17. The representative of the United States said that the TRIPS Agreement did not seem to give much guidance as to what notifications under Article 4(d) should contain. This could be one explanation for the differences in the extent of the notifications. His delegation had been somewhat dismayed to see that some Members appeared to have sought MFN exemptions on the basis of international instruments that contained fundamental components of the TRIPS Agreement itself, such as the Berne Convention, the Paris Convention, the Madrid Agreement and its Protocol and the Rome Convention. Such MFN exemptions did not make sense and were, in any case, unacceptable to his delegation. Other Members had a right to know what in the instruments notified under Article 4(d) was viewed as being discriminatory and was the subject of the notification under Article 4(d). If this was not clear from the notification, the notifying Member would, in his delegation's view, not be entitled to rely on the exemption in question if a dispute were to arise over it.
