RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/C/M/37
20 July 1999
(99-3003)
Council for Trade in Services Original:  English
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 22 AND 24 JUNE 1999
1. The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 22 and 24 June 1999.  The Agenda for
the meeting is contained in WTO/AIR/1108.  The Chairman proposed that item A on electronic
commerce be taken up on 24 June in order to facilitate the participation of sectoral experts who were
attending the Special Session on Telecommunications, which had been scheduled for 25 June.
2. The Council so agreed.
3. Under other business the Chairman raised a point concerning the circulation of a paper on
electronic commerce received from the Alliance for Global Business.  The delegation of  Poland also
raised a point concerning a reference to Poland in the report of the Services Council meeting held on
26 April.
A. ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
4. The Chairman recalled that at the last two meetings, on 26 April and 18 May, the Council had
focused on the ten issues identified in the interi m report as needing substantial further work.  He
suggested that at this meeting the Council should di scuss the twelve issues contained in paragraph 2.1
of the Work Programme adopted by the General Council.  He suggested that in the discussion
delegations should aim at reaching conclusions wherever possible.  However, he noted that on the
same issues it was realistic to expect that all the Council might do was to register different views.
5. In terms of organization of work, since there was only one formal meeting left before the end
of July, the Chairman suggested that, on the basis of the discussion at this meeting, the Secretariat
would prepare a draft report to the General Council.  He would then convene an informal meeting to
discuss the draft, so that the Secretariat could revise it and produce a final version for the July formalmeeting of the Services Council.  He also recalled that at the previous meeting of the Council, it had
been agreed that starting from this meeting discussions would be held in the formal mode and the
statements be recorded in the minutes.
6. Before inviting delegations to discuss the individual items of the General Council  Work
Programme, the Chairman invited the delegation of the European Communities to introduce an
informal paper containing a possible list of trade principles on electronic commerce.  The
representative of the European Communities said that her delegation was presenting the paper to the
Services Council in the first instance as most of the is sues in it related to services.  However, she said
that her delegation was planning to expand the paper to deal with other issues such as intellectual
property and development and to submit it to the General Council.  She pointed out that the list ofprinciples was not exhaustive and that further principles could be added, to deal for example, with
intellectual property.  She explained that the principles contained in the paper focused on scope and
classification, technological neutrality, modes of supply, the telecommunications aspect of electronic
commerce, anti-competitive practices, domestic regulation, participation of developing countries and
custom duties.S/C/M/37
Page 2
7. The representative of India stated that his delegation was not able to be represented at this
meeting to take part in the discussions on electronic commerce.  He said that for this reason he had
submitted written comments on the points of the Work Programme to the Secretariat and asked that
these comments be reflected in the report of the meeting.  In its written comments, the delegation of
India said that, in case all GATS provisions were applicable to electronic deliveries, it would benecessary to hold a full discussion on the implications of initiating negotiations on electronic
commerce outside the framework of the next round of services negotiations.  India also reserved its
rights on the “possible list of trade principles on electronic commerce” presented by the European
Communities at this meeting of the Council.  Th e Chairman then invited delegations to discuss
individually the twelve issues contained in pa ragraph 2.1 of the Work Programme adopted by the
General Council.
8. Scope of the GATS with respect to the electronic delivery of services.   The Chairman
recalled that in the first round of discussions it ha d been the general view that the electronic delivery
of services fell within the scope of the GATS, sin ce the Agreement applies to all services regardless
of the means by which they are delivered, and electronic delivery could take place under any of the
four modes of supply.  Therefore, measures affecting the electronic delivery of services are measures
affecting trade in services and would be covered by GATS obligations.  It was also the general viewthat the technological neutrality of the Agreement would also mean that electronic supply of services
is permitted by specific commitments unless the schedule states otherwise.
9. The representative of Canada said that, at this point in time on the Work Programme, it was
necessary to take decisions on what was already covered by the GATS, on whether the coverage of
the GATS might need to be extended and on the nature of possible new commitments.  He added thatso far, important conclusions had been reached on the first point, but that more work was needed on
the second and third points.  He suggested that the starting point for advancing work on this item
could be paragraph 4 of the Interim Report, on which there seemed to be agreement.  The
representative of the European Communities agreed with Canada that paragraph 4 of the Interim
Report was the right starting point and added that it would be useful also to indicate that the GATS
applied to all electronic transmissions.  If there was no consensus on this last point she suggested that
in its report, the Services Council indicate to the General Council  its intention to clarify the issue.
She added that the issue of the distinction between modes 1 and 2 had not yet been clarified and
needed to be addressed too.  The representative of the United States supported Canada’s proposal to
take paragraph 4 of the Interim Report as the basis for an agreement on this item, but underlined thatthe point made by the European Communities on the applicability of the GATS to all electronic
transactions was an area where there was no consensus.
10. The representative of Hong Kong, China agreed with previous speakers that paragraph 4 of
the Interim Report was a useful starting point and that an agreement along those lines could be
included in the report to the General Council, wh ere it would also be useful to indicate that no
conclusions had been reached yet on the issue of the distinction between modes 1 and 2.  Japan agreed
that it was realistic to build consensus on paragraph 4 of the Interim Report, but pointed out that on
the issue of whether all electronic transmission should be classified as services and on the distinction
between modes 1 and 2 there was no consensus and that the Interim Report should only indicate the
need to continue discussions on these subjects.
11. The representative of Argentina said that his delegation was of the view that all electronically
delivered services were covered by the GATS, however, he added that they were not convinced that
all electronic transmissions were services.  He also suggested that more work was needed on the
modes of supply.  The representative of Brazil supported the points made by Argentina on scope and
classification and added that his delegation did not object to the concept of technological neutrality,but found that this was not compatible with the idea of singling out special principles and rules only
applying to electronic commerce.  The representative of Uruguay welcomed the paper from the
European Communities, and said that he would send it to capital for comments.  He noted, however,S/C/M/37
Page 3
that the paper contained principles which, in the view of his delegation, the General Council would be
considering only in phase 3 of the work programme leading to the third Ministerial Conference.  In
the on-going phase 2, the Services Council only needed to prepare a report to the General Council.
12. MFN (Article II).  The Chairman recalled that in the first round of discussions the general
view was that all GATS provisions, including those related to general obligations such as MFN, were
applicable to the supply of services through electronic means.  It was also noted that the issue of
likeness was central to the application of MFN.  The main question to be addressed in this regard was
whether electronically delivered products and those delivered by more traditional methods should be
considered “like products”.  The issue of likeness was probably one of the most complex legal issues,
not only in the GATS, but also in the GATT and there was considerable GATT jurisprudence which
established that the determination of likeness could only be done on a case-by-case basis.  Therefore,
the Chairman suggested that delegations should be realistic, in terms of how far they could take this
issue forward.
