RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/IT/M/13
14 December 1998
(98-5028)
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade
in Information Technology Products
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 20 NOVEMBER 1998
Chairman:  Mr. M. Harvey (New Zealand)
Agenda of the Meeting  Page
1. Review of product coverage ......................................................................................... 1
2. Draft Report (1998) of the Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in
Information Technology Products to the Council for Trade in Goods (G/IT/W/3) ......... 4
_________________
Introduction
The Chairman  said that the proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in
WTO/AIR/973 on 10 November 1998.  He asked if there were any other matters to be raised under
"Other Business".  Hearing no requests, the agenda was adopted without change.
1. Review of product coverage
1.1 The Chairman stated that last night in an informal session of this Committee, he put before
the Committee a proposal that was agreed by a group of delegations who had worked to solve their
own differences and had made an attempt to construct a package of items which could command
consensus amongst all delegations.  His consultations revealed that this proposal could probably
attract support from a wide range of delegations.  However, there were also some delegations which
were unhappy with it and many more who needed more time to reflect on it before reaching a
definitive view.  While it was clear that the Committee could not find consensus on the proposal today
and therefore he was not asking for a decision to be taken now,  it was the view of many delegationsthat what was achieved so far should not be lost.  He shared this view, and while the proposal that had
been arrived at was a modest one, it was still a valuable one for participants.  It had to be recognized
that the latest proposal represented significant concessions from many sides and the room for
manoeuvre was extremely small.
The Chairman suggested that delegations should have more time to consider the proposal,
both here and in capitals, and to discuss with their industries.  In addition, he recommended that those
delegations which could agree to the proposal should submit their tables for extended staging as soon
as possible.  Those delegations which still needed some time to consider the proposal on product
coverage in conjunction with any extended staging that might be required were invited to do so andthen submit their tables.  Furthermore, he noted that the Secretariat would provide a matrix for staging
in electronic form.  With respect to staging, he sa id also that this would be in four steps to 2002 for
standard staging, and that there was consensus amongst participants that extended staging should be toG/IT/M/13
Page 2
2007, where circumstances warranted.  He stated that the same guidelines as last time should be
followed, i.e. that extended staging should be avai lable in limited circumstances and should be used in
a reasonable way.  These staging proposals should be submitted by 4 December at the latest, and will
be circulated to all participants.
The Chairman also noted the new draft decisi on on ITA II, Draft IV of 20 November, which
set out the modalities for the completion and submission of changes to WTO schedules.  A list of
products for which coverage under ITA I had been confirmed, now called the clarification list, was
referenced in the draft.  This was an important part of the outcome of this review and should be
considered by delegations together with the product coverage and staging issues.  He further
explained that the previous confirmation list was now called the clarification list because there was
concern among some delegations that from a legal point of view what was being done was to clarifythat certain products were covered under ITA I in light of the fact that there were some differences in
interpretation expressed during the review process.  Agreement had been reached that some products
were covered by ITA I, and henceforth will be treated as such by delegations.
1.2 The delegate of India sought first clarification on the status of the paper that was distributed
yesterday, in particular his government wanted to  know whose proposal this was.  As the Chairman
had stated the day before that this was a revised list of possible products given to him by a group of
delegations, his government would like to be clear as to whether this was a proposal circulated by the
Chairman after consulting everybody, or as was the right of any delegation, whether it was a proposal
from certain delegations to promote the process.  Furthermore, if it was a proposal by a group ofdelegations, normally in the WTO, delegations inscribed their names on the document.  As there were
many meetings and papers in WTO on transparency, he asked if it would be too much to ask who the
delegates were who had made this proposal.  He noted that the relevance of this information was
important for the second set of comments he would be making later since it appeared that the proposal
had been made with a particular design and structure and he could understand the purpose behind theproposal if there was transparency about the originators of the proposal.  He had an uncomfortable
feeling that the proposal was being prepared in a one-sided way, with a deliberate design.
