RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/CSC/M/22
21 May 2002
(02-2779)
Committee on Specific Commitments
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 11 MARCH 2002
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Specific Commitments held a meeting on 11 March 2002.  The agenda for
the meeting is contained in WTO/AIR/1733.  No points were raised under other business.
A. CLASSIFICATION ISSUES
2. The Chairperson recalled that at the informal meeting on 28 February 2002 delegations had
reiterated the importance attached to the technical deliberations under this agenda item.  That
discussion had reaffirmed the role the Committee had played, and might continue to play, in
enhancing delegations' understanding of classification issues.  It had also been recognized that
deliberations on a particular issue in the CSC should be based on delegations' interests and initiatives,
as the work in the Committee was a Member-driven exercise.  She drew the Committee’s attention toa new submission on the classification of legal services from the delegation of Australia, document
S/CSC/W/32 of 11 March 2002.
3. In introducing the submission, the representative of Australia said that there was a strong
interest in refining the W/120 classification of legal services to more clearly reflect the commercial
realities of transnational trade in legal services.  The W/120 had a single, undifferentiated entry for"legal services" listed under professional services, a subsector of business services.  Adding
subcategories based on the area of law and the type of service better reflected commercial reality.
Four main areas of law had been recognized, i.e. home-country, third-country, international, and host-
country law.  Additionally, two types of services could be provided, namely, advisory services
(consultancy) or representational services (representation before courts) in each of the identified areas
of law.  Her delegation proposed hat each of those areas of law be classified to accommodate the two
types of services mentioned, providing flexibility to commit on advisory and/or representationalservices for each area of law.  Additionally, foreign legal practitioners provided other services, i.e.
international commercial arbitration services, other alternative dispute resolution services, preparation
and certification of legal documents and other legal advisory or consultancy services.  Those
categories should also be included.  The enhanced flexibility that the proposed refinements would
bring to W/120 should give Members the capacity to increase the number and quality of commitmentsin legal services without compromising the protec tion of domestic consumers or the quality of legal
services and safeguarding the rule of law.
4. The representative of Argentina, speaking on behalf of MERCOSUR and Bolivia, recalled a
proposal concerning Postal Services (document S/CSS/W/108), presented to the Council for Trade in
Services in Special Session (CTS/SS), which contained classification issues.  Bearing in mind that theguidelines for the negotiations, as contained in document S/L/93, stated in paragraph 16 that "Existing
subsidiary bodies shall be utilised to their ma ximum capacity", the delegations of  MERCOSUR and
Bolivia presented the classification elements of the said proposal for consideration by the Committee.
This was without prejudice to the possibility of presenting a written communication in the CSC.  The
current classification of Postal (CPC 7511) and Courier (CPC 7512) Services in W/120 as separateS/CSC/M/22
Page 2
categories was inadequate, given the lack of any difference in the way in which both postal service
operators and "courier" firms provided postal serv ices.  Thus, MERCOSUR and Bolivia proposed the
integration of "courier" services (CPC 7512) in to "postal" services (CPC 7511), as set out in
subsectors 2.A and 2.B of Communication Services in the Services Sectoral Classification List
(MTN.GNS/W/120), under the single heading of Postal Services.
5. The representative of the European Communities welcomed the proposals made.  She
observed that a lot of work had been done on classification issues and progress had been made in
trying to understand the various sectors concerned.  It was clear that Members generally were not
seeking to do an overhaul of W/120.  However, there were certain sectors where some work seemed
necessary, for instance, environmental and energy services, where very little had been done in the
Uruguay Round.  The EC looked forward to continue  to work on all classification proposals;  those
that had not yet been raised in the CSC, but in the Council, could usefully be dealt with in the
Committee to cover technical aspects.  A first phrase could focus on pure classification work of
identifying elements where Members could usefully record commitments.  There could be an
additional phase that would involve a link to incorporation of new commitments because clearly the
commitments that Members might have taken in individual sectors would need an examination to see
how the new classification would fit and to ensure that everything was still included.  The EC waslooking forward to moving ahead and see whether it was feasible to have an agreement or general
understanding that the proposals did cover the nature of the different services.