13. The representatives of Brazil, Japan  and United States  agreed with the Chairman that likeness
was a complex issue and that it would be unrealistic to attempt to reach a consensus on this issue with
respect to electronic commerce.  The representative of the European Communities also agreed with
the Chairman that likeness was a broad and complex issue, but pointed out that within the limits of
sectors and modes of supply the Council should be able to agree on the fact that likeness would not
depend on whether services are delivered electronically or otherwise.  Like for the distinction between
modes 1 and 2, she suggested that if there was no consensus, the report should state the need to clarify
this issue.  The representative of Argentina said  that the Council should do further work in order to
clarify the issue of likeness.  The representative of  Hong Kong, China said he supported the statement
by the Chairman, but questioned whether likeness between products subject to the GATS and
products subject to the GATT was an issue for further work.
14. Transparency (Article III).   The Chairman noted that in the first part of the work
programme it was the general view that the obligations of Article III on transparency applied to all
regulations relating to the supply of a service through electronic means.  At this meeting of theCouncil delegations did not express further views.
15. Increasing participation of developing countries (Article IV).  The Chairman recalled that
in the first round of discussions delegations emphasized the need to enhance the participation of
developing countries in electronic commerce though the liberalization of market access in areas of
export interest to them and better access to technology.  Delegations also emphasised the need to take
advantage of the work of UNCTAD and the Committee on Trade and Development.
16. At this meeting of the Council the representative of Japan pointed out that a seminar on
electronic commerce had been held by UNCTAD on 17 and 18 June 1999.  The seminar allowed
representatives from enterprises of developing countries to share experiences and success stories in
the area of electronic commerce.  He underlined that it was important for WTO Members to cooperate
with UNCTAD and share experiences with them in this area.  The representative of Brazil agreed with
the statement by the Chairman and added that the implementation of Article IV with respect to
electronic commerce deserved careful attention by the Council.
17. In its written comments the delegation of India expressed the view that it was important to
pay equal regard to the revenue and other fiscal implications of electronic commerce for developing
countries by enhancing their participation in electronic commerce and by ensuring that the
substitution of traditional means of conducting commerce with electronic means did note erodedeveloping countries’ market access and trade opportunities.  India also noted that developing
countries generally did not impose a comprehensive VAT on all goods and services, whether
domestically produced or imported and that Members should consider whether the commitments notS/C/M/37
Page 4
to impose any customs duties on electronically delivered services would not discriminate against
domestically produced services subject to service tax.
18. Domestic regulation, standards, and recognition (Articles VI and VII).   The Chairman
noted that in previous discussions, Members agreed that the provisions concerning domestic
regulations in Article VI of the GATS applied to the supply of services through electronic means andthat its function, as in other contexts, is to ensure that regulations in this area do not constitute
unnecessary barriers to trade.  It was noted that electronic commerce was an area where rapid
economic growth had been fostered by the existence of very little regulation and that the emphasis in
the field of domestic regulation should be on keeping regulation to a minimum in order to favour
further growth.  It was also suggested that it would be desirable to consider developing under
Article VI a group of policy objectives justifying the imposition of regulatory measures in electronic
commerce, with a view to minimising unnecessary barriers to trade.  Delegations also raised severalissues which related to policy objectives referred to in Article XIV (General Exceptions).  The
Chairman suggested that it would be useful to  keep in mind the distinction between the two
provisions.
19. The representative of Canada emphasized that in the area of domestic regulation it was crucial
to balance the right of Members to regulate and ensuring that domestic regulatory measures did not
constitute unnecessary barriers to trade.  He added that it would be useful to identify specific
problems arising from regulation in electronic commerce, assess the role of existing GATS rules in
this area and develop disciplines under Article VI:4.  The representative of the European
Communities agreed with the Chairman that it would be desirable to do more work on Article VI:4 in
order to keep regulation to a minimum and to avoid regulatory barriers, including the identification oflegitimate objectives allowing for regulation in the area of electronic commerce.  The representative
of Brazil said that according to his delegation Article VI was self-explanatory and that there was no
need for special rules on electronic commerce different from those applicable to other services. Therepresentative of Japan also said that at this stage there was no need for special rules on domestic
regulation for electronic commerce.  The representative of the United States said that his delegation
agreed that Article VI applied to electronic commerce.  He noted that as electronic commerce had aglobal reach it was interesting to examine how the effects of domestic regulation in one country could
spread globally.  He questioned that it was desirable to identify a set of policy objectives allowing for
regulation in this area, as the role of Article VI was to avoid restrictive regulation not to legitimize
them.  Argentina said that Article VI had to be read in the light of Members’ right to regulate in order
to fulfill national policy objectives.
20. Competition (Articles VIII and IX).  In introducing this item the Chairman said that in the
first part of the work programme, it was noted that the expansion of electronic commerce might help
reduce the extent of restrictive business practices, inter alia, by facilitating market entry for smaller
service suppliers.  It was also noted, however, that monopolies and restrictive business practices might
pose serious obstacles to electronic commerce and that in this respect it was important to clarify the
reach of existing GATS principles.  Questions were raised concerning the applicability of the rules oncompetition safeguards in the telecommunications Reference Paper to major suppliers of
telecommunications in electronic commerce and it was suggested that it might be necessary to
develop competition safeguards applying to all aspects of electronic commerce.
21. At this meeting of the Council the representative of the European Communities noted that the
thinking of her delegation had not gone in the direction of developing competition safeguards
applicable to all aspects of electronic commerce, but rather of clarifying those applicable in the area of
telecommunications.  She said that she would have come back to this point later in the discussion on
the item dealing with telecommunications.  The representative of Japan said that the rules on
competition safeguards in the Reference Paper only applied to basic telecommunications, while theextension of the coverage of these rules to other aspects of electronic commerce was an issue for anegotiating agenda.  His delegation, however, believed that such an extension would not be necessary.S/C/M/37
Page 5
22. The representative of Argentina agreed that the Reference Paper only applied to basic
telecommunications and stressed that Internet access se rvices could not be considered as included in a
Member’s commitments unless it had been specified in the schedule.  The representative of Uruguay
pointed out that the Reference Paper only applied to those Members are part of the Fourth Protocol
and who had scheduled it as an additional commitments.  The representative of the United States said
that there were already roughly 60 Members who had signed up to the Reference Paper and that the
number was growing due to accessions and new schedules on telecommunications.  He noted that the
Reference Paper applied to major suppliers of basic telecommunications and that, while in some
countries the Internet access market was a very competitive one, in others it was not and often the
Internet access provider was a major supplier of basic telecommunications.
