (JOB/DSB/1 /Add.8), and the publication of working procedures, timetables and working 
schedules (JOB/DSB/1/Add.10). Colombia expressed its appreciation for the Mechanism and 
believed that the Mechanism would assist the dispute settlement system.  
3.14.   The representative of  the United  States  said that the United States thanked Canada for 
circulating various documents and for its willingness to work with Members in an effort to improve 
the WTO dispute settlement system. As it had noted in the past, the United  States had certa in 
questions about the overarching mechanism suggested by Canada as well as the associated 
documents. For example, one key issue was the intended legal effect, if any, of Members 
"endorsing" Canada's suggested mechanism or individual documents. Nonetheless , at the present 
meeting, the United States appreciated the opportunity for Members to discuss the four  proposals. 
With respect to the document concerning the publication of panel working procedures, timetables, 
and other documents, the United States agree d that the WTO dispute settlement system would 
benefit from greater transparency. In fact, transparency in dispute settlement proceedings 
benefited all WTO Members, including in particular those with more limited resources who may not 
be able to follow ev ery dispute closely. The United States had long sought to increase 
transparency in WTO dispute settlement, including through its DSU review proposal, and it looked 
forward to collaborating with Canada and other Members on increasing transparency. 
The United  States also inquired whether Members considered that there was currently any basis 
for keeping any working procedures and timetables confidential. In that regard, the United  States 
noted that the Appellate Body's working procedures, including the timeline  for submissions, were 
already public, and this had not raised concerns among WTO Members. With respect to the 
proposal on third party requests to participate in consultations, the United States considered that it 
was appropriate to inform the requesting M ember in a timely manner and it had seen this occur in 
numerous disputes. Finally, on electronic filing, the United States welcomed the opportunity to 
continue to discuss with Members practical issues and experience with electronic filing, including in 
the context of the DDSR  initiative.  
3.15.   The representative of Korea  said that his country wished to join other Members in thanking 
Canada for its continued efforts to improve and clarify the dispute settlement mechanism. Korea 
was also one of the Members that had  endorsed Canada's original Mechanism document 
(JOB/DSB/1) in July  2016. Korea was pleased to endorse three of the four new practice documents 
on: electronic filing (JOB/DSB/1/Add.8), responses to third party requests (JOB/DSB/1/Add.9) and 
streamlining pan el composition (JOB/DSB/1/Add.7). Korea looked forward to deepening 
constructive cooperation regarding the Mechanism in order to strengthen the WTO dispute 
settlement system.  
3.16.   The representative of the Brazil  said that his country welcomed the "Mechanism fo r 
Developing, Documenting and Sharing Practices and Procedures in the Conduct of WTO disputes". 
It also welcomed the efforts by all users of the dispute settlement system to search for better WT/DSB/M/399  
 
