RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/C/M/73 
4 August 2004 
 
 (04-3312) 
Council for Trade in Services   
  
 
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 24 JUNE 2004 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
 
1. The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 24 June 2004 chaired by 
Ambassador Peter Brño (Slovak Republic).  The age nda for this meeting was contained in document 
WTO/AIR/2342. 
2. The Chairman  said that he intended to make a brief st atement regarding the date of the next 
formal meeting of the Council and that the S ecretariat would provide updated information on 
UNESCO's preparatory work on drafting a convention on the protection of cultural diversity under Other Business.   
3. The representatives of Australia and Japan
 informed the Council that they would answer the 
questions raised at the Council's previous meeti ng regarding the mutual recognition agreement on 
registered/licensed engineers between the countries. 
4. The Chairman  suggested that the agenda be adopted as circulated with the addition of the 
items raised under Other Business. 
5. The Council so agreed . 
A. NOTIFICATIONS TO THE COUNCIL PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V:7 AND V:5 OF THE 
GATS 
6. The Chairman  drew the Council's attention to the two notifications pursuant to Article V:7 
(Economic Integration).  One, c ontained in document S/C/N/302, was made by Korea and Chile.  The 
other, contained in document S/C/N/303, was from the European Communities and its Member 
States. 
7. The representative of Chile  stated that the notified agreement between her government and 
Korea had entered into force on 1 April 2004 as a resu lt of more than two-year intense negotiations.  
Chile attached importance to this agreement as it was the first free trade agreement (FTA) Chile had 
concluded with an Asian country, which reflected de epening ties within the Asia Pacific region.  She 
pointed out that this agreement had already s hown positive economic impact.  Regarding trade in 
goods, Chile's export to Korea increased by 51% in the first month after the agreement's entry into 
force, compared to the same month of the previous year.  With respect to trade in services, companies 
had benefited from the agreement, and research proj ects were undertaken in Seoul which were helpful 
to investments.  The representative of Chile said that her delegation would answer any questions 
relating to this agreement during the examinati on by the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements. 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to 
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. S/C/M/73 
Page 2  
 
 8. The representative of Korea
 stated that the notified agreement was the first FTA ever signed 
by his government.  While recognizing that multilate ral negotiations were the most effective means 
for further liberalization of trade in services, Korea used FTAs as a complement to the process of 
trade liberalization.  In this regard, Korea tried to comply with Article V of the GATS to achieve a 
higher-level agreement.  While thinking that it was still premature to assess the overall consequence 
of the notified agreement, the representative of Ko rea echoed the observations made by Chile that 
trade in goods between the two countries had increased since the entry into force of the agreement.  
His delegation looked forward to the in crease in trade in services as well.   
9. The Chairman  proposed that the Council take note of the two notifications and the statements 
made, and that the notified agreements be referre d to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
for examination of their consistency with the provisions of Article V of the GATS. 
10. The Council so agreed . 
11. The Chairman  further drew the Council's attention to the notification pursuant to Article V:5 
from the European Communities and its Member States, contained in document S/SECRET/8, 
regarding the previous accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden and the recent accession of 10 new 
Member States (Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus , Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, 
Slovenia, and Slovak Republic) to the European Communities.  He said that document S/SECRET/8 
had been distributed only in English at this meeti ng.  The large size of this document had delayed the 
translation work, and the French and Spanish vers ions would be available by 15 July 2004.  The 
Chairman indicated that document S/SECRET/8 w as to notify the European Communities and its 
Member States' intention to modify or withdraw th e specific commitments set out in the list attached 
to this communication.  In accordance with Article V:5, this notification thus initiated the procedure 
set forth in Article XXI.  The procedures for the implementation of Article XXI were contained in 
document S/L/80.  It was in accordance with these procedures that this notification had appeared on 
the agenda of this meeting.  These procedures also  required that any Member which considered that 
its interests under the GATS might be affected by the proposed modification or withdrawal was to 
communicate its claim in writing to the modifying Member and at the same time notify it to all other 
Members through the Secretariat.  According to pa ragraph 3 of document S/L/80, such claims of 
interest were to be made no later than 45 days afte r the date of circulation by the Secretariat of the 
notification.   
12. The representative of the European Communities  stated that, as a result of the EC 
enlargement which had taken effect on 1 May 2004, his delegation had made two notifications:  one 
had notified the Council of the Treaty concerning the accession of the 10 new Member States;  the 
other had notified the Council of his delegation's in tention to modify or withdraw some specific 
commitments.  He pointed out that his delegation had made the latter notification on 28 May 2004, 
which had been circulated to the Members of the Council by the Secretariat on 11 June 2004.  He stressed that this notification only concerned modi fication or withdrawal of specific commitments.  
He stated that this communication also notified that the procedure under Article XXI launched in the 
previous year relating to the accession of Austria,  Finland and Sweden had been withdrawn because 
those proposed modifications had been fully in tegrated in document S/SECRET/8 and could be 
handled in one and the same procedure.  He indicated that this notification (S/SECRET/8) had included a list of commitments (20 in total) his dele gation intended to modify or withdraw, and that 
for transparency purposes, a cons olidated schedule had been att ached to the notification.   
13. Noting that the French and Spanish versi ons of document S/SECRET/8 were still being 
processed, the representative of Japan
 inquired which day was to be taken as the starting point of the 
procedures the notification intended to initiate:  11 June 2004 on which the E nglish version had been 
circulated, or the day on which the French and Spanish versions would be available.  S/C/M/73 
 Page 3 
 