23. Protection of privacy and public morals and the prevention of fraud (Article XIV).   The
Chairman recalled that in previous discussions on this item, it had been noted that Article XIV of theGATS (General Exceptions) applied to the protection of privacy and public morals and the prevention
of fraud, and that measures taken by Members in fulfilment of such objectives must be subject to a
test of necessity and should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination nor a
disguised restriction on trade in services.  It had been stressed that, as Article XIV constituted an
exception provision, it had to be interpreted narrowly, and its scope could not be expanded to coverother regulatory objectives than those listed therein.
24. At this meeting of the Council, only the delegation of the European Communities intervened
to state that they agreed fully with the statement read by the Chairman.
25. Market-access commitments on electronic supply of services (Article XVI).   I n
summarising the outcome of previous discussions, the Chairman recalled that delegations generally
agreed that the principle of technological neutrality applied to specific commitments and underlined
that it was important not to undermine existing comm itments by suggesting that electronic delivery of
services was not covered by the GATS.  However it had been pointed out that it was necessary to
discuss how restrictions on the technical means of delivery should be treated.  The emergence of
electronic commerce should not provide a reason to schedule new restrictions.  Rather, thespecification of some modes in the schedules as unbound due to lack of technical unfeasibility may
need to be reviewed in the light  of technological developments.
26. The representative of the European Communitie s said that it was important to clarify the
classification of Internet Access Services in the context of telecommunications commitments.  She
noted that the Internet consisted of two main telecommunications services: Internet access services
and the Internet network backbone and that it was necessary to further clarify to what extent these
services were covered by the existing telecommunications schedules.  She added that it was alsoimportant to clarify whether these services were value added or basic telecommunications as the
Reference Paper applied to basic telecommunications services.  The representative of Argentina said
that the Reference Paper applied to basic telecommunication commitments for those countries whohad signed up to it.  He emphasized that if a Member had made commitments in basic
telecommunications this did not mean that it had automatically committed Internet access services,unless this was specifically mentioned in the schedule.
27. The representative of the United States recalled that most value added commitments had been
undertaken during the Uruguay Round.  At that time, the United States had clarified that the value
added services they were committing were a set of non-regulated services, including the Internet.  He
said that the question of whether Members had undertaken commitment on Internet access servicesshould be considered in the light of the fact that in many countries the Internet was non-regulated at
the time value added commitments had been undertaken.  Moreover, in the United States during the
Uruguay Round the definition of some value added services coincided with the definition of Internet
services. The representative of Brazil supported the comments made by Argentina on the issue of
commitments in Internet access services and added that it was clear that there was little room forS/C/M/37
Page 6
progress in this area, as the Services Council was not the appropriate forum to deal with the coverage
of Members’ commitments.  The delegation of Pakistan expressed support for the positions of
Argentina and Brazil on the issue of commitments in Internet access services. The representative
Japan said that it was important to define Members’ commitments, while the expansion of those
commitments was an issue for the negotiating agenda.
28. In its written comments the delegation of India expressed the view that it could not be
presumed that the principle of technological neutrality applied automatically to all specific
commitments of Members, as this would have legal and political consequences arising out of
negotiations in the Uruguay Round and resultin g commitments.  According to India a full
consideration of the negotiating history of the GATS would be useful in this respect.
29. National treatment (Article XVII).   The Chairman recalled that in the first part of the work
programme, it had been the general view that the principle of technological neutrality applied to all
GATS specific commitments, including all market access and national treatment aspects.  The view
had been expressed that on the basis of technological neutrality services provided electronically and
services provided non-electronically were like services under the GATS.  It had also been pointed out,
however, that there could be differences betw een the concepts of likeness under GATT and GATS
and that further work was needed to clarify this issue.
30. The representative of the European Communities stated that everything she had said on
likeness with respect to MFN also applied to nati onal treatment.  The representative of the United
States made a similar point saying that the points he had made on likeness with respect to MFN also
applied to national treatment.
31. Access to and use of public telecommunications transport networks and services (Annex
on Telecommunications).   In introducing this item the Chairman said that in the first part of the work
programme, it had been the general view that the Annex on Telecommunications applied to access to
and use of the Internet.  It had been noted that the Annex only applied to sectors where specific
commitments had been undertaken and that in a number of sectors crucial to electronic commerce
there were limited or no commitments.  Moreover, the Annex guaranteed access and use of publictelecommunication networks for Internet access providers, but it was not clear whether it also
guaranteed service suppliers' access to and use of Internet providers’ services.  Since it might be
important for service suppliers to have the right of access to Internet providers’ services, there was a
need to further clarify this matter.
32. The delegation of Japan expressed full support for the statement read by the Chairman on this
item.  The representative of Canada said that the provisions of the Annex applied to the supply of all
services in a Member’s schedule, including those supplied over the internet infrastructure.  The
representative of the United States noted that the key question was whether Internet services could be
considered “public telecommunications transport networks”.  He said that the Internet was a networkof networks, which included public and private networks. The representative of Australia said that the
Internet was a packet switched data service and that it was not necessary to change what had alreadybeen agreed on telecommunications.  Like Australia,  the representative of the European Communities
said that the telecommunications annex applied to the Internet network.  The representative of Hong
Kong, China supported the position expressed by the European Communities and said that the point
made by the United States on the applicability of the Annex on Telecommunications only to public
networks was relevant and deserved more analysis.  Also the representative of Japan agreed with the
United States that it was important to distinguis h between public networks and private networks to
determine the applicability of the Annex on Telecommunications.
33. Customs duties.   The Chairman recalled that in the first round of discussions, some
delegations had supported the extension of the standstill on customs duties.  Other delegations had
said that the decision to further extend the standstill was a political one, which could only be taken byS/C/M/37
Page 7
the General Council, while the debate in the Serv ices Council should focus on the technical and legal
issues involved in the possible application of customs duties to electronic transactions.  Some
delegations had argued that the concept of customs duties was alien to the GATS and that customs
duties would become a relevant issue only if it was accepted that a category of electronically
delivered goods existed.  Others however pointed out that in the absence of national treatmentcommitments, the GATS did not prevent Members from imposing customs duties on electronic
transactions or other services, and that for this reason the standstill on custom duties was important.