- 9 - 
 
  practices and more -streamlined, efficient procedures, provided t hat they were in line with the 
DSU. Brazil would continue to closely follow the operation of the Mechanism and could, in the 
future, also participate in sharing and documenting some practices that could be helpful to parties 
involved in disputes. The trans parency provided by the Mechanism was positive. In  particular, 
Brazil was considering endorsing those practices related to electronic filing of submissions 
(JOB/DSB/1/Add.8), time -frames of responses to third parties in consultations (JOB/DSB/1/Add.9) 
and the publication of time -tables and working procedures (JOB/DSB/1/Add.10). Sharing and 
documenting practices could prove useful when dealing with the unavoidable procedural hurdles 
faced by Members in their disputes, Brazil would remain attentive to the asp ect of "developing 
practices and procedures", included in the title of mechanism. It was important that Members were 
able to monitor and verify whether new practices were in line with the mandatory provisions of the 
DSU. Therefore, it would be useful if Me mbers notified the DSB of the use of practices or 
procedures in specific disputes. All Members should monitor closely the mechanism and its 
application.  
3.17.   The representative of the China  said that her country welcomed the efforts made by Canada 
in initiating  the mechanism for sharing practices and procedures in order to achieve the prompt 
and effective settlement of disputes. China believed that it would be helpful if the endorsing 
Members could share their past experiences in implementing the practices and p rocedures under 
the Practices Mechanism. Such sharing would enable other Members to achieve a better 
understanding of the Mechanism. China would continue to monitor the discussion on this matter.  
3.18.   The representative of the European  Union  said that his deleg ation thanked Canada for its 
efforts regarding the Mechanism. As it had already stated in July  2016, the EU supported this 
Member -driven initiative. In part, it responded to the call by the Director -General for Members to 
do more to respond to the workload  issues. The EU agreed that additional practices and 
procedures exchanged via the Practices Mechanism could facilitate the resolution of disputes and 
reduce the scope for procedural disagreements and delays. Therefore, the EU had already 
supported a number  of these documents in 2016 and was pleased to inform the DSB that it would 
be endorsing the documents on responses to third party requests to participate in consultations 
(JOB/DSB/1/Add.9), and on publication of working procedures, timetables, working sch edules, and 
preliminary or procedural rulings (JOB/DSB/1/Add.10). This being said, the EU wished to make 
clear that it did not see this exercise as a substitute for DSU review. Rather, this exercise could 
generate practical experience with approaches that Members could choose to follow. The EU would 
continue to engage in the DSB Special Session with a view to identifying and codifying 
improvements and clarifications to the DSU.  
3.19.   The representative of the Chile said that her county thanked Canada for their in itiative and 
the opportunity to discuss different topics and means of improving practices in dispute settlement. 
Chile thanked Members for their statements with regard to various documents submitted by 
Canada. Chile believed that transparency with regard t o the effects of joining and adopting 
different proceedings would be desirable. Chile supported the suggestion that Members should 
share their experience in implementing the practice documents. Chile hoped that this could be 
discussed in future DSB meeting s and would closely follow the developments of the Mechanism.  
3.20.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
4  APPOINTMENT OF APPEL LATE BODY MEMBERS: P ROPOSAL BY THE  EUROPEAN  UNION 
(WT/DSB/W/597/REV.2)  
4.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European  Union. He drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/597/Rev.2 and invited the 
representative of the European  Union to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of the European  Union  said that his delegation referred to its previous 
stateme nts made with regard to the issue of Appellate Body appointments. The EU fully supported 
the selection of new Appellate Body members without delay. The EU therefore encouraged all 
Members to support its proposal so that both selection processes could be la unched at the present 
meeting. Regarding the details of its proposal , the EU believed that its proposal spoke for itself.  
The proposal strictly followed the models of similar DSB decisions taken in the past. It 
incorporated the proposal made by Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru WT/DSB/M/399  
 