6. Regarding classification, the representative of Mexico believed that W/120 was still the
reference framework for such work.  Any agreement on further categories would need to be
compatible with the idea of integrating th em in a single classification in W/120.
7. The representative of Brazil said that his delegation remained open to discussing
classification issues in the Committee.  The outcome of such discussions remained to be clarified, not
least as to their ultimate objective.  He reiterated that in the absence of a common understanding or a
minimum common denominator in the sectors that had been put up for discussion, delegations could
submit their requests and offers according to any classification they wanted, i.e. define sectors as theydeemed appropriate.  He had reservations on ideas that had been expressed in informal consultations
that at the end of the process of bilateral negotiations some sort of harmonization could be conducted.
The whole process should work the other way around.
8. The Chairperson welcomed the new proposals on classification.  It was important to address
classification issues to attempt to reach a common understanding of problems and solutions as
delegations approached the request and offer phase.  A number of proposals before the CTS/SS
contained important elements of classification that  could be usefully tackled in the CSC from a
technical point of view.  Further the link between classification and incorporation of new
commitments needs to be borne in mind.  She proposed, and it was agreed, that the Committee would
take note of the statements made and revert to this item at the following meeting.
B. MATTERS RELATING TO THE SCHEDULING OF COMMITMENTS
9. The Chairperson said that this agenda item had been introduced as the result of the
deliberations in the previous two meetings.  It was intended to provide flexibility to address any issue
related to scheduling of commitments.  A number of interesting suggestions had been made on topics
that the CSC could take up at that stage.  Of these, the Committee had decided to consider the
question of how to incorporate new commitments into Members' schedules and look at the approaches
to scheduling additional commitments under Article XVIII of the GATS.  As suggested in the agendafor the meeting, the two topics would be taken up separately.S/CSC/M/22
Page 3
1. Incorporation of new commitments into Members' schedules
10. The Chairperson recalled that this issue was initially raised at the Council for Trade in
Services in Special Session of 14-15 July 2000.  In that context, a note explaining how successive
schedules of concessions had been incorporated in the GATT was requested from the Secretariat and
circulated as Job. 7436 of 21 November 2000.  The no te had been briefly discussed and the issue set
aside by the Council in March 2001.  From that brie f discussion two possible alternatives seemed to
have emerged: a) to have further addenda or supplements to existing schedules or b) to submit new
schedules consolidating existing commitments, thei r improvements, and new commitments resulting
from the current negotiations.
11. The representative of  Canada considered this issue to be a very important one, in relation to
both maintaining legal certainty of commitments a nd increasing the participation of all Members in
the current negotiations.  Being aware of the increasing workload as well as the complexity ofnegotiations, Canada supported consideration and resolution of this issue in the next year in order for
all Members to better understand the commitments to be exchanged.  The current schedules of
commitments would always remain legal documents that delegations and panels could refer back to,
ensuring that no commitment would be undermined as a result of the present negotiations.  Her
delegation wondered whether all Members would agree with that principle.  A consolidated approachto the schedules should be seriously considered by all delegations.  That would mean that Uruguay
Round commitments, those contained in supplements resulting from the extended negotiations after
the Uruguay Round, and the commitments resulting from the present process would be in a single
document at then end of the current round of negotiations.  If a consolidated approach was not
favoured, Canada would need to work with up to ei ght schedules.  A consolidated approach would be
helpful in ensuring increased participation by all Members in the negotiations, since it would help
make clear what offers were being made on top of the current commitments.  At the end of the
negotiation there was a labour-intensive certification process where the membership looked at all the
draft commitments that had been negotiated bilaterally to be multilateralized.  This was bound to be a
very complex process given the number of WTO members.  Starting this exercise at the present stage,towards the beginning of the negotiations, would help reduce the workload during the process of
verification of commitments at the end of the negotiation.  It might be helpful if the membership
could agree on an approach by March 2003, when the offers were to be tabled, so that an informal
clarification process of the consolidated schedules and proposed commitments could start in advance
of the completion of the negotiations.