34. The representative of Hong Kong, China said th at an important point was that the meaning of
custom duties on electronic transactions was not entirely clear.  The representative of the European
Communities said that the role of the Services Council in the Work Programme on electronic
commerce was to deal with the legal and technical aspects of customs duties on electronic
transactions, not with the political issue of the standstill.  She added that her delegation agreed withthe point made by Hong Kong, China concerning the difficulty in understanding customs duties on
services.  She added that the need for a standstill on customs duties was based on the assumption that
customs duties on electronic transaction could actually be imposed and that it was difficult to
reconcile this with the principle of technological neutrality.
35. In its written comments the delegation of India expressed the view that there was a close
relationship between the issues of classification and custom duties.  According to India Members
needed to consider whether custom duties were imposed by any Members on any electronically and
non-electronically delivered service and whether any Member levied any other kind of duties and
taxes, including VAT, on imports of services.  India also pointed out that Members should consider
whether the principle of technological neutrality would not be affected by agreeing not to imposecustoms duties on services electronically transmitted, while making no explicit provision for services
delivered by other means.  Regarding the issue of custom valuation, India expressed the view that free
and fair access to encryption technologies was necessary to ensure that encrypted electronic payments
corresponded to declared transaction values.
36. The representative of Canada supported the renewal of the political standstill until the
Ministerial Conference after the next, when the standstill could be made permanent and legally
binding, if it was stated clearly that this should not prejudice the outcome of the debate on the
classification of electronic transmissions.  The representative of Argentina pointed out that the
statement by the Chairman was a very balanced one and said that his delegation had nothing to add toit.  The representative of the United States said that customs duties could affect electronic commerce
and the electronic supply of services.  He welcomed the suggestion made by Canada, and said it washelpful to move the debate forward on this point .  The representative of Norway supported the
positions expressed by Canada and the United States. The representative of Japan found the statement
by the Chairman on this point to be balanced and, without prejudice to its merits, expressed
reservation on the legal feasibility of the proposal by Canada of having a legally binding standstill on
customs duties. In its written comments, the delegation of India expressed the view that Members
should consider the implications of a standstill on customs duties on electronic commerce if made
legal.
37. The representative of Colombia stated that the extension of the standstill was an issue to be
debated in a political body such as the General Council  or the Ministerial Conference, while the
Services Council should focus on the technical aspe cts of customs duties on electronic transactions.
The delegations of Bolivia, Malaysia  and Uruguay  supported the point made by the European
Communities and Colombia on the legal and technical nature of the debate in the Services Council.
38. Classification issues.  In summarising the outcome of previous discussions on this item, the
Chairman recalled that delegations had endorsed the view that all services, whether supplied
electronically or otherwise, were covered by the GATS, and that the GATS made no distinction
between services provided electronically or by any other means.  Many delegations had also observedS/C/M/37
Page 8
that the vast majority of all products delivered electronically were services, but it had been suggested
that there may be some doubt as to whether a small number of specific products, even when provided
electronically, should rather be classified as goods.
39. The representative of the European Communities noted that so far the Council had done some
very good work on classification.  She said that her delegation believed that all electronic deliveries
were services and could not imagine any non-services products, which could be delivered
electronically.  On the issue of new services, she said that it would be useful to highlight whether
there were any new services, as so far no examples had be mentioned in the debate of the Services
Council.  The representative of Morocco noted that there was a problem in defining electronic
commerce.  In this respect he suggested that it might be helpful to keep in mind that electronic
deliveries involved not only a product, but also a process. The representative of Australia pointed out
that there probably very few services in the field of electronic commerce which could be considered
new, but the electronic authentication of electronic transactions could be one.
40. The representative of the United States said that in order to classify electronic deliveries it
would be useful also to look at real example such as the fact that balance sheets of companies often
included a category for intangibles including softwa re.  With respect to electronic authentication of
electronic transactions, he doubted that it could be considered a new service as banks had beenproviding authentication services already for a number of years. The representative of Canada said
that the identification of new services should be done keeping in mind the existing classificationstructure based on the Services Sectoral Classification List (MTN.GNS/W/120) and the UN CPC.  In
its written comments, the delegation of India expressed the view that the issue of classification of
certain electronically delivered products as services or goods had serious implications for the debate
on all other issues set out in the work programme and therefore it needed to be clarified before any
agreement could be reached on trade principles in electronic commerce.  In order to advance work in
this area India suggested that it might be useful to ask the Secretariat to compile a list of specific
examples of electronically delivered products whose classification as goods or services was uncertain,
such as software, books, films, music, drawings and designs.
41. The representative of Brazil noted that the distinction between goods and services did not
necessarily exhaust the possibilities for classifying electronic transactions, as in some cases, such as
software, the product that is downloaded might be neither a good nor a service.  The representative of
Japan pointed out that although there was consensus on the fact that the supply of services by
electronic means was fully covered by the GATS, it had not be clarified yet whether certainelectronically delivered digital contents were subject to the GATS or to the GATT.  The
representative of the European Communities thanked Australia for coming forward with a concrete
example of what might constitute a new service, although it was not clear to her delegation that
electronic authentication of electronic transactions would constitute a new services.  She also
supported the point made by Canada on focusing on the MTN.GNS/W/120 and the UN CPC to
identify new services.  She emphasized that examples of new services should be identified in terms of
the GATS legal principles, not on the basis of market research analysis.
42. The representative of Mauritius said that although his delegation agreed with all the
statements made by the Chairman on the different issues, he was concerned that some developing
countries might have difficulties in participating in some parts of this debate, especially with respect
to those areas where Members’ opinions differed.  The representative of the United States expressed
support for the points made by Mauritius and said th at it was important to channel more information
to developing countries on technical issues such as those involved in electronic commerce as well as
expanding the debate on development and electronic commerce also in other bodies such as the
Committee on Trade on Development.  He said that, aside from the trade aspect, being debated in the
WTO, his government was also actively engaged on the front of development assistance.  He added
that it was important to approach this issue from a liberal point of view, as the transfer of technologyS/C/M/37
Page 9
was important in order to increase the ability of  developing countries to engage more actively in
electronic commerce.
43. The Chairman said that the discussion had been helpful and provided a good basis for the
Secretariat to prepare a draft report on electronic commerce to the General Council. He proposed to
hold informal consultations on a draft report on July 5 1999 and to hold the next formal meeting of theCouncil on 19 and 20 July 1999.