- 10 - 
 
  but, in addition, it provided for the launching of the selection process for the replacement of 
Professor Peter Van den Bossche. The proposal provided for the selection process to be conducted 
and conclud ed as soon as possible.  
4.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that, as the United States had indicated at the 
22 May 2017 DSB meeting and at the 19  June 2017 DSB meeting, the United  States was not in a 
position to support the proposed decision to la unch a process to fill a position on the 
Appellate  Body that would become vacant in December  2017. Nevertheless, the United  States 
was willing to join a consensus for the DSB to take the decision proposed by Argentina, Brazil, 
Colombia, Chile, Guatemala, M exico, and Peru. That decision was focused on a process to fill a 
position that was now vacant with the expiry of Mr. Ricardo Ramírez  Hernández's term on 
30 June 2017.  
4.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
5  PROPOSAL REGARDING T HE APPELLATE BODY SE LECTION PRO CESS 
(WT/DSB/W/596/REV.2)  
5.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru. He drew attention to the 
communication contained in document WT/DSB/W/596/ Rev.2 and he invited the respective 
delegations to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of Mexico , speaking o n behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, 
Guatemala and Peru, recalled that at the DSB meeting on 22  May 2017, the respective delegations 
had proposed t hat a decision be taken to initiate the selection process for the vacancy that would 
arise on 30  June 2017. However, due to the lack of consensus, the DSB had not been in a position 
to make a decision on this matter. At the DSB meeting on 19  June 2017, the  same delegations had 
proposed a revised draft decision. Despite the support shown by a significant number of Members 
in favour of initiating this selection process, the DSB had been unable to adopt a decision by 
consensus. The present meeting was the thir d attempt by the respective delegations to break this 
impasse, which was difficult to understand. Article  17.2 of the DSU stated that: "Vacancies shall be 
filled as they arise ". Unlike the previous DSB meetings held in the beginning of the year, the 
matter  at issue was neither when nor how the selection process to replace Mr . Ramírez  Hernández 
should be launched. The matter at issue now was the overriding need to fill a vacancy that has 
already arisen. Mexico hoped that, on this occasion, Members would unde rstand the sense of 
urgency and would be able to reach a consensus in order to initiate the selection process for the 
vacancy that has arisen. Mexico noted that the current proposal comprised the following four 
elements:  (i) to launch a selection process t o replace Mr . Ricardo  Ramírez  Hernández, whose 
second term of office expired on 30  June; (ii) to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a 
deadline of 31  August for submitting nominations of candidates; and (iv) to request the Selection 
Committee to issue its recommendation by 22  November at the latest.  
5.3.  The representative of the European  Union  said that, as his delegation had previously stated, 
the EU fully supported the launching of the selection processes for new Appellate Body members 
as quickly as  possible. In fact, the EU proposal entirely incorporated the proposal made by 
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru. The EU regretted that the 
Membership had not endorsed its proposal and that it failed to see any valid reasons, a gainst the 
background of past practice, why one selection process should be singled out at this point. The EU 
encouraged the Chairman to continue his consultations with Members on this issue so that both 
processes could be launched as quickly as possible.  
5.4.  The representative of Australia , speaking in relation to both Agenda items 4 and 5, said that 
her country thanked those delegations that had, once again, put forward revised proposals. 
Australia recalled its statements made at recent DSB meetings on this i ssue and restated its deep 
disappointment that the DSB was, once again, unable to reach agreement on a process or 
processes to make appointments to the Appellate Body. As it had noted in previous DSB meetings, 
it was Australia's view that the DSB's failure  to do so was contrary to Article  17 of the DSU, which 
required a seven  member Appellate Body, where vacancies were to be filled as they arose. Delays 
in commencing a selection process or processes had resulted in the Appellate Body having only 
six members . Australia said that it was deeply concerned about the risk of that number being WT/DSB/M/399  
 