 
 14. Thanking the European Communities for its tw o notifications, the representative of Hong 
Kong, China  sought some clarifications from the European Communities on its notification 
S/SECRET/8.  With respect to the European Comm unities' statement that the previous notification 
S/C/N/231 had been withdrawn because the proposed modification or withdrawal of specific commitments had been incorporated in the late r notification S/SECRET/8, he sought confirmation 
from the European Communities on two points:  (1 ) document S/SECRET/8 served as a notice to the 
Secretariat pursuant to paragraph 19 of document S/L/80 for the modifying Member to withdraw its 
notification under Article XXI:1 and paragraph 1 of document S/L/80, which in this case was 
document S/C/N/231 including S/C/N/231/Corr.1;  (2) as a result of the notice, the process under Article XXI initiated by the previous notificati on S/C/N/231 had been aborted, Article XXI and 
document S/L/80 ceased to apply, and the Europ ean Communities and its Member States were 
obligated to maintain their comm itments in conformity with their existing Schedules of specific 
commitments and Part III of the GATS as  required under document S/L/80.   
15. Noting the European Communities' statement that  the consolidated schedule was attached for 
transparency purposes, the representative of Hong Kong, China further sought confirmation from the 
European Communities on two points:  (1) the conso lidated schedule of specific commitments of the 
European Communities and its Member States attached to document S/SECRET/8 had no legal status, and the European Communities and its  Member States would continue to be bound by their existing 
Schedules of specific commitments until all th e relevant requirements and procedures under 
Article XXI and document S/L/80 had been complied with and completed;  (2) the consolidated 
schedule of specific commitments attached to document S/SECRET/8 was not a draft schedule put 
forward for the purpose of certification under paragr aph 20 of document S/L/80  or under paragraph 1 
of document S/L/84. 
16. The representative of Hong Kong, China noticed that the European Comm unities, in the last 
paragraph of its notification S/SECRET/8, had requ ired Members that might request to enter into 
negotiations under Article XXI to indicate certain issu es “to ensure that the grounds for such requests 
are clearly discernable”.  Considering this was me rely a statement by the European Communities and 
was not part of the notification required pursuant to  Article XXI, he declared that his delegation 
disagreed with this statement.  He pointed out that in accordance with Article XXI:2(a) and 
paragraph 3 of document S/L/80, any Member whic h considered that its interests under the GATS 
might be affected by the proposed modification or withdrawal might submit its claim and request for 
negotiations, and that the modifying Member was to  enter into negotiations with such a Member 
which had identified itself as an affected Member within the meaning of Article XXI.  He stressed 
that there was no other pre-condition or pre-requis ite for entering into negotiations under Article XXI. 
17. Noting that the European Communities’ st atement that its notification S/SECRET/8 
concerned only modification and withdrawal of specific commitments, the representative of Hong 
Kong, China sought confirmation from the EC on the fact that the consolidated list of MFN 
exemptions attached to document S/SECRET/8 had no legal status and was not part of the process 
under Article XXI, which this notifi cation sought to initiate.  The re presentative of Hong Kong, China 
noticed that it was stated in document S/SECRET/8 that the consolidated list of MFN exemptions of 
the European Communities and its 25 Member States replaced the existing lists of MFN exemptions 
of the European Communities and of those Member  States which had maintained separate lists of 
MFN exemptions.  He also noticed that there was no reference in document S/SECRET/8 as to the 
legal basis and applicable procedures for such repl acement.  He thus sought clarifications from the 
European Communities on the legal basis and applicable  procedures for the replacement of the lists of 
MFN exemptions and on when such procedures would be initiated. 
18. The representative of Hong Kong, China sai d that his delegation also noted some 
discrepancies between the list of commitments to be modified or withdrawn as set out in the Annex to S/C/M/73 
Page 4  
 
 document S/SECRET/8, and the consolidated schedul e attached to this document.  He inquired 
whether there were some typographical errors in document S/SECRET/8.   
19. The representative of Japan
 supported the statement made by Hong Kong, China with regard 
to the last paragraph of document S/SECRET/8. 
20. The representative of Canada  said that his government was car efully examining the European 
Communities’ notification S/SECRET/8 to determine its  potential effect on Canada’s interests.  If it 
was believed that Canada’s interests were affected , his delegation would notify the Secretariat and all 
other Members of their claims of interests.  Tha nking the representative of Hong Kong, China for his 
thorough examination of the European Communities’ notification S/SECRET/8, he also sought clarifications from the European Communities on the inclusion of a consolidated list of MFN 
exemptions in this notification.    
21. The representative of the United States
 said that her delegation noted the European 
Communities’ notification S/C/N/303 made pursuan t to Article V:7 of the GATS regarding the 
accession of the 10 new Member States.  Her dele gation also noted the European Communities’ 
notification S/SECRET/8 pursuant to Article V:5 of the GATS, which stated the European 
Communities’ intention to modify or withdraw sp ecific commitments and to which a consolidated 
schedule of specific commitments and a consolidated  list of MFN exemptions were attached.  Her 
delegation noticed that the European Communities'  notification S/SECRET/8 had formally withdrawn 
its previous notification S/C/N/231 regarding the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden and had 
incorporated these countries’ modified schedules in the new consolidated schedule.  Her delegation 
believed that the United States’ interests under the GATS might be affected by the proposed 
modification or withdrawal of specific commitments in the European Communities' notification 
S/SECRET/8.  Her delegation thus intended to requ est, pursuant to Article XXI:2 and paragraph 3 of 
document S/L/80, that the European Communities ente r into negotiations with a view to reaching an 
agreement on any necessary compensatory adjustment.  In this light, she said her delegation looked 
forward to a response to the question previously ra ised by Japan regarding the starting point of the 
procedure the European Communities' notification S/ SECRET/8 intended to initiate.  With respect to 
the consolidated list of MFN exemptions included in  this notification, she said that her delegation 
believed that pursuant to Article II of the GATS a nd the Annex on Article II (MFN) Exemptions, any 
new MFN exemptions applied for after the entry into  force of the WTO were to be dealt with under 
Article IX:3 of the WTO Agreement.  Noting the qu estions previously raised by Hong Kong, China, 
her delegation believed that Hong Kong, China was seeking important and useful clarifications and 
confirmations on both procedural and substantive aspects of the European Communities' notification 
S/SECRET/8.  Regarding the grounds for the ne gotiation request under Article XXI, her delegation 
also shared Hong Kong, China's concern about anythi ng that would change what had been specified in 
Article XXI and document S/L/80.   Her delegation would send their request to the European 
Communities after the status of the French a nd Spanish versions of document S/SECRET/8 was 
clarified.   
22. The representative of Chinese Taipei  stated that her delegation shared the views of Hong 
Kong, China regarding the procedural issues a nd the discrepancies in th e European Communities 
notification S/SECRET/8.  She further expressed her delegation’s concern about the last paragraph of 
this notification and the consolidated list of MFN exem ptions attached to it.  In her delegation’s view, 
there was no requirement for affected Members to de monstrate their interests in order to enter into 
negotiations under Article XXI, and in accordance w ith the Annex on Article II (MFN) Exemptions, 
any new MFN exemptions after the entry into force of the WTO were subject to the procedure set out 
in Article IX:3 of the WTO Agreement.   
23. The representative of Colombia  said that her government was analysing in detail the 
European Communities’ notification S/SECRET/8 and would decide whether to participate in the  S/C/M/73 
 Page 5 
 