B. ASSESSMENT OF TRADE
44. The Chairman recalled that at the discussion on the assessment of trade held at the previous
meeting of the Services Council, in his concluding  remarks, he had undertaken to invite the UNCTAD
Secretariat to provide an overview of their work in this area, with a view to identifying material that
might be relevant to the assessment.  He info rmed Members that he had contacted the UNCTAD
Secretariat which had agreed to make a presentation to the Council.  However, because of conflicting
obligations, they had been unable to participate in this meeting, but would be  ready for the following
meeting.  The Chairman opened the floor for delegations’ comments on the Note produced by the
Secretariat (a revision had been circulated as Job No. 2748/Rev.1).
45. The representative of Uruguay felt that the Secretariat’s informal Note on the assessment was
useful; it contained new elements which could facilitate his authorities’ assessment of trade in
services.  His delegation was aware that the UNCTAD Secretariat had started drafting a statement to
be made to the Services Council.  He said that it would be helpful if they could make their
presentation before the summer break and provide an overview of all the services sectors they had
worked on, whether in the form of papers, seminars or expert meetings.
46. The Chairman undertook to pass on Uruguay’s request to the UNCTAD Secretariat.  He
added that a presentation by a representative of the UNCTAD Secretariat was scheduled for the
Council meeting in July, at which he hoped a full discussion of this agenda item would take place.
C. PREPARATION OF NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XIX – NEGOTIATING
GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES
47. The Chairman recalled that at its last two meetings, the Council had substantive discussions
on the negotiating guidelines and procedures required by Article XIX of the GATS.  Written
submission were presented by Switzerland, Japa n, Hong Kong, China, the European Communities
and Norway.  In addition, several delegations had also expressed their views on what the negotiating
guidelines should contain.  The discussions were extremely useful and revealed high degree of
convergence between the papers submitted and the view expressed orally by delegations.  Somedelegations, however, expressed doubts concerning the appropriate forum in which the negotiating
guidelines and procedures should be addressed, whil e others argued for the complementarity of the
roles of the Services Council and of the General Council.  Moreover, at the last meeting of the
Council, a number of delegations had supported the idea of asking the Secretariat to prepare a paper,
taking stock of all proposals, while other delegations argued that it was too early in the process to askthe Secretariat to prepare a draft.
48. The Chairman pointed out that it was clear from previous discussions that all delegations
agreed that the General Council was the competent body to decide on negotiating guidelines, while
there was disagreement on the desirability of an input from the Services Council to the General
Council.  He drew attention to a communications fr om Hong Kong, China (S/C/W/112) to the General
Council and to the Services Council and to a communication from Australia, Chile  and New Zealand
to the General Council (WT/CG/W/204) on the next round of negotiations.  He then inviteddelegations to discuss the substantive issues and to exchange views on the negotiating guidelines and
procedures.S/C/M/37
Page 10
49. In introducing the paper from his delegation, the representative of Hong Kong, China said
that the request and offer technique should remain  the main negotiating instrument; however, other
formulas could be used, where they were in conformity with the GATS objective of progressive
liberalization.  He added that in the next round Members should work on the elimination of all MFN
exemptions at the latest by 2005 and that work on domestic regulation should focus on thedevelopment of disciplines according to Article VI:4 of the GATS and on additional commitments on
pro-competitive principles, where applicable.  He pointed out that advancing and concluding work on
GATS rules at an early stage in the round would also provide more certainty and encourage
improvements in specific commitments by Members and that work on  the functioning of the GATS
should focus on Article V, modes 1 and 2, Article XX:2 and other scheduling issues.
50. The representative of Uruguay restated the position of his delegation that the Geneva
Ministerial Declaration of May 1998 gave mandate to the General Council to work on the negotiating
guidelines and procedures and that proposals on the various negotiating themes, including services
and agriculture, should be made to the General Council.  He added that his delegation could not
prevent other Members from submitting proposals and discussing this issue in the Services Council,
but that it would not agree to the Services Council preparing any draft recommendations to the
General Council.  The representative of Brazil agreed with the statement by Uruguay and added that
he reserved his comments on this subject for the General Council, where there was a clearer balance.
The delegations of Cuba and Mexico agreed with Uruguay and added that according to Article XIX:3
the Services Council had to conduct an overall and sectoral assessment of trade in services, which had
not yet been concluded.  Also the delegations of Argentina, Bolivia , India , Pakistan  and Venezuela
agreed with the position expressed by Uruguay on the negotiating guidelines and procedures.  The
delegation of Egypt also agreed with Uruguay, but expressed the view that the Services Council could
through its work try to facilitate the work of the General Council.
51. The representative of the European Communities said that it was important to undertake work
on the negotiating guidelines and procedures in the Services Council in order to facilitate the task
assigned by the Ministerial Declaration to the General Council.  He added that his delegation sharedthe view of the Chairman that there was sign ificant common ground among the positions so far
expressed by delegations and believed that more common ground could be created with the
submission of further proposals by delegations.  He concluded that his delegation was open to discuss
any kind of issue and that while it was interested in discussing issues concerning developing countries
it also encouraged developing countries to come forward with concrete proposals.  The representative
of Japan agreed with the European Communities that it was important to hold substantive discussions
on the negotiating guidelines and procedures in the Services Council and that it was necessary to be
able to transmit in some manner the outcome of such discussion to the General Council.