- 11 - 
 
  reduced to five  by January  2018. This came at a time when Members were all aware that the 
workload on the Appellate Body was intensive, and that a full contingent of Appellat e Body 
members was required to promote the effective and efficient resolution of disputes. Once again, 
Australia urged all Members to engage positively and constructively to find a solution to the 
current impasse and to fill the current and upcoming vacanc ies on the Appellate Body as soon as 
possible, as Members had committed to do under the terms of the DSU.  
5.5.  The representative of Singapore  thanked the EU and the group of Latin American Members 
for their revised proposals. Singapore reiterated its serious s ystemic concerns and regrets on the 
lengthy delay in the launch of the Appellate Body selection process. It urged Members to show 
flexibility with the proposals and to be pragmatic in order to reach consensus to launch the 
selection process or processes as  soon as possible.  
5.6.  The representative of Canada  thanked the proponents of both proposals and reiterated the 
concerns expressed by Canada at the 19  June 2017 DSB meeting where the proposals had been 
discussed. Canada noted that the DSB was now almost late i n launching the selection process to 
fill the vacancy that would arise in December  2017. Therefore, like Singapore, Canada asked 
Members to show their flexibility on this matter.  
5.7.  The representative of Japan , speaking in relation to both Agenda items 4 and 5, said that 
Japan would be able to join a consensus to support either of the two revised  proposals. Japan 
would not repeat its position on this matter, which had been expressed in previous DSB meetings. 
All Members, acting as the DSB which governed the di spute settlement system, were responsible 
for ensuring the proper functioning of the Appellate Body, including at a time of transition.  
5.8.  The representative of China  said that his country thanked the proponents for submitting their 
revised proposals with reg ard to the Appellate Body selection process. China referred to its 
previous statements and reiterated its serious systemic concerns over the delay in the selection of 
new Appellate Body members. China called upon Members to be flexible and constructive so that 
the selection process could start as soon as possible to fill the vacancies in order to ensure the 
smooth functioning of the dispute settlement mechanism.  
5.9.  The representative of Chinese  Taipei , speaking in relation to both Agenda items 4 and 5, said 
that her delegation was disappointed that Mr. Ricardo Ramírez  Hernández 's term had expired at 
the end of June  2017 and that now Members had to face an inevitable vacancy in the Appellate 
Body. Members were still uncertain about how long the vacancy would rem ain. While there may be 
some very qualified candidates, Chinese Taipei regretted that the disagreement on the selection 
process prevented them from doing the task. Chinese Taipei encouraged Members to find a 
solution to this matter as soon as possible and to ensure that the Appellate Body had enough 
resources to conduct its work. As mentioned at previous DSB meetings, Chinese  Taipei remained 
ready to support either proposal.  
5.10.   The representative of the Russian  Federation  said that her country referred to its 
statements made at previous DSB meetings and wished to highlight its serious concern about the 
current situation. Russia urged all Members to resolve their differences to ensure the proper 
functioning of the Appellate Body and compliance with the very clea r and explicit provision of 
Article  17 of the DSU on this matter.  
5.11.   The representative of Ecuador  said that, like previous speakers, Ecuador wished to express 
its concern about this matter and reiterated its previous statements made in the DSB to the effect 
that it was crucial for the selection process to start as quickly as possible. He recalled that this 
matter had been raised at the 22  May 2017 DSB meeting and then again at the 19  June 2017 DSB 
meeting. Ecuador noted that the Chairman had held consultation s on this matter and asked the 
Chairman to inform Members of the results of these consultations. In particular, Ecuador wished to 
know the reasons as to why there was no consensus to start the selection process.  
5.12.   The representative of New Zealand , speaking in relation to both Agenda items 4 and 5, said 
that her country thanked the Chairman for his ongoing efforts to find consensus on this important 
matter. New  Zealand also thanked the proponents for their revised proposals to launch the 
Appellate Body select ion process. It recalled its previous statements and the systemic concerns it 
had expressed on this matter. New Zealand was deeply disappointed that there was now a WT/DSB/M/399  
 