 
 negotiations.  Echoing the concern expressed by H ong Kong, China on the last paragraph of this 
notification, she stated that her delegation was of the view that neither Article XXI nor the procedures 
established in document S/L/80 required affected Members to present detailed trade information in 
order to enter into negotiations.  She sought clarifications on this issue from the European Communities.   
24. Regarding the European Communities’ notifi cation S/SECRET/8, the representative of 
Ecuador
 said her delegation wished to see the document translated into other official languages and 
the procedures be clarified.  She said her government  had participated in the negotiations with the 
European Communities regarding the modification or  withdrawal of specific commitments resulting 
from the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden  to the European Communities.  Her delegation 
was concerned about the unilateral interpretati on of Article XXI and document S/L/80 by the 
European Communities and entirely ag reed with the views of Hong Kong, China to this effect.  She 
said the issues arising from the notification in qu estion (S/SECRET/8) were of vital importance for 
both the services negotiations and the GATS itself because of this notification’s nature of precedent.  
Concerned about the consolidated list of MFN exemp tions in this notification, her delegation was of 
the view that Article IX of the WTO Agreement was to be initiated in this regard.  Echoing the view 
of Colombia, her delegation considered that there was no requirement for affected Members to provide any detailed trade information in order to  enter into negotiations.  The representative of 
Ecuador said that her capital was studying the notification (S/SECRET/8) in detail.   
25. The representative of Argentina
 said his capital was waiting for the Spanish version of the 
European Communities' notification S/SECRET/8 in orde r to analyse it in detail.  Sharing most of the 
comments made by Hong Kong, China on this notifica tion, he wished to raise some specific concerns 
of his government.  Noting that this notification had withdrawn the previous notification S/C/N/231, 
he sought confirmation from the European Communities on the fact that the modification or withdrawal of specific commitments proposed in the previous notification S/C/N/231 had not been implemented and that the specific commitments of  the three Member States (Austria, Finland and 
Sweden) remained unchanged.  Having taken note of  the European Communities' statement that its 
notification S/SECRET/8 only concerned specific comm itments, he sought clarifications from the 
European Communities on the objective of and legal basis for including a consolidated list of MFN 
exemptions in this notification.  Referring to the l ast paragraph of this notification, he said that his 
delegation was concerned about the inclusion of certain conditions which went beyond the 
requirement established in Article  XXI and document S/L/80.  He sought clarifications from the 
European Communities on whether they would acc ept a negotiation request which did not contain 
information they were asking for.  Finally, he i nquired the exact date on which the period for affected 
Members to present their claims of interests under Article XXI started.   
26. The representative of Australia
 stated that his delegation was examining the European 
Communities' notification S/SECRET/8 and would purs ue the procedure under Ar ticle XXI within the 
agreed timeframe if Australia was affected.  His delegation thus wished to know when the clock 
started ticking.   
27. The representative of Switzerland  said that his delegation agreed to most of the comments 
made by other delegations on the European Comm unities' notification S/SECRET/8.  Regarding the 
fact that this notification had withdrawn the prev ious notification S/C/N/231,  his delegations believed 
that the issues dealt with in the negotiations initia ted by the previous notification S/C/N/231 remained 
to be addressed in the negotiations to be initiated by the later notification S/SECRET/8 and that those 
Members that had taken part in the previous pr ocess would also be involved in the forthcoming 
negotiations.  With respect to the last paragraph of the later notification S/SECRET/8, his delegation 
was of the view that neither Article XXI nor doc ument S/L/80 required affected Members to provide 
in their claims of interests the information the Euro pean Communities were asking for.  In this regard, 
the representative of Switzerland recalled that the wording used in both Article XXI:2 and document S/C/M/73 
Page 6  
 
 S/L/80 was "may be affected".  His delegation firmly  believed that any change of rules introduced by 
the notification was not acceptable.  It seemed to hi s delegation that there existed two options to solve 
the problem involved.  If the last paragraph of the European Communities' notification S/SECRET/8 
was regarded to have a legal effect upon the affected  Members, this notification would be invalid in 
this paragraph because of its invalid content.  In  this case, Switzerland would request the European 
Communities to submit a new notification which was valid in its entirety.  The second option was to 
attach no legal value to any statement on rules in all the notifications, including notification 
S/SECRET/8.  In this case, any remaining disagr eement on the introduction of rules would be left 
outside the scope of the notification.  Switzerla nd regarded the second option as a more pragmatic one 
and could follow it.  The representative of Switzerla nd stressed that in any event, his government 
could not accept any change of rules and proce dures through notifications  by any Member.   
28. The representative of China
 stated that his delegation suppor ted most of the statements made 
by Hong Kong, China on the European Commun ities' notification S/SECRET/8, which had been 
echoed by many other delegations.  He said that to make a thorough study and analysis of the 
consolidated schedule of specific commitments a ttached to this notification would be a time-
consuming process and a burdensome work.  Noti ng that the European Communities requested 
affected Members to provide detailed information in  their claims of interests, his delegation was 
concerned about the difficulties this request might create for other Members, especially for 
developing Members.  His delegation was of the view that specific commitments meant both actual 
market access and potential market access opportun ities, which were to be taken into account in 
determining compensatory adjustment under Article XXI.   
29. The representative of New Zealand  stated that her government was currently assessing the 
European Communities' notification S/SECRET/8 to de termine whether its interests were affected.  
Her delegation shared the concerns outlined by ot her delegations regarding this document.  With 
respect to the last paragraph of this notification,  she stated that her government would not consider 
itself under the obligation to provide detailed information in notifying its claims of interests.   
30. Stating that his delegation shared the concer ns articulated by Hong Kong, China and other 
delegations on the European Co mmunities' notification S/SECRET/8, the representative of India  
wished to specifically raise two points.  His dele gation believed that the pur ported standard regarding 
claims of interests, which was contained in the l ast paragraph of this notification, went beyond what 
was set out in both Article XXI and document S/L/80.  His delegation disagreed with this formulation.  
In this regard, he echoed the statement made by Sw itzerland that notifications could not change rules 
agreed upon by Members.  With respect to the conso lidated list of MFN exemptions included in this 
notification, his delegation was concerned about th e legal status and applicable procedures for its 
replacement of the existing lists of MFN exemptions.   
31. The representative of Chile  stated that her delegation unde rstood the last paragraph of 
notification S/SECRET/8 was a mere suggestion by the European Communities, which sought to 
ensure negotiations and would in no way im pede any Member from claiming interests. 
32. The representative of Korea  stated that her delegation shared the concerns expressed by other 
delegations regarding the ambiguities and uncertain ties of notification S/SECRET/8.  Her delegation 
particularly wished to know on which day the pe riod for claims of interests started and which 
procedures were to apply for the modification of MFN exemptions.   
33. The representative of Uruguay  said that her delegation had taken note of the European 
Communities' notification S/SECRET/8 and was expecti ng its Spanish version.  Her delegation shared 
the concerns raised by other delegations with rega rd to this notification, its last paragraph in 
particular.  His delegation also sought clarifications  on the issue of the starting point of the procedure 
under Article XXI.    S/C/M/73 
 Page 7 
 