12. The representative of Turkey also supported submitting new schedules consolidating all
existing commitments, their improvements, and new commitments resulting from the current
negotiations.  She wondered how the existing procedures for certification of rectifications or
improvements to schedules (S/L/84) related to the procedure for the incorporation of new
commitments in Members' schedules, and requested clarification from the Secretariat.
13. The representative of Switzerland, in a preliminary manner, also favoured a single schedule
consolidating results of the Uruguay Round and the current negotiations.  This was far more
convenient for delegations and any other interested parties.
14. The representative of Mexico said that his delegation was flexible as to the approach to be
adopted, keeping in mind the need to be pragmatic.  There were timetables that should be considered
and inform the debate.  Once the bilateral and multilateral negotiations were concluded, it would be
necessary to consolidate the results in a single document.  That work should be initiated once thenegotiations would be concluded.  A precedent could be found in the GATT process, where a
consolidation of concessions and conversion to a single classification was done over a long period of
time.  It could not be expected that the same be done more rapidly in the services context.  A
discussion regarding the legal status should be conducted to maintain the unity of results in theS/CSC/M/22
Page 4
negotiations.  The consolidation mentioned by Canada was absolutely necessary and Mexico
favoured, like Canada, a pragmatic approach.
15. The representative of Uruguay felt that rather than waiting until March 2003, given the need
to present initial offers by that date, it would seem more appropriate to solve this issue this year.  At
the present stage of the process, there would be more time to discuss.  As a matter of fact, delegationswould need at least three months to prepare offers for which they need to know first the format they
should follow, that was, either a schedule with new commitments only or a schedule including
existing commitments and the new ones offered.  In the hypothetical case that Members decided to
consolidate schedules, he wondered about the legal status of the previous schedules, those from the
Uruguay Round and extended negotiations.  Assuming that there was a consolidated schedule for each
Member, which would be valid from its entry into force, what would happen if a difficulty arose
concerning a commitment that might go back to 1996 or 1997?  What would be the legal status of theprevious schedule, which was in force at that time?  Would its content be taken into account in
resolving the difficulty or would the new schedule prevail?  Even though the consolidated schedules
would be verified to ensure the preservation of existing commitments, some changes might be
overlooked.  Would the old schedule have validity for the period in which it was actually in force? He
requested clarification from the Secretariat on that point.
16. The representative of the European Communities noted that this issue was of great importance
as Members would be preparing requests in less th an twelve months.  The legal implications needed
to be considered.  Whatever a Member had already committed would remain committed, that was
clear to all.  Inadvertent lapses or difficulties in the process should not affect the legal validity of pre-
existing commitments.  However, having multiple valid documents was not the best solution either.Her delegation tended to prefer a single schedule, as it was easier to read for governments and the
private sector alike.  The sooner a solution was found the better.
17. The representative of Brazil said that the issues of incorporating new commitments and
defining the relationship between old and new schedules could, in principle, be taken up regardless of
the question of classification.  They would not need to depend on progress being made onclassification issues per se .  He concurred with others as to the need to try to work on the basis of a
single consolidated schedule from the very beginning of the process.  The delegation of Canada had
indicated a number of good reasons.  In addition, a single schedule for each Member would not only
facilitate market access negotiations per se, but make it easier for delegations to compare the level of
progress that was being achieved overall in the services negotiations.  Consolidating all commitments
from the start was easier and preferable as it would allow to initiate and advance the verification
exercise that had to take place anyway.  Considerin g the number of sectors to deal with, it would seem
unlikely that a proper verification could take place at the end of the process.  By working on the basis
of single schedules, delegations would from the start be dealing with that problem.  Moreover, at the
end of the process each Member would have a single instrument to ratify instead of a number of
schedules.  This could greatly facilitate the domestic process.  As stated by Canada, it was also
important for businesses to have a more understandable instrument.