- 12 - 
 
  vacancy in the Appellate Body, and that the DSB had not even agreed on the process for sele cting 
a new Appellate Body member to replace Mr. Ricardo  Ramírez  Hernández  before his term had 
expired. The DSB had to do its utmost to expeditiously launch and conclude that selection process, 
as well as the one to replace Professor  Van den Bossche, so as  to keep the current vacancy as 
short as possible and to avoid a second  vacancy arising. This would be necessary to avoid delays 
and ensure the smooth functioning of the system. New  Zealand also encouraged efforts to agree 
on a standard process to apply in  the future so as to avoid this scenario from recurring. Like other 
Members, New  Zealand remained ready to engage in any process or special meetings that were 
considered necessary to facilitate a solution and it urged all delegations to show flexibility.  
5.13.   The representative of Norway , speaking in relation to both Agenda items 4 and 5, said that 
her country thanked the proponents for their revised proposals. The well -functioned Appellate 
Body was Norway's primary interest when considering these proposals. Ens uring that all vacancies 
were filled as they arose was an important part of Norway's considerations. Unfortunately, the DSB 
had failed to meet this obligation. Norway expressed its serious systemic concern in this regard. As 
it had mentioned at the previou s DSB meetings, Norway would be in a position to support either of 
the two proposals. It had a preference for the proposal submitted for the EU and noted, with 
regret, that one Member was not in a position to agree to the EU's proposal. The proposal from t he 
group of Latin American Members only provided for the initiation of the process to fill one vacancy 
– but this was the vacancy that had already arisen. This seemed to be the most pressing matter. 
Although Norway agreed with the EU that the second proces s should be launched without delay – 
and that it was indeed time to launch this second process – it failed to understand why the DSB 
could not agree to launch the process for selecting a new Appellate Body member whose position 
was already vacant – at the present meeting. Norway urged all Members to show the utmost 
flexibility in order to ensure that the DSB surpassed this deadlock – for the benefit of the system.  
5.14.   The representative of the United  States  said that, as it had noted under the previous 
Agenda i tem, the United States was willing to join a consensus for the DSB to take the decision 
proposed by Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Guatemala and Peru. As the 
United  States had stated at previous meetings of the DSB, despite the ongoing transit ion in its 
political leadership, it had received guidance that it would be acceptable to launch a process 
given the expiry of Mr. Ramírez's second term on 30  June 2017.  
5.15.   The representative of Turkey , speaking in relation to both Agenda items 4 and 5, said t hat 
his country was disappointed that the DSB was still not able to initiate the Appellate Body selection 
process. Turkey referred to its statements made at the 19  July 2017 DSB meeting and said that it 
continued to urge Members who had concerns with any o f these proposals to act responsibly and 
continue their consultations with the Chairman and with other Members in order to start the 
selection process as soon as possible.  
5.16.   The representative of Indonesia , speaking in relation to both Agenda items 4 and 5, said 
that her country thanked the proponents for their revised proposals. Considering Members' views 
during previous DSB meetings, Indonesia noted that broad convergence still existed among 
Members on the need to launch the selection process as soon as pos sible. Indonesia shared this 
view. In order to ensure the continuity of Appellate Body's work and the credibility of the 
multilateral trading system, any further delay on this matter should be avoided. Regarding 
whether a separate or a single approach shou ld be used in filling the vacancies on the Appellate 
Body, Indonesia said that it had a preference for the latter method as it believed that it would be 
more efficient. However, Indonesia was open to any other method in order to prevent further 
delay. In I ndonesia's view, the impasse in selecting an approach for the selection process should 
be discussed during consultations. Indonesia invited Members to look at the bigger picture that the 
dispute settlement system was a central element in providing security  and predictability to the 
multilateral trading system – as stipulated in Article  3.2 of the DSU. Hence, once again, Indonesia 
underlined that Members had to ensure the continuity of the Appellate  Body's work and to 
preserve the credibility of the multilat eral trading system.  
5.17.   The representative of Korea  said that his country wished to refer to its previous statements 
on this matter. Korea highlighted that it was important for all Members to show flexibility in order 
to comply with the obligations posed on t he entire Membership under Article  17.2 of the DSU and 
to safeguard systemic interests.  WT/DSB/M/399  
 
