38. While disagreeing with delegations which took the view that Article 65.5 did not lay down a substantive obligation, the representative of the United States said that the format proposed by the Chairman was a workable one, but that a little bit of flesh needed to be put on to the bones of the phrase "brief indication" that Members would be required to provide of the nature of the modification in the law or regulation concerned. In this regard, his delegation would ask for an indication of the relevant TRIPS provision and the part of the law or regulation that had been modified, described with sufficient specificity for a person who was not a legal expert in the law of the country in question to be able to understand the nature of the change. The important point in this context was transparency, i.e. that other Members would know what the modification in question was about.