 
 34. The representative of Brazil  said that his delegation was following the process initiated by the 
European Communities' notification S/SECRET/8 with  great interest.  His delegation believed that 
this process would test an essential article of the GATS as well as the architecture of the agreement in 
a moment when the whole membership was ca lled into the negotiation process to make new 
commitments.  His delegation hoped that at the e nd of the process, grey areas prevailing within the 
GATS could be clarified so that all the Members would feel more comfortable to engage in the 
negotiations on market access.  Agreeing to the view of other delegations regarding the last paragraph 
of notification S/SECRET/8, his delegation considered that it did not need to substantiate anything in 
order to declare itself as an affected Member .  He, however, noted that once the process of 
negotiations with the European Co mmunities started, his delegation mi ght need to substantiate its 
claims of interests.  For this purpose, his dele gation requested the European Communities to state 
since when those changes indicated in this  notification had been implemented.   
35. Regarding the question raised by a few delegati ons on the date of circulation as the starting 
point of the procedures under Article XXI, the Chairman  stated that paragraph 3 of document S/L/80 
did not make specific reference to one language or th ree languages.  He further stated that the current 
case was exceptional because its large size had dela yed the translation work.  He said it was up to 
Members to reach an agreement on when th e 45 days timeframe was to start.   
36. A representative of the Secretariat  agreed with what the Chairman had said regarding the 
language issue involved in the understanding of the da te of circulation.  He added that the practice 
within the WTO in this regard was not consistent.   
37. In response to the question on the date of ci rculation, the representative of the European 
Communities  noted that document S/L/80 was silent on this  point and did not require the notification 
be circulated in a particular language.  He fu rther noted that the circulation had taken place on 
11 June 2004.  With regard to rules on document ci rculation, he referred to the decision adopted by 
the General Council on the circulation and derest riction of WTO documents, contained in document 
WT/L/452, which, he found, only required the versio ns of other languages be circulated expeditiously 
but not simultaneously.  Referring to a decision take n by the Dispute Settlement Body, he noted that a 
special rule had been established for dispute settlement , according to which the "date of circulation" in 
the DSU was the date on which docum ents were circulated in all three working languages.  He thus 
inferred that the general rule was that a document was not necessarily circulated simultaneously in 
three working languages within the WTO, otherwise the special rule in the dispute settlement would 
not be needed.  He said that his delegation’s con cern on this issue was that its rights would not be 
affected as document circulation was a matter out of its control.   
38. Responding to the question concerning the withdraw al of the previous notification S/C/N/231, 
the representative of the European Communities adm itted that the procedure set out in paragraph 19 
of document S/L/80 had been launched by the later notification S/SECRET/8 and that as a result, the 
process under Article XXI initiated by the previ ous notification S/C/N/ 231 had been aborted. 
39. With respect to the question on the consolidated list of MFN exemptions included in 
notification S/SECRET/8, recalling the statement hi s delegation made previously in relation to 
notification S/C/N/231, and referring to paragraph 6 of notification S/SECRET/8, he stated that his 
delegation had not launched any procedure regarding MFN exemptions and that the attached list had 
no legal value.  He further stated that the conso lidated schedule had been a ttached for transparency 
purposes and was to facilitate the exercise.   
40. Regarding the concern on the last paragraph of notification S/SECRET/8, the representative 
of the European Communities explained that his delegation was not seeking to establish any 
preconditions, nor trying to change any rules by incl usion of this paragraph in the notification.  His 
delegation noted that document S/L/80 did not set any legal requirement on information provision in S/C/M/73 
Page 8  
 
 terms of claims of interests.  The purpose of incl usion of this paragraph in the notification was to 
facilitate negotiations.  His delegation was of the vi ew that without the provision of information, it 
would be difficult to undertake discussions on the impact of modification or withdrawal of specific 
commitments and on the possible compensatory adjustment.   
41. Thanking the European Communities for its  responses, the representative of Brazil
 reiterated 
its question.  He inquired whether any of the proposed modification or withdrawal of specific 
commitments in notification S/SECRET/8 had been implemented. 
42. The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked the European Communities for responding 
to the questions raised by his delegation.  He, however, reiterated his delegation’s concern on the 
discrepancies between the list of commitments to be modified or withdrawn as set out in the Annex to 
notification S/SECRET/8, and the consolidated schedul e attached to this notification.  His delegation 
wished to have clarifications from the European  Communities on this issue either at the current 
meeting or in the bilateral setting.   
43. In response to the question raised by Brazil,  referring to paragraph 5 of notification 
S/SECRET/8, the representative of the European Communities  stated that the proposed modification 
or withdrawal of specific commitments was intende d to be implemented as of 1 June 2005.  He 
further stated that the actual implementation date would depend on the outcome of the future 
negotiations with affected Members.  Regarding th e question raised by Hong Kong, China, he stated 
that his delegation had provided the in formation required by document S/L/80, i.e.  the list of specific 
commitments modified or withdrawn, and that the consolidated schedule attached to the notification 
was not the final document which w ould depend on the outcome of ne gotiations.  Nevertheless, he 
said that the consolidated schedule was under technical  verification in his capital.  Noting some minor 
technical discrepancies in the notification and th e points made by Hong Kong, China, he said his 
delegation might issue a corrigendum at a later stage.   
44. Thanking the European Communities for its r esponses to the questions raised by a few 
delegations, the representative of the United States  said that her delegation wished to make comments 
on the withdrawn process with regard to the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.  Taking note 
of the European Communities’ response to the ques tion raised by Brazil, she pointed out that the 
European Communities’ seeking rec ourse to Article XXI was the first time the procedure under this 
article had been used and that a few delegations  including her delegation had been mobilised to 
participate in the process.  Her delegation was concerned about when the proposed modifications 
would take effect.  She noted that some adjustment s might have to be made as time had passed, and 
that some issues might be added concerning Members’ ab ility to substantiate their claims of interests.  
Without prejudging what was entailed in Members’ abilit y to substantiate their claims of interests, her 
delegation wished to express its concern and woul d get back to the negotiations under Article XXI. 
45. Noting the view expressed by a few delegations that nothing in the notification 
(S/SECRET/8) introduced new obligations which woul d change existing process, the representative of 
Canada  indicated that his delegation was also concerne d about some ambiguities in paragraph 2 of the 
notification.  Referring to the sentence “ it should be recalled that the deadline for these negotiations 
was extended until 1 June 2004 following the mutual agreement...”, he said it was not clear whether 
“the mutual agreement” meant the bilateral ag reement between the European Communities and an 
affected Member or some other interpretations.  Hi s delegation did not believe that the language used 
in the notification should affect the inte rpretation of "the mutual agreement".   
46. Thanking the European Communities for its clear answers, especially for the answer to the 
question on the last paragraph of notificati on S/SECRET/8, the representative of Switzerland  noted 
that this paragraph had no signification of changing rules de jure .  He said his delegation expected 
that the rules de facto  would not be changed either.  Reminding that the notion used in Article XXI  S/C/M/73 
 Page 9 
 