His second point concerned the fact that now some delegations had submitted their revised
list of possible products, and that the Chairman had circulated it to everyone for consideration.  He
therefore asked the Chairman whether he had withdrawn his assessment list of July 1998.  In
particular he asked if the products specified in the proposal of 19 November were to be considered asan alternative to the original list.  Additionally, there was one more point of clarification regarding the
decision-making process.  His understanding was that changes to product coverage for ITA II had to
be decided by consensus of participants as provided for in the Annex on Modalities and Product
Coverage to the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products.  If this was not
the case, he expected to be told so.
1.3 In reply to the questions raised by the delegate of India, the Chairman stated that the text put
forth was the work of delegations in the room and was not a text negotiated by the Chairman.  He
fully acknowledged that it did not have full consensus of all participants.  Furthermore, he could not
provide the names of the delegations who supported the text, because he was not sure how manydelegations currently supported the text and how many were consulted in the process.  He invited
delegations to come forth in support of the text if they so pleased.  He noted that while the proposal
was put forth by a number of the major participants in this negotiation and represented a consensus
among those delegations, any package that was to finally be agreed, would have to achieve the
consensus of all participants.  He stressed that products could be added or subtracted from the list,however, any final document would have to be a consensus document.
With respect to the revised wording in the docu ment, he stated that this language was agreed
to by those delegations that put together the proposal.  It therefore reflected an attempt, by at leastG/IT/M/13
Page 3
those delegations, to find consensus in a final text.  It was a refinement of the original proposal so that
they it might achieve a wider consensus.  This proposal was now what he was offering for
participants' consideration, but it was not a Chairman's text as he did not negotiate it or put it together.
He proposed that delegations consider this text in their capitals.
1.4 The delegation of India thanked the Chairman for his explanations.  He stated that he thought
there was a Chairman's proposal on the table, but today the situation was that a group of delegations
had put forward a proposal.  This proposal had assumed the shape of a Chairman's proposal in his
view, without the Chairman having the opportunity to  hear the views and concerns of all participants.
This, in his view, put his delegation in a very aw kward position as to how to react to a proposal of
other delegations rather than a Chairman's proposal.  His delegation was interested in knowing the
countries involved in making the proposal.  He was confused and intrigued because in the Chairman'sassessment of 31 July, items 59 and 131a had enjoyed support for inclusion and no one had any
reservations.  However, he found in the latest proposal, that these were excluded from Attachment A,
and that proposal 59 was now item 301 in Attachment B, and that item 131a was also transferred to
Attachment B with the same reference number.  He  was unclear about this, as to why two products of
which there were no problems, were now being treated differently.  Secondly, he noted that for thesake of transparency, item numbers 39, 64a, 69, 73, 95, 97, 139, 140, 151, 155, and 191 of
Attachment A-1, had attracted reservations from only those participants which were referred to as
major participants.  No others had reservations, and he noted that all these items had been removed
from the list except 95, which was there in limited part.  This gave an idea of who the originators of
the proposal were.  In contrast, he noted that his delegation had expressed concern, especially onradar, satellites, and navigation equipment; and that all these items had found a place on this list.
Therefore his delegation found itself in a situation today where it was forced to treat the text as a
Chairman's text, a text which was extremely one-sided.
1.5 The Chairman noted that all texts that he put before the Committee in the past, both the initial
Chairman's  text and the assessment, enjoyed no consensus of the participants, and therefore the status
of these proposals may not be clear.  At the last meeting of the Committee he recalled that he asked
delegations to meet and negotiate in an attempt to iron out differences, and thus to reach consensus.
A number of delegations had done so, and what he put before the Committee for consideration was
the result of that process.  He could not guarantee who would be involved in such a process and it was
up to every delegation to negotiate to find products that could get included on any list.  This proposal
was the outcome of this process, and he asked that it be considered in that light.  He had to choose thebest path to reach a consensus on a final list and a text that had been negotiated among a group of
participants here with a good amount of agreement stood a better chance of final consensus than
something that he could pull out of the blue.  He was beyond the point of being able to propose a
Chairman's text for the Committee's consideration.  The best text for the consideration of the
Committee was one that had been put together by participants, and if there was more negotiating to bedone, this should be done immediately.  This text was better than any text that he could offer the
Committee, as he would be just guessing.  It was in that spirit that he asked all delegations to consider
the proposal.  Furthermore, he believed it was a text that could be considered and discussed further.