18. The representative of Poland said that this issue was crucial in the negotiating process.
Members should submit a single schedule consolidating existing commitments and the new ones
resulting from the current negotiations.
19. The representative of Australia felt that the previous speakers had presented very convincing
arguments for the consolidated approach.  She concurred with those that would like to decide on the
approach long before Members started preparing their initial offers so that they could use the format
agreed upon.  There seemed to be an emerging concensus on the consolidated approach.  Perhaps the
Committee could aim at a decision at the next formal meeting to allow enough time for working out
the procedural details.S/CSC/M/22
Page 5
20. The representative of Hungary favoured a single schedule, even if that meant more work, as it
would make it easier for Members and industry to understand the commitments under the GATS.  The
legal questions should be discussed.  He also felt that the issue should be sorted out well before the
tabling of initial offers.
21. The representative of Indonesia  supported the idea of having a single consolidated schedule
and felt that the question raised by Uruguay on the legal status of previous schedules should be
clarified.  Another point to bear in mind was the historical perspective of previous negotiations, as the
drafting history was important in interpreting th e meaning of a commitment.  The need to avoid
confusion in the domestic ratification process in Parliaments was also a concern.  Delegations should
distinguish between information and publication needs and legal considerations.  It was up to
Members to set up a mechanism to make schedules more understandable.
22. The representative of Hong Kong, China  agreed that a consolidated schedule was easier to
read and more transparent to traders and governments.  To facilitate the formulation of offers, an early
decision would be desirable.  As to the actual  discussion of how to prepare the consolidation of
commitments, the overall objective should be to incorporate new commitments without undermining
the legal certainty of existing ones, while ensuring the clarity of the schedules.  To that end,
delegations should consider a mechanism to help Members to compare consolidated with existingschedules.  One idea would be that from the start of the process a draft consolidated schedule,
comprising old and new commitments, be presented by each Member together with a supplementary
list indicating the differences with the existing schedule.  That list would indicate the new
commitments on top of existing ones and any technical modifications intended.  Such a step should
not add too much of a burden, as such a list of new commitments would have to be prepared in thecourse of the negotiations to summarize offers.  The supplementary list would assist Members in
verifying in a more systematic manner the accuracy of the draft consolidated schedule and ensuring
that existing commitments would not be undermined in the process of consolidation.
23. The representative of India said that his delegation did not have a position at that stage.  He
felt that some technical and legal points had to be clarified.  One related to the fact that the Uruguay
Round commitments had been made on the basis of previous scheduling guidelines
(MTN.GNS/W/164 and Add.1) while new commitments would be based on the new scheduling
guidelines (S/L/92 of March 2001).  The comparability of the old and new schedules needed to be
properly understood when examining the options.  As to the idea of replacing the old schedules with
new ones, as had been done for the extended services negotiations, he noted that the Uruguay Round
schedules and those from the extended negotiations had been based on the same set of guidelines.
Delegations needed to understand how to compare the old schedules and the new one.  Anexplanations of available options would help to decide on the best solution.
24. The representative of Barbados also supported the consolidation of all commitments in a
single schedule, which was more useful for governments and the business community.  Like others,
she favoured a prompt decision on this matter.  The representatives of Colombia and Argentina
concurred.  As suggested by Australia, a decision to consolidate could be taken at the next meeting so
that the technical aspects could be addressed.  The representative of Argentina noted that some
relevant technical aspects had already been mentioned.  They included the relationship between oldand new schedules; how to prepare the consolidated schedules, including whether the Secretariat
could assist in that process;  the comparability of old and new commitments; whether technical
changes to existing commitments consistent with the new guidelines could be introduced and howthese could be distinguished from new commitmen ts; and how to deal with any changes in the
classification, that might be agreed.