 
 recognized services were different from goods in na ture, which made it very difficult to provide 
information in services  
47. Echoing the question raised by Canada , the representative of Chinese Taipei  said her 
delegation was concerned about th e procedure applied by the European Communities in withdrawing 
the previous notification S/C/N/231. 
48. The representative of Mexico  sought clarifications from the European Communities on 
whether the changes to the coverage of certain MF N exemptions were made pursuant to Article V:5 
and would be subject to the procedure under Article XXI. 
49. The representative of th e European Communities  reiterated that his delegation was entitled to 
enlarge the existing MFN exemptions under Article V:5.  However, his delegation had not launched 
the appropriate procedure.  The inclusion of the co nsolidated list of MFN exemptions was to give a 
complete overview of what the final schedule and the list of MFN exemptions might look like at the end of the process.  His delegation might revert to  the issue of MFN exemptions in accordance with 
the appropriate procedure.   
50. The representative of the United States
 reiterated her delegation’ s view on the appropriate 
procedure for new MFN exemptions.   
51. The Chairman  proposed that the Council take note of  the notification and the statements 
made. 
52. The Council so agreed . 
B. PROPOSALS  FOR  A TECHNICAL  REVIEW  OF GATS  PROVISIONS  – ARTICLE  XX:2 
53. The Chairman  recalled that at its previous meeting,  the Council had considered the report 
(S/C/W/237) by the Chairman of the Committ ee on Specific Commitments (CSC), which had 
summarized the technical discussions held in th e CSC on issues arising from the scheduling of 
commitments in accordance with Article XX:2.  Seve ral delegations had made interventions at the 
Council's previous meeting, expressing different vi ews on how this item was to be handled in the 
future.  Given the divergence of views from delegations, the Council had agreed to revert to this item.  
Noting that outstanding technical issues relating to  Article XX:2 had been raised and discussed, the 
Chairman invited delegations to address the issue of how to proceed with this item: whether to 
continue the discussions under this item or to make other arrangements.   
54. The representative of Australia  said that after further consideration, his delegation wished to 
support the emerging view that this matter was to be  set aside, as the discussions under this item had 
been exhausted.   
55. Supporting the view expressed by Australia , the representative of the United States  added that 
a checklist might aid Members in scheduling future specific commitm ents as a way to learn lessons 
from what had been achieved in the discussi ons on the issues relating to Article XX:2. 
56. Echoing the view that discussions under this ite m had been exhausted, the representative of 
Switzerland  stated that his delegation wished to see th e issues relating to Article XX:2 be addressed 
bilaterally.  Regarding the checklist, his delegati on was not opposed to the suggestion itself, but was 
concerned about what was to be included in the checklist.   
57. The representative of Brazil  said that his delegation was flexible as to how to deal with this 
item.  Concerning the checklist, he wondered how de bates under this item would be translated.  While S/C/M/73 
Page 10  
 
 not objecting to the suggestion itself on a check list, his delegation hope d its position would be 
reflected in the checklist correctly.   
58. Welcoming the pragmatism shown by other dele gations under this item, the representative of 
Japan
 said his delegation would go along with it.  His delegation acknowledged that a checklist would 
be helpful for Members to schedule commitm ents in the future with some care. 
59. The representative of Hong Kong, China  encouraged Members to take the opportunity of the 
current services negotiations to clarify ambiguities in their schedules.  In this light, he thought a checklist might be useful.  He believed that the checklist would be factual and would take into 
account all the issues Members had raised under this item.  While partly agreeing to the view that 
discussions under this item had been exhausted, he stressed that the aim of  the discussions was to 
eliminate and prevent ambiguities in Members' sched ules.  He hoped that a possibility of getting back 
to the Council or to any other appropriate forum unde r this item would be reserved if ambiguities or 
uncertainties continued to exist in schedules.   
60. Acknowledging that discussions under this item ha d been exhausted, the representative of 
Canada
 suggested that, when assisting Members in prepar ing their initial offers, the Secretariat inform 
them of the discussions undertaken in the Council and in the CSC in relation to Article XX:2.  This 
would be especially desirable for those Members without residence in Geneva, as they had no 
opportunities to follow the discussions. 
61. Seeking to further explain her delegation's s uggestion on checklist, the representative of the 
United States  stated that a checklist would be very he lpful for both resident and non-resident 
Members, given the complicated nature of the debate  under this item.  Her delegation was of the view 
that the checklist was to target on future commitments with a view to avoiding pitfalls in scheduling, 
not for the purpose of revising ex isting commitments.  She, however, noted that the checklist would 
not prejudice Members' right to choose to revise their existing commitments in the course of negotiations.   
62. A representative of the Secretariat
 said that the Secretariat would prepare a checklist of issues 
identified in the discussions under this item in th e Council or in the CSC if Members so wished. 
63. The representative of the United States  reiterated that the purpose of a checklist was to wrap 
up the debate under this item so that Members, es pecially developing Members, could benefit from it 
in scheduling future commitments.  Her delegation had no intention to retain this item on the agenda.   
64. The Chairman  proposed that the Council take note of th e statements made and revert to this 
item upon a specific request.   
65. The Council so agreed.  
C. IMPLEMENTATION  OF ARTICLE  VII OF THE  GATS 
66. The Chairman  recalled that this was the fifth time th at the Council held discussions under this 
item based on an informal note from the delegation of  India (JOB(03)/120).  At the Council's previous 
meetings, several issues had been raised under this item, such as: notification improvement, delegated 
authority, transparency, and information sharing.  Given the interest expressed by delegations in these 
issues, the Council had agreed to re vert to this item.  The Chairman  encouraged delegations to bring 
up new thoughts under this item.   
67. The representative of India  recalled that based on the paper submitted by his delegation, the 
Council had undertaken discussions under this item.  No ting that Members had indicated an interest in  S/C/M/73 
 Page 11 
 