- 13 - 
 
  5.18.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that his country wished to 
express its concern that the selection process to replace Mr. Ricardo Ramírez  Hernández  had not 
been launched after his term had expired. Venezuela supported Ecuador's request to seek 
information about the results of the Chairman's consultations in order to understand the reason for 
the delay in launching the selection process.  
5.19.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that, in the interests of time, his delegation 
would not repeat what it had already stated on this matter at the 19  June 2017 meeting. However, 
Hong Kong, China would join other Members in urging the DSB to show fle xibility and come up 
with a solution to this issue as soon as possible.  
5.20.   The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, 
Guatemala, Mexico and Peru, said that t he proponents had submitted a proposal in line with 
previous DSB decisions. However, the respective countries noted that nothing in the DSU required 
a DSB decision in order to initiate the process or to set the dates for the process. In fact what the 
DSU expressly provided was that vacancies "shall be filled as they arise", in other words, there 
was a plain and simple obligation that the DSB must fulfil, in particular once the vacancy had 
arisen. In view of the foregoing, one possible interpretation was that the DSB did not have to take 
a decision to initiate the  process and that it was within the Chairman's prerogative to inform the 
DSB of the dates for the process. Although it would be the best to have a DSB decision on this 
matter, it would not appear to be a sine qua non  condition. In view of the current situa tion, the 
countries in question urged the Membership to consider this option, and called on the Chairman to 
consult with delegations on this matter so that the selection process could be initiated as soon as 
possible.  
5.21.   The representative of Canada  said that  his country thanked Mexico for its statement made 
on behalf of the seven Latin American countries. Canada would certainly consider the bold 
proposal that had just made.  
5.22.   The Chairman  thanked Members for their statements and regretted that the DSB was not 
yet in a position, at the present meeting, to agree to start the process or processes on the 
appointment of the Appellate Body members at the present meeting. As stated by many 
delegations, one position had been vacant since 1  July 2017 and it was also time  to start a process 
to fill the second vacancy. He said that he would report under "Other Business" that the Appellate 
Body was currently dealing with six appeals and up to two additional appeals which could be filed 
within the next two months. Therefore, it was urgent for the DSB to agree to start the Appellate 
Body selection process. He noted that in his consultations he detected that delegations did not 
have flexibility and the necessary instructions from Capitals regarding this matter. He, once again, 
urged all Members to show more flexibility and to get the necessary instructions in order to make 
a decision to launch the process or processes as soon as possible. He appreciated Members' 
understanding and support on this matter. He said that he would cont inue to consult with 
delegations, including on the ideas which had been raised at the present meeting, in order to be 
able to put forward a proposal that would attract consensus.  
5.23.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
6  DISPUTE SETTLEMENT W ORKLOAD  
A.  Statemen t by the Chairman  
6.1.  The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business", said that he wished to make a report to 
provide the DSB with information about the Appellate Body's workload, the number of disputes 
before panels and at the panel composition stage, and the ability of the Secretariat to meet 
expected demand over the coming period. This information reflected the status of disputes up until 
the DSB meeting on 20  July 2017. Other developments in the course of the present meeting would 
be reflected in the informa tion posted on the Members' website. Regarding panels, there were 
currently 15  active panels (including four  panels under Article  21.5 of the DSU) that had not yet 
issued a final report to the parties. Multiple disputes that were being considered simultane ously by 
the same panel were being counted as one. Limited staff resources currently prevented assigning 
dispute settlement officers to assist panels in three pending disputes before the autumn  of 2017. 
The parties had been informed of the situation, and a s soon as the availability of appropriate staff WT/DSB/M/399  
 
- 14 - 
 
  was clear, the parties would be informed and the organization of the proceedings would 
commence. Dispute settlement lawyers would be assigned to these disputes in the order in which 
the panels had been compos ed. There were a further seven panels at the composition stage. This 
did not count panels for which there had been no composition activity in the last 12  months. In 
addition, five final panel reports that had been issued to the parties were currently being  
translated. Regarding appeals, the Appellate Body was currently dealing with six  appeals, including 
the extremely complex compliance proceedings in "EC and Certain Member States – Large Civil 
Aircraft (Airbus)" and in "US – Large Civil Aircraft (Boeing)".  Two of these appeals could only be 
partially staffed at this point. Up to two additional appeals could be filed within the next 
two months.  Regarding arbitrations, two matters have been referred to arbitration under 
Article  22.6 of the DSU. Finally, the C hairman wished to add that the Chairman of the Appellate 
Body had informed him in a letter that Mr. Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández , who had been selected 
pursuant to Rule  6 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review as a member of three divisions 
hearing ap peals, had been authorised by the Appellate Body, in accordance with Rule  15 of the 
Working Procedures, to complete the disposition of these three appeals.  
6.2.  The DSB took note  of the statement.  
__________