52. The representative of Switzerland said that the readiness of all delegations to discuss the
substance of the negotiating guidelines and procedures was a positive factor.  He noted that in the
various proposal submitted by Members there were important points of convergence, which would be
useful to list in a paper.  Such list would remain open to further proposals.  In this regard, hesuggested the following points: (i) due consideration for the interests of developing countries and
ensuring a balanced result of the negotiations for all Members; (ii) recognising the positive effect of
services liberalization on economic development, growth and competitiveness; (iii) comprehensive
nature of the negotiations with respect to sectors and modes of supply; (iv) the objective of improving
specific commitments and eliminating MFN exem ptions; (v) the need to complement specific
commitments with disciplines on domestic regulation; (vi) advancing and completing work on GATS
rules (in particular on subsidies and procurement); (vii) work on functioning of the GATS to eliminate
possible faults; (viii) developing multilateral and plurilateral flexible instruments of negotiation in
addition to the traditional request and offer approach.  He added that the negotiating guidelines and
procedures should be open ended and that although th e General Council  was competent to take a final
decision, the Services Council should be able to provide its input.S/C/M/37
Page 11
53. The representatives of Norway and New Zealand  agreed with Egypt that the Services Council
should be able to facilitate the work of the General Council on the negotiating guidelines and
procedures.  Norway supported the proposal by Switz erland to draw up a list of points of convergence
emerging from delegations’ proposals.  The representa tive of Hungary also agreed with Egypt that the
Services Council should be able to facilitate the work of the General Council and welcomed theproposals made by delegations in the Services Council, in particular the proposal by the European
Communities, which was in line with the thinking of his delegation.  He said that it was important that
the next round of negotiations achieved meaningful market access and national treatment
commitments compatible with the aim of progressive liberalization and that coverage was
comprehensive with respect to sectors and modes of supply, including mode 4.  Regarding the issue of
horizontal formulas he said that their feasibility s hould be carefully looked at, without prejudice to the
traditional “bottom up” approach.  He added that work on domestic regulation under Article VI:4 wasimportant in order to improve the transparency and predictability of the domestic regulatory
framework, and it was important to take up work on GATS rules at an early stage.  On the issue of the
timeframe for the negotiations he pointed out that it should not exceed three years.
54. The representative of Canada noted that the Services Council had the technical expertise to
filter work on the negotiating guidelines and procedures for the General Council and encouraged more
delegations to come forward with submissions.  He suggested that the Secretariat prepare a list of all
proposals on services made to the General Council.  The representative of the United States noted that
the Services Council and the General Council had distinct roles in the development of negotiatingguidelines and procedures and that his delegation did not rule out that the Services Council could
agree on recommendations on this matter for the General Council.  He expressed interest in thesuggestion made by Hong Kong, China on alternative negotiating formulas and said that his
delegation was also preparing a written submission on the negotiating guidelines and procedures.
55. The representative of Hong Kong, China noted that in its paper Norway suggested a deadline
in the first half of 2000 for the requests and offers on specific commitments.  He said that his
delegation had on the other hand suggested that work on rules and clarification of GATS provisionsbe done at an earlier stage in the round, while the request and offer negotiations on specific
commitments would follow later in a more legally certain environment.  He said that the proposal by
Australia, Chile and New Zealand on an horizontal approach to nationality and residency
requirements was useful, but that it was important to keep in mind Members’ right under the GATS to
maintain restrictions also in this areas.  Regard ing the issue of the depth of commitments mentioned
by Switzerland, he noted that although more transparency in the commitments was desirable, it was
unclear how it would be possible to reconcile any possible homogenous approach to deepercommitments with the different levels of development of WTO Members.
56. The representative of Japan underlined the technical role of the Services Council and the
importance of its contribution to the General Council  on the negotiating guidelines and procedures.
Although he emphasised the importance of not neglecting any of the mandated issues he said that his
delegation was cautious on revising GATS articles.  He said that Japan could explore that possibility
provided that the legal stability of the Agreement was not at risk.  On MFN exemptions the
representative of Japan believed that they should constitute only exceptional instruments allowing for
departures from a general obligation and that his delegation was not happy with the current situation
which should be redressed in the next round of negotiations.  The representative of Turkey favoured a
flexible approach to the development of the negoti ating guidelines and procedures where the Services
Council would do all the technical work without prejudice for the final decision to be taken by the
General Council.  The representative of Argentina said that negotiations should be based on existing
on specific commitments as the basis to build upon and that Article XIX clearly mandatednegotiations on specific commitments, while there was no clear mandate for work on GATS
provisions such as Articles V and IX.  On the point raised by Norway in its paper concerning takingaccount of environmental concerns, he asked the delegation of Norway if they could provide more
information on such issue.S/C/M/37
Page 12
57. The representative of Korea agreed with other delegations that on negotiating guidelines and
procedures the roles of the Services Council and of the General Council were complementary, as the
first was mandated by Article XXIV of the GATS and the second by the Ministerial Declaration.  He
supported the proposal by Switzerland that the Secretariat draw up a list of points of convergence
among delegations’ proposals.  On substance, he said that Korea supported comprehensive coverageof the negotiations and that continued exclusion of several important sectors would not be consistent
with the objective of progressive liberalization of trade in services.  Regarding setting priorities for
some sectors, he wondered whether it would be useful to discuss including some sectors such as
energy and environmental services in the guidelines, although he feared that agreeing on priority
sectors in the guidelines might be too difficult and in the end complicate the negotiations.  He added
that horizontal formulas might help in making the negotiations more transparent and successful if a
short timeframe of three years was to be agreed, bu t he pointed out that it was unclear what horizontal
formula meant in the GATS and doubted that such a specific issue could be included in the guidelines.
58. The representative of Mauritius agreed with other delegations that the Services Council
should be able to facilitate the work of the General Council on the subject of negotiating guidelines
and procedures.  Regarding the issue of deeper and more homogenous commitments he said that it
was important to take account of the different levels of development among Members.  In response tothe statement made by Hong Kong, China the representative of Norway said that setting an early
deadline for the negotiation on specific commitments did not exclude that also work on other issuescould start early, but it helped in focusing on the area where the Article XIX mandate was clearest.
Regarding the question on environmental issues posed by Argentina, she explained that although
work on services-related environment issues was going on in the Committee on Trade inEnvironment, that body had so far focused on Article XX of the GATT rather than on Article XIV of
the GATS.  Therefore she noted that, as it was evident that the Committee on Trade and Environment
did not have the technical expertise to deal with services trade issues, it was desirable that
environmental issues be taken up in the context of the next round of services negotiations, considering
the clear environmental implications, especially in sectors such as transport and tourism.
59. The representative of Egypt said that the duration of the negotiations should be realistic and
flexible and that it should include a mid-term review.  In so far as negotiating fora were concerned, he
favoured using the Services Council and its current subsidiary bodies.  He stressed that it was
important to focus on sectors of interest to developing countries and that the starting point of the
negotiations should be the existing specific commitments.  On the issue of horizontal formulas, he
noted that they could facilitate the negotiations, but his delegation was cautious as it believed that they
would only constitute a complementary tool to the request and offer approach.  In response toquestions from some delegations, the representative of the European Communities explained that the
horizontal formulas would complement and not replac e the traditional request and offer approach and
that they would constitute a tool to facilitate the negotiations and improve the clarity of commitments.
Horizontal formulas might focus on issues such as model schedules, cross-sectoral issues (nationality
and residency requirements, mode 4, etc.).  He pointed out that such formulas were an issue where thecontribution of the Services Council to the General Council would be essential.
