Unlike the rest of the world, I have made it a practice not to read leaked WTO panel reports. I do this out of respect for the integrity of the WTO dispute settlement system. Therefore, I did not have occasion to consider tackling the new Biotech report until it was released in September. Because I thought it would be appealed, I did not read it even then. After I learned that it was adopted on November 21, 2006, I began reading it. I find the report troubling for many reasons. Tonight I will only mention me a few regarding procedures: First, the panel took over two and one-half years to produce its report, far above the outside limit of nine months set in DSU art. 12.9. Second, the panel seems to have carried out an inadequate investigation of the public disclosure of the panel’s confidential interim reports. Only the parties were questioned, not the WTO Secretariat. Third, in an 1087-page report that goes over party submissions ad nausea, the panel did not offer one word of description about what the three amicus curiae briefs contribute. The panel merely stated, seemingly in a robotic way, that it did not find it necessary to take the briefs into account (para. 7.11). The brief put together by CIEL would have been particularly interesting for the panel to discuss as it seems to have been written by a coalition of NGOs from the North as well as the South. After I read the report, I wondered what the governments said when adopting the report on November 21. Unfortunately, that information is not available on the WTO website. The most recent DSB minutes posted are September 2006. As I have said before, the WTO has a long way to go to attaining the level of transparency that it requires from its Member governments.