 
 deeper discussions, he thought that it would be useful to better structure the discussions.  From the 
previous discussions and the interest shown by Members, his delegation was of the view that more detailed discussions might be concentrated on the follow ing issues.  First, with respect to transparency 
and notification requirements, it would be useful to examine the content of notifications to see how it 
could be improved, in the light of the notifications  the Council had received.  He suggested that the 
Secretariat study the existing format of notifica tion and propose elements that could provide all 
relevant information.  Believing this would be a factual exercise, he hoped that Members could agree 
to it.  Second, concerning delegated authority, hi s delegation though it was a crucial issue, and that 
sharing experiences would improve Members' unders tanding of this issue through examining recent 
notifications.  Third, with regard to suitable opportu nities for other interested  Members to participate 
in negotiations of MRAs, there existed several ques tions such as:  at what stage such opportunities 
could be provided; how transparency in this matte r could be improved;  how the issues relating to 
professional associations negotiating MRAs were to be addressed;  and how the requirements on notifications under Article VII:4(b) might be met.   He finally suggested that the Chairman hold 
informal consultations on how the work under this item could move forward.   
68. The representative of the United States
 stated that her delegati on supported India’s suggestion 
that the Chairman hold informal consultations with  respect to the Council’s work under Article VII.  
She reiterated her delegation’s position that the notification requirements under Article VII:4 only 
applied to MRAs which fell within the scope of Ar ticle VII:1.  Her delegation believed that MRAs 
within the scope of Article VII:1 were those betw een two or more Members governments, not those 
between professional associations acting on their own rights. 
69. The representative of New Zealand  recalled that her delegation had indicated the importance 
of the issues related to the implementation of Ar ticle VII at previous meetings.  Her delegation 
thought that India’s suggestion on informal consu ltations would be very helpful to clarify the 
Council’s future work under this item.   With respect to India’s suggestion on the work to be done by 
the Secretariat regarding transparency and actual no tification requirements, her delegation considered 
it useful.   
70. Thanking India for its suggestions, the representative of Canada  stated that matters related to 
Article VII were appropriate topics for discussion in the Council.  His delegation supported the 
suggestion that the Chairman hold informal cons ultations on how to further discussions under this 
item. 
71. The representatives of Switzerland , Australia  and Colombia  said that their delegations also 
supported India’s suggestion on informal consultati ons to be undertaken by the Chairman.   
72. The Chairman  said that given the interest expressed by delegations, he would hold informal 
consultations on issues related to Article VII before  the next services cluster.  He proposed that the 
Council take note of the statements made and revert to this item at its next meeting. 
73. The Council so agreed . 
D. REVIEW  OF ARTICLE  II (MFN)  EXEMPTIONS 
74. The Chairman  recalled that the Council had decided at  its meeting held on 14 May 2001 that 
the second review of MFN exemptions was to be conducted no later than June 2004.  The Council 
agreed at its last meeting that the second review  of MFN exemption was to start at the current 
meeting.  According to the Annex on Article II Ex emptions, the Council was mandated in a review to 
examine whether the conditions which had created th e need for the exemptions still prevailed.  The 
first review had proved to be a helpful information exchange exercise.  In addition, the Council had 
held substantive discussions on various issues aris ing from the review, which had deepened Members' S/C/M/73 
Page 12  
 
 understanding of the GATS.  Members expressed their views extensively during the first review and 
these views were recorded in the minutes (containe d mainly in documents S/C/M/44, S/C/M/45, and 
S/C/M/47).  The Chairman encouraged delegations not to reiterate the views expressed in the first 
review and to make the second review an advanced exercise. 
75. The Chairman stated that the first issue to be addressed under this item was how the second 
review was to be conducted.  He recalled that th e first review had been conducted sector by sector 
through a question-and-answer process.  Members had been required to subm it written questions three 
weeks in advance of the review meetings, and such questions had been answered in writing or orally.  
Three special meetings had been dedicated to the first review.  The Chairman inquired whether the 
second review was to be conducted in the same way.   He invited delegations to make proposals or 
comments on the modality and timetable of the second review. 
76. Noting the Council's mandate in the review of MFN exemptions, the representative of Hong 
Kong, China  stated that his delegation wished to propose a simple process for the second review, 
taking the practice of the first review as the star ting point.  His delegation proposed that the Council 
conduct the second review in its regular meetings inst ead of in dedicated sessions.  To this end, the 
item of MFN exemption review was to be put on the agenda of each meeting of the regular session of 
the Council until the completion of the review.  The re view was to be conducted in formal mode, with 
the possibility of switching to informal mode if Me mbers so desired.  Recalling that the Secretariat 
had prepared two compilations of all MFN exempti ons in the previous review, one organized by 
Members and another organized by sectors, the re presentative of Hong Kong, China stated that his 
delegation requested the Secretariat to update th ese two compilations for the purpose of the second 
review.  His delegation also requested the Secretaria t to prepare factual statistical information on the 
number of MFN exemptions, broken down by Members, sectors and the specified duration of exemptions, indicating how many had already expired.  His delegation suggested that as in the previous review, Members submit questions in resp ect of MFN exemptions in writing sufficiently in 
advance of the meeting (three weeks in advance on a best-endeavour basis), and that the Members 
concerned answer these questions either orally or  in writing to the Council.  Noting that an 
opportunity had been provided in the previous review  for Members to raise any general or horizontal 
issues pertaining to or arising from the review of  MFN exemptions in the Council, his delegation 
proposed that the Council follow the same pract ice in the course of the second review.  The 
representative of Hong Kong, China hoped that the substantive review could begin at the Council's 
next meeting if Members agreed on the approach his delegation proposed.  His delegation therefore 
requested that the updated compilations by the Secret ariat be available as ear ly as possible so that 
Members could start submitting questions for the purpose of the review prior to the Council's next meeting. 
77. Noting the importance of the MFN exemptions review, the representative of Chile
 said that 
his delegation supported the process proposed by  Hong Kong, China.  He, however, sought 
clarifications on the last point of Hong Kong, Chin a's intervention.  Referring to the previous agenda 
item, she said that her delegation wished to take part  in the informal consultations on issues relating to 
Article VII.   
78. Supporting the statement made by Hong Kong,  China on the MFN review, the representative 
of China  said his delegation looked forward to substan tive and detailed discussions under this item at 
the Council's subsequent meetings.   
79. The representative of the United States  said it was important to ensure that the scope of 
second MFN exemptions review was consistent with the requirements set out in paragraph 4 of the 
Annex on Article II Exemptions, wh ich provided that the review was to "examine whether the 
conditions which had created the need for the exem ptions still prevailed" and that the Council in a 
review was to set the date for any subsequent re view.  She sought clarifications from Hong Kong,  S/C/M/73 
 Page 13 
 