60. The representative of Switzerland said that Norway’s proposal on a time limit for request and
offer in the negotiations of specific commitments was useful, but also agreed with Hong Kong, China
that the work on domestic regulations and GATS rules should begin at an early stage and proceed at
the same time.  He noted that a more homogenous approach to the level of commitments should takeaccount of the differences in the level of development and shared the views expressed by Norway on
taking account of environmental issues in the context of services liberalization.
61. As it had done at the previous Council meeting, Hong Kong, China expressed reservations on
the views expressed by Norway on environmental issues and said that although the envisaged
timeframe for negotiations was short (3 years) it was still important to find time to deal with the rulesissues before engaging in the negotiation of sp ecific commitments.  Regarding the point made byS/C/M/37
Page 13
Argentina that Article XIX contained a clear mandate only for the negotiations of specific
commitments he noted that the reference to “means of providing effective market access” in
Article XIX went beyond the issue of specific commitments.
62. The representative of India said that his delegation was preparing a written submission on the
issue of the negotiating guidelines and procedures and said that the negotiations should not lead to a
radical departure from the current GATS architecture.  He pointed out that the fundamental principles
for the new round were already in Article XIX a nd that the negotiating guidelines and procedures
should not question the structure of Article XIX.  India continued to favour the request and offer
approach and was concerned that formula approaches might not be compatible with the need to
distinguish among Members on the basis of their level of development.  Regarding the negotiations of
specific commitments, he said that the current le vel of commitments should constitute the starting
point and that autonomous liberalization was not some thing that Members were expected to bind, but
concessions to exchange in the context of the negotiations.  On environment, he disagreed with
Norway that this issue should be brought within the context of the next round of services negotiations,
as there was a Ministerial Decision which gave mandate to the Committee on Environment to deal
with the issue.
63. The representative of Japan wondered whether it was appropriate to develop pro-competitive
disciplines in sectors other than telecommunications and suggested that in this respect it would be
useful to look at the various sectors individually to see whether any work in this area was necessary.
He supported Hong Kong, China’s proposal to deal with the issue of rules at an early stage in the
negotiations.  The representative of Indonesia speaking on behalf of ASEAN said that the Services
Council was the right forum to discuss the techni cal issues involved in the preparation of the
negotiating guidelines and procedures, while the General Council was competent to take a final
decision.  He added that the negotiations should take account of national policy objectives and of the
different levels of development and that no sector sh ould be a priori excluded.  He reserved his rights
to comment on the issue of autonomous liberalization at a later meeting.  The representative of the
United States said that it was important to set an overall target for the negotiations and that his
delegation was considering proposals in this respect.  He pointed out that it was important to consider
alternatives to the current request and offer approach and that formulas would be compatible with the
need to distinguish among Members on the basis of their levels of development.  On autonomous
liberalization he said that it was necessary to consider how to give credit for it and that his delegation
welcomed proposals on this issue.
64. The Chairman noted that the Council had had a good substantive discussion on the issue of
the negotiating guidelines and procedures and that the views expressed by Members in their
submissions or in the oral discussions contained im portant points of convergence.  Members’ views,
however, still diverged on the procedural issue of the respective roles of the Services Council and the
General Council and on whether it was appropriate that the Services Council agreed on some draft
recommendations to forward to the General Counci l.  As there was no agreement on asking the
Secretariat to draw up a list of points contained in delegations’ proposals, the Chairman thereforeproposed that the Secretariat prepare a list of all proposals on services made to the General Council as
suggested by Canada.
65. The Council so agreed.S/C/M/37
Page 14
D. SYSTEMIC ISSUES ARISING FROM ARTICLE V OF THE GATS
66. The Chairman recalled that at its last meeting the Council decided to postpone discussion of
this item to this meeting due to time constraints.   At the meeting held on 26 April 1999, the Council
had a discussion on issues relating to Article V of the GATS (Economic integration) on the basis of aformal paper as well as an informal paper submitted by Hong Kong, China, S/C/W/102 and Job
No. 2361.  The delegation of Japan also submitted an informal paper on the same subject.  Several
delegations had expressed interest in the issues raised and there was a general recognition for the need
to clarify certain aspects of Article V.  Some had suggested that these issues could be taken up in the
context of the next round of negotiations.  Others had stressed that raising such issues must not delay
the analysis of economic integration agreements being carried out in the Committee on Regional
Trade Agreements.  The importance of adhering to the notification obligations contained in Article Vhad also been stressed.  It had been agreed at the end of the discussion that the Council would revert
to this subject.  The Chairman su ggested that in this discussion delegations should not just exchange
views on the issues raised but also consider how work on this subject should be carried out.  For
example, whether it should be a standing item on the agenda of the Council or should it be considered
as material for potential work in the context of the new round and therefore be taken into account inthe preparation of the guidelines.
67. The representative of Turkey argued that it was premature to address systemic issues arising
from Article V and that it was not possible to establish whether Article V undermined or strengthened
trade in services.  He suggested that at a later stage it would be wiser to reach a common
understanding on the interpretation of Article V rather than question its content.  The representative ofNorway said that it was important to have a disc ussion on Article V in the Services Council and that
there was not always parallelism between the GATT and the GATS on economic integration, for
example with respect to the provision contained in Article V(7)(a), which was unique to the GATS.
He said that on the issue of a reasonable timeframe referred to in Article V(1)(b), the GATT practice
of 10 years should be followed.
68. The representative of Japan said that the scope of the exemption in Article V should be
limited to Article II (MFN) and that the notion of comprehensive coverage should be read as
requiring at least all infrastructural services and all modes of supply (no a priori exclusion of modes 3
and 4) to be liberalized under an economic integration agreement.  On the requirement of the
elimination of substantially all discrimination he suggested that it would be useful to look at the
GATT practice in this area.  He agreed with Hong Kong, China that a fuller discussion on possible
exceptions to the requirements of Article V(1)(b) of the GATS would be necessary.  On the issue of
timeframe he suggested that a period of five years might be appropriate.
69. The representative of Uruguay said that it was premature to discuss on issues relating to
Article V, when Members were not engaged in revising the substance of this provision.  The
representative of Korea said that it was important to clarify Article V in order to avoid uncertainty
with respect to economic integration agreements.  He said that his delegation agreed that economic
integration agreements can foster development and growth of international trade, but stressed that
being an important exception, Article V should be interpreted in a rigorous and narrow manner,
leading to a minimum level of discrimination towards other WTO Members not parties to an
agreement.  He noted that Article V does not contain an exception from the GATS obligations on
transparency and agreed with Japan that all infrastructure sectors should be included in an economicintegration agreement on services.