1.6 The delegate of India stated that at the outset, whatever was proposed today to carry on the
process, was something he could not agree to at this time.  He would have to refer it to his capital for
consideration.   Secondly, as far as the proposal was concerned, for the sake of record, and without
prejudice to what the position of his delegation might be, he stated that he had repeatedly stressed
concern over certain radar, satellite, and navigation equipment and that these concerns continued to
remain.  In view of that, he had serious reservations on items 54, 99, 101, 106a, 117a, 168, 177, 178,207, and 209.  He had repeatedly pointed out that there were products that were not IT related;  these
were item numbers 75a, 95, 132, 135, and 164.  As far as the revised wording in Attachment B was
concerned, he reserved his rights with respect to items 152, 155, 302, 302a, 131a, and 153.  With
regard to footnote 1 of the proposal, he reserved his right in respect of the product in item numberG/IT/M/13
Page 4
171.  Finally, he stated that with respect to the future work, he could not comment today but would
get instructions and come back to the issue.  One additional point he wanted to make was that his
country was not getting the expected benefits of ITA I because of a propensity of some countries to
restrict the transfer of technology.  If there were to be an ITA II, he would like to seek assurance that
those products, components and systems included in ITA I and ITA II would not come under the
purview of technology export restrictions imposed by any participant.
1.7 The delegate of Malaysia stated that his delegation would not be able to agree to the proposal
because the products that Malaysia had requested were still not on the list.  He also noted that his
delegation was not obliged to discuss the issue of staging until those products which it had requested,
were included.  He also took note of the reservations  made by India, with regard to how the process
could move forward.
1.8 The Chairman stated that the proposal should be referred to capitals for consideration, and
that the Committee would return to this matter on 11 December.
1.9 While noting that it would not block the process as outlined by the Chairman, the delegation
of the Philippines stated that the deadlines proposed by the Chairman may pose difficulties due to
domestic procedural requirements.  This especially  concerned products that were in Attachment A-2
and Attachment B.  As of today, her delegation co uld not say 'yes' or 'no' to the proposal for the
simple reason that there had not been a possibility to have public hearings.  This fact should be no
surprise to delegations, as this was the problem that was faced when revised wording was proposed.
She hoped her government could complete the domestic procedural requirements within the given
time-frame.
1.10 The delegate of India re-iterated that he needed his government's instructions and that today
he could not join in any agreement.
1.11 The Chairman stated that he was not asking any delegation to make a decision on anything at
this time except to follow those elements that he had set out before.  He asked that delegations report
the proposal to capitals for their consideration; th is was without prejudice to the views they might
take.  It was therefore agreed to proceed on this basis.
2. Draft Report (1998) of the Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in
Information Technology Products to the Council for Trade in Goods (G/IT/W/3)
2.1  The Chairman stated that the draft report  of the Committee to the Council for Trade in
Goods, was contained in G/IT/W/3.  He stressed that  the document was factual in nature and that it
would have to be updated in light of the discussions held today.
2.2 The delegate of the Philippines noted that in paragraph 4, it would be useful to include a
reference to the individual submissions made in G/IT/SPEC/1-14, and a reference also to the
consolidated list of proposals in G/IT/SPEC/15.
2.3 The delegate of Australia stated that he would like to submit comments in writing.
2.4 The Chairman noted that it was his intention to finalize the document today, and asked if
there would be any substantive changes.  Furthermore, he informed the Committee that if the
Secretariat received comments of a factual nature by close of business the following Monday, those
comments could be incorporated.  It was agreed, to continue on this basis.G/IT/M/13
Page 5
2.5 The delegate of Costa Rica asked for a clarification concerning the procedures of how the text
would be approved, in particular if there were changes, how these would be incorporated and the
report finalized and sent to the Council.
2.6 The Chairman replied that the standard practice was that if comments submitted were of a
factual nature, these would be incorporated and the revised document would be circulated and put
before the Council.  However, if there were comments of a substantive nature, these would have to be
considered by the Committee, thus they would have to be circulated for approval by participants.  In
summary, he stated that the draft report was now approved in principle subject to any comments that
might be made in the next few days.
_________