 
 China on the reasons for its proposal that the Coun cil conduct the review in its regular meetings 
instead of in dedicated sessions.  She was concerne d that if the review was conducted in the Council's 
regular meetings, discussions under this item would ta ke the entire time of the meetings.  She asked 
how the agenda was to be organized so that the review could be complete d without dominating the 
Council's meetings. 
80. The representative of Chinese Taipei  supported the approach proposed by Hong Kong, China 
regarding the second review of MFN exemptions.  Echoing the suggestion that the Secretariat update 
the compilations of MFN exemptions, she said this would be of a special significance to her delegation as it had not taken part in the first review.  Noting the importance of the second review to 
the ongoing services negotiations, she hope d it could be an advanced exercise. 
81. The representative of New Zealand
 stated that his delegation supported the proposal made by 
Hong Kong, China on the review of MFN exemptions.   
82. Referring to the scope of the review set out in paragraph 4 of the Annex on Article II 
Exemptions, the representative of Australia  said that his delegation c ould broadly support Hong Kong, 
China's proposal.  His delegation was flexible as to  whether the review was to be conducted in the 
Council's regular meetings or in dedicated sessions.  Regarding the suggestion that the Secretariat 
update the compilations of MFN exemptions, his delegation believed that a factual and objective 
stock-take by the Secretariat could be useful in assisting Members in developing a wider understanding of MFN issues as a basis for further analysis.   
83. Thanking Hong Kong, China for its proposal on the review of MFN exemptions, the 
representative of Korea
 reiterated that the principle of MFN was the backbone of the WTO 
agreements and provided the most useful mech anism for undertaking an efficient negotiation 
involving more than 140 negotiating entities.  Recalling that Members had spent much time discussing procedural issues in the first review, he said  that if the procedure set up in the first review 
could serve as guidance, his delegation would fo llow it.  His delegation supported Hong Kong, 
China's proposal that the review be conducted in  the Council's regular meeting under a separate 
agenda item, in either formal or informal mode , until the review was completed.  Written questions 
could be provided in either ge neral or specific manner in terms of members and sectors.  His 
delegation also requested that the Secretariat update  the two compilations of all MFN exemptions and 
provide factual statistical information on the numbe r of MFN exemptions by Members, sectors and 
duration of exemptions, which would be very helpfu l to the review.  His delegation looked forward to 
substantive discussions under this item at  the Council's next regular meeting. 
84. The representative of Mexico
 stated that his delegation supported Hong Kong, China's 
proposal on the review of MFN exemptions.  Recalling that his delegation was one of the few delegations which had previously  presented proposals for MFN exemptions to be included in the 
negotiations, he suggested that his dele gation's proposal be re-circulated.   
85. While acknowledging that the procedure used in the first review of MFN exemptions was to 
be taken as the starting point for the second review,  the representative of Canada
 shared the concern 
expressed by the United States regarding whether the review was to be conducted in the Council's 
regular meetings or in dedicated sessions. 
86. Broadly supporting Hong Kong, China's proposal on the review of MFN exemptions, the 
representative of the European Communities  asked why it requested the Secretariat to update the two 
compilations of MFN exemptions as he believed that  one would provide sufficient information in 
terms of both members and sectors.   S/C/M/73 
Page 14  
 
 87. In response to the concern raised by the United States and Canada, the representative of Hong
 
Kong, China  explained that his delegation's proposal fo r the second review to be conducted in the 
Council's regular meetings was inte nded not to burden delegations with  more meetings.  He invited 
the Chairman to decide how the discussions on the re view were to be structured and organized.  He 
said that at least, the starting point was to keep th e review as an agenda item of the Council's regular 
meetings and that his delegation w ould be flexible if the progress of the review showed that dedicated 
sessions were necessary.  Regarding the question on the last point of his delegation's proposal, he 
noted that in the Council's first review,  Members had been allowed to raise and discuss any general 
or horizontal issues arising from the review.  His delegation therefore proposed that such opportunity continue to be available for Members in the seco nd review.  With respect to the question on his 
delegation's request for updating the two compila tions of MFN exemptions, he reminded Members 
that there had been two compilations prepared for the first review, organized respectively by members 
and by sectors.  He said his delegation requested nothing more than updating these two compilations.  
Regarding the statement made Mexico, he reca lled that the mandate for the review of MFN 
exemptions was set out in paragraph 4 of the Anne x on Article II Exemptions.  He stated that this 
mandate was separate from negotiations on MFN exem ptions, which were undertaken in the Special 
Sessions of the Council.   
88. The representative of the United States
 said that consultations might be needed to decide 
whether the review was to be conducted in the Coun cil's regular meetings or in dedicated sessions.  
She reiterated her delegation's conc ern about the scope of the review.  She noted that in the first 
review some delegations had advo cated a broader scope of the revi ew, taking into account issues such 
as effectiveness or necessity for MFN exemptions .  Her delegation believed that it would be  
inappropriate to examine such factors as they we re outside the scope of the review, which, she 
reiterated, was set out in paragraph 4 of  the Annex on Article II Exemptions.   
89. The representative of Canada  sought clarifications from Hong Kong, China on whether it was 
suggesting two agenda items for the review and issu es arising from the review or one agenda item to 
cover the both. 
90. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that his delegation had no specific idea 
regarding the question raised by Canada.  He reite rated that his delegation's proposal was that the 
opportunity for Members to raise issues of general nature be available in the second review, following 
the practice of the first review. 
91. Referring to the question raised by the Eur opean Communities, the representative of the 
United States  sought clarifications from the Secretar iat on the distinction between the two 
compilations of MFN exemptions. 
92. Noting that a broad support for Hong Kong, China's proposal was emerging, the Chairman  
suggested that Hong Kong, China might wish to consid er circulating its proposal to Members.  Also 
noting that some delegations had expressed reservations to Hong Kong, China's proposal, he said that 
Members might need more time to consider how th e review was to proceed and that he would hold 
informal consultations before the next services cluste r in order to achieve consensus among Members.   
93. The representative of Hong Kong, China  reiterated his delegation's position that the 
substantive discussions under this item were to start at the Council's next meeting.  For this purpose, 
his delegation wished to present substantive questi ons on MFN exemptions well in advance of the 
next meeting.  He suggested that the Council pr oceed with the review along with the lines proposed 
by his delegation, that the Secretariat update the two compilations as requested, and that at the same 
time, the Chairman hold informal consultations on whether the review was to be conducted in the 
Council's regular meetings or in dedicated sessions.  S/C/M/73 
 Page 15 
 