70. The representative of the United States said that it was important to discuss further if any
review of Article V of the GATS was desirable or necessary.  He added that an important requirement
under Article V was the obligation to notify an agreem ent to the Services Council and that it was not
clear that all Members had abided by this obligation.  The representatives of Brazil and Colombia  saidS/C/M/37
Page 15
that at that point in time there was no need to review the operation of Article V and that its language
should not be changed.
71. The representative of Argentina said that there was no need to revise or modify Article V,
whose requirements and parameters were clear enough.  On timeframe he noted that a period of ten
years might not be sufficient for full integration in the services area.  He pointed out that theobligation to notify applied to entry into force and not before.
72. The representative of Hong Kong, China noted that several Members were concerned about
the meaning of the provisions of Article V and that it was necessary to look into this matter further.
He stressed that economic integration agreements were an exception to the rules of the multilateral
trading system and should be limited in scope and extension, but noted that the provisions in Article V
were not clear enough to ensure this.  He thanked delegations for their ideas and comments on this
matter and looked forward to continuing the discussion on this issue.  The delegation of Pakistan
shared the concerns expressed by Hong Kong, China and Korea on Article V.
73. The Chairman said that delegations had a useful debate on issues relating to Article V, but
that there was no common view on how to advance disc ussions on this issue in the Services Council.
He noted that some delegations had made proposals in the General Council on clarifying and
reinforcing WTO rules on regional and economic integration agreements in the next round ofnegotiations.  He suggested that the Council take note of the debate and of the statements made by
delegations and look for some direction on this issue from the debate in the General Council.
E. EXTENSION OF THE DEADLINE FOR NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE X OF
THE GATS (EMERGENCY SAFEGURDS MEASUERS) – PROPOSAL BY THE
CHAIRMAN
74. The Chairman drew attention to document  S/C/W/111, which contained a communication
from the Chairperson of the Working Party on GATS Rules on a proposal to extend the deadline for
the negotiations under Article X of the GATS on the question of emergency safeguards measures.  He
invited the Chairman of the Working Party on GATS Rules to present the proposal.
75. The Chairman of the Working Party on GATS Rules read the following statement:
“Mr. Chairman, when it became clear, that the Wo rking Party on GATS Rules would not be able to
conclude our negotiations by that date, I held a number of informal consultations to get Members
views on how to proceed.
The two drafts that emerged from my consultations  – a Chairman’s Communication to the Council for
Trade in Services and a draft Council Decision on the safeguards negotiations – try to strike a fairbalance between the views expressed during my consultations.  I would merely bring to the attention
of the Council four points in respect of these documents:
First, the draft Council Decision explicitly provides for a conclusion date of the negotiations,
which had not been specified in Article X:1 and the 1997 Council decision.  The date has
been set at 15 December 2000, reflecting many delegations' views that the current momentum
in the safeguards negotiations need to be maintained and, if possible, accelerated;
Second, the draft Decision sets a final date for the entry into effect of the results of these
negotiations, mirroring language already used in Article X:1.  This date shall be no later than
the date of entry into force of the results of the next services round.  This would leavesufficient time after the conclusion of the negot iations to enact any necessary changes to the
agreement and national legislation, possibly in  conjunction with the implementation of theS/C/M/37
Page 16
results of the new round.  On the other hand, the Decision does not preclude the possibility of
an earlier implementation date sh ould Members deem it necessary;
Third, the draft Communication from the Chair summarizes the broad parameters within
which Members of the Working Party would like the deadline to be extended.  In particular, it
is made clear that the extension would not prejudice any country's position on the desirabilityand feasibility of an emergency safeguard mechanism in services.  The second paragraph of
the Communication reflects the main thrust of opinions voiced, but not necessarily agreed,
during my consultations.  This part of the Communication is intended to strike a balance
between various positions – and I should emphasise, that it is a finely calibrated balance.
Finally, both the communication and the draft Council Decision were endorsed by the
Working party at its formal meeting on Monday for transmission to the Council.
In conclusion, I would thus like to ask you to approve this Communication and the recommended
Council Decision as they have emerged from my consultations.  Is this acceptable?”
76. The Chairman proposed that the Council adopt the Decision proposed by the Chairman of the
Working Party on GATS Rules.
77. The Council so agreed.
78. The representative of Egypt restated the position made at the last meeting of the Working
Party on GATS Rules (see document S/WPGR/M/23) and noted that once again the deadline of the
negotiations on emergency safeguards measures had been extended.  He pointed out that the mandate
for developing an emergency safeguard mechanism was contained in Article X of the GATS and not
in Article XIX, so that such mechanism should be agreed by 15 December 2000 and not by the end ofthe next round of negotiations.  He added that it was important to agree early on an emergency
safeguard mechanism, as this would help developing countries in engaging in the specific
commitments negotiations.
79. The representative of the United States restated the position made at the last meeting of the
Working Party on GATS Rules (see document S/WPGR/M/23) and said that his delegation looked
forward to the resumption of the negotiations on the issue of safeguards.  He noted that the views on
the desirability of an emergency safeguard mechanism still differed among Members and that Article
X mandated for negotiations on the question of emergency safeguard measures, without pre-empting
the issue of whether such mechanism would be necessary under the GATS or not.
F. OTHER BUSINESS
80. The Chairman said that the Council had received a discussion paper from the Alliance for
Global Business (AGB) on trade-related aspects of electronic commerce.  The paper focused on the
WTO electronic commerce Work Programme and contained some useful information which
delegations might wish to have.  The Chairman suggested that, as the AGB was a private organization
and could not make submissions to the Services Council, delegations agree that the paper be
circulated as an informal document.
81. It was so agreed.
82. The representative of Poland noted that in the report of the Council meeting of 26 April
(document S/C/M/35 of 17 May 1999) Poland was mentioned among the Members which pointed out
that it was their understanding that the Working Party on Domestic Regulation would develop thedisciplines applicable only to services sectors where specific commitments had been undertaken.S/C/M/37
Page 17
However, at that Council meeting the delegation of Poland stated only that the establishment of the
Working Party on Domestic Regulation should not prejudge the scope of application  of disciplines.
The Polish delegation did not say that Poland was in favour of either the conditional or unconditional
application of future disciplines.  He therefore asked the Council to take note of the statement.
83. The Council took note.
__________