25. The representative of Korea felt that the matter could be better discussed once classification
issues were more advanced.  However, his delegation was flexible on the timing of the discussion andS/CSC/M/22
Page 6
would support a decision before March 2003.  In deciding the options, delegations should focus on
comparability and user-friendliness of schedules.
26. The representative of Japan said that his delegation was still examining the issue and
remained open.  The matter should be discussed immediately to assess the benefit and drawbacks of
both approaches.  The use of addenda might provide negotiators with a clearer sense of progress orlack of it; on the other hand, a consolidated approach after the current negotiation was more user-
friendly.
27. The representative of the United States acknowledged the merits of a single consolidated
schedule, but his delegation needed more time to develop its position on that matter.  A decision by
May might be too ambitious.  In his view, not very convincing arguments had been put forward in
favour of an early decision.  Confusion might arise if delegations were to submit initial offers on the
basis of a single consolidated schedule without identifying where particular changes andimprovements had been made in that offer over the  existing schedule.  In any case, his delegation
preferred an approach that would allow Members to identify where changes  were being made.  A
simple consolidated schedule as an initial offer would not be informative unless delegations identified
changes over the Uruguay Round schedules.  He in vited more views on why it would be desirable to
decide on this point as quickly as possible.
28. The representative of Brazil stressed the need to be pragmatic and realistic.  The GATS and
the schedules were already confusing enough and delegations should aim to avoid any unnecessary
complications.  It had been suggested to work on the basis of supplements or addenda, indicating
changes, which at the end of the process should be merged to a single schedule.  His delegation
envisioned a simple approach from day-one.  Work should proceed on the basis of existingcommitments compiled in a single schedule, where the initial offer of each Member would be added
on in a transparent manner.  For instance, where a Member had received requests to abolish an
"economic needs test" and was prepared to accede, that Member would most probably put a strike-out
on the test and add in bold letters "none".  That would clearly show the improvement introduced to
existing commitments, which would be part of its offer.  Most Members had a number of schedules,namely, the original one and subsequent supplements that replaced or added to previous schedules.  In
light of that, there might be merits in merging or consolidating existing documents before making the
initial offer, to facilitate comparison.  The idea was to make the negotiating process more manageable.
It was unrealistic to expect that all delegations, particularly the smaller ones, would have large teams
handling different sectors.  Brazil did not, for example, have the necessary human resources to handle
fragmented schedules being negotiated simultaneously.
29. The representative of  Australia supported the suggestions by Argentina and Brazil on how to
indicate changes in a consolidated schedule, which seemed the most transparent way to proceed in the
submission of initial offers.  Multiple schedules or addenda would be a much more difficult to handle,
than a simple consolidated schedule with strike-outs and bolds indicating changes.  She had not heard
any compelling argument to the contrary and failed to see why it should be difficult to come to a
decision by June.
30. The representative of the European Communities shared the views expressed by Argentina,
Brazil and Australia.  In addition to "strike-out" and "bold", it was possible to use "italics" to explain
technical changes within the body of the text and avoid recourse to other documents.  Elements that
were new in the scheduling guidelines could be taken into account.  For instance, a delegation could
indicate in Article XX:2 cases, whether a restriction applied to both market access and nationaltreatment, and state that such indication was in line with the new recommendations in the scheduling
guidelines.  If, for instance, a change in classifi cation was agreed that involved moving an existing
commitment from one area to another area of the schedule, that could also be indicated in both
locations.  If terminology was being harmonized, again an explanation could be given.  The moreS/CSC/M/22
Page 7
information could be provided in one single document, the better.  Brazil had suggested the possibility
of merging existing elements of schedules before the offer process.  In one sense that seemed useful,
but could take time to prepare.  It might be just as simple to move on to the new offers.
31. The representative of the United States said that very good arguments for creating a
consolidated single schedule at the very end of the negotiations had been put forward.  However, that
had not been the case for reaching a decision prior to the submission of initial offers.  