 
 94. The representative of the United States  said it would be difficult to proceed with substantive 
discussions at the Council's next meeting before th e issue was settled regard ing whether the review 
was to be conducted in the Council's regular meeti ngs or in dedicated sessions.  Referring to the 
clarifications made by Hong Kong, China,  she sai d that she might need to consult her capital.  She 
thought that the informal consultations to be held by the Chairman before the next cluster would not 
constitute an obstacle for any delegation to circul ate questions on MFN exemptions.  Referring to the 
concern raised by Chile and seconded by her dele gation on the last point of Hong Kong, China's 
proposal, she sought further clarifications from Hong Kong, China on this issue.   
95. A representative of the Secretariat  confirmed that the Secretariat had prepared two 
compilations of all MFN exemptions in the previous  review, one organized by Members, contained in 
Job 1551, the other organized by sectors, containe d in Job 6116.  He said that as requested, the 
Secretariat could update these two compilations and c ould also prepare factual statistical information 
about the number of MFN exemptions, broken down by Members, sectors and duration of 
exemptions.   
96. The representative of Japan  understood Hong Kong, China's proposal was that the Secretariat 
update the compilations of MFN exemptions and prep are factual statistical information, and that 
Members raise questions in writing within the sc ope of paragraph 4 of the Annex on Article II 
Exemptions on the basis of the updated compilati ons.  He thought Hong Kong, China was proposing a 
very simple procedure.  The only unsettled issue th erein was whether the review was to be conducted 
in the Council's regular meetings or in dedicated  sessions.  He hoped Members could agree on the 
procedure proposed by Hong Kong, China and that the Chairman would undertake informal 
consultations on the unsettled issue.   
97. Echoing the concern raised by the Unite d States, the representative of Brazil  said that 
Members were not authorized to raise any issues in the review of MFN exemptions.  Referring to the statement made by Japan, he said the Chairman coul d hold informal consultations to decide how to 
move forward. 
98. The representative of China
 asked the United States whether the dedicated sessions on the 
review of MFN exemptions were to be held within  or outside the services cluster if the review was 
conducted in dedicated sessions.   
99. The representative of the United States  stated that her delegation could agree on two aspects 
of the Hong Kong, China's proposal: the Secretar iat would proceed with updating the compilations 
and preparing statistical information as requested ; Members would proceed with preparing questions 
on MFN exemptions.  What her delegation objected w as the view that Members could raise any issues 
in the review.  She reiterated that discussions under this item were to be conducted within the scope of 
the review.  As to the question of whether the re view was to be conducted in the Council's regular 
meetings or in dedicated sessions, her delegation looked  forward to informal consultations to be held 
by the Chairman.  Regarding the question posed by China, she said her delegation was simply trying 
to follow the previous practice instead of proposing anything.  Her delegation noted that part of the 
previous practice was holding dedicated sessions for the review. 
100. The Chairman  proposed that the review of MFN exemp tions start in the next services cluster, 
that the Secretariat prepare the documents as request ed, and that he hold informal consultations on 
whether the review was to be conducted in the Coun cil's regular meetings or in dedicated sessions. 
101. The Council so agreed.  S/C/M/73 
Page 16  
 
 E. OTHER
 BUSINESS 
102. Referring to the mutual recognition agreement on registered/licensed engineers, which was 
concluded between Australia and Ja pan, the representative of Australia  stated that this mutual 
recognition agreement set out standards, criteria,  procedures and measures which were based on 
objective and transparent criteria.  He said doc ument JOB(04)/85 presented by Australia provided 
responses to the questions raised at the Council's  previous meeting.  This document included: 
information on Australia's signatories and their ma in roles and responsibilities in regulation and 
registration of engineers; information on requi rements for assessment of engineers; no more 
restrictive test for foreign nationals under the A PEC Engineer Agreement; and the definition of an 
APEC Engineer and the APEC Engineer concept w ith regard to the Australia-Japan Engineering 
mutual recognition agreement.   
103. The representative of Japan  echoed the statement made by Australia. 
104. The representative of Ecuador  recalled that her delegation had raised questions on the EC 
Regulation No.  414/2004 at the Council's previous m eeting, which had been circulated as document 
S/C/W238.  She reiterated her delegation's interest  in receiving replies to these questions from the 
European Communities.   
105. Referring to his delegation's response at the C ouncil's previous meeti ng regarding Ecuador's 
request, the representative of the European Communities  said that there were ongoing contacts 
between his delegation and Ecuador in Brussels and Geneva. 
106. The Chairman  recalled that at the previous Special Session meeting of the Council, a few 
delegations had sought informati on on UNESCO's preparatory work on drawing up a convention on 
the protection of cultural diversity.  The Chairman  of the Council's Special Session had referred the 
follow-up on this issue to the regular session of th e Council.  He invited the Secretariat to provide 
updated information in this regard. 
107. A representative of the Secretariat  said that the WTO Secretariat had recently been contacted 
by the Secretariat of the UNESCO.  Noting th at the UNESCO resolution initiating the process of 
drafting the convention requested the UNESCO to  consult with a number of international 
organizations, including the WTO, he understo od that consultations with the WTO meant 
consultations with the WTO membership, which were distinct from consultations between the 
Secretariats of two international organizations.  Regarding the contact with the UNESCO Secretariat, 
he said that the WTO Secretariat had been given opportunities to discuss some issues related to the 
formulation of the convention.  The WTO Secretaria t was informed that the Director-General of the 
UNESCO would submit the draft of the c onvention to the UNESCO Member States around 
mid-July 2004.  He said what the WTO Secretaria t had been consulted upon was only an intermediate 
product which was subject to refinement and finalisa tion.  The WTO Secretariat had indicated to the 
UNESCO Secretariat that when the draft was r eady for circulation to the WTO membership, a 
consultation process would start within the WTO, i nvolving not only the Services Council, but also 
other WTO bodies.  He understood that issues the convention addressed might relate to the three 
sectoral councils of the WTO, and that some development-related issues might concern the 
Committee on Trade and Development.  He said the UNESCO drafting process was taking place in an expert group which had met three times.  The WTO Secretariat had received two reports from this 
expert group, which were results of its meetings on 17-20 December 2003 and on 30 March-
3 April 2004.  He indicated that these two reports  were available to Members and that the WTO 
Secretariat would circulate the third report to  Members as soon as it received from the UNESCO.    S/C/M/73 
 Page 17 
 
 
 108. The representative of Japan  sought clarifications on whether the date of circulation of the 
English version of document S/SECRET/8, namely 11 June 2004, could be regarded as the consensus 
on the starting point of the procedure under Article XXI. 
109. Noting that the European Communities had referred  to a few precedents regarding the issue of 
the date of circulation, the representative of the United States  stated that her delegation would not 
agree on one Member's interpretation.  She did not th ink that there was consensus on this issue.  Her 
delegation would proceed to protect its interests. 
110. The representative of the European Communities  reiterated his delegation's interpretation on 
the date of circulation that the circulation ha d taken place on the date indicated on document 
S/SECRET/8.  He encouraged Members to respect th e deadline counting from this particular date.  
He, however, said that it was up to each Member to take its own decision.   
111. The Chairman  said that the next formal meeting of the Council's regular session was expected 
to take place during the next services cluster,  which had been tentatively scheduled from 
20 September to 1 October 2004.  The regular session of  the Council would meet during the first week 
of the cluster and the exact date would be commun icated to delegations in due time.  He finally 
suggested that the Council take note of the statements made and adjourn the meeting. 
112. The Council so agreed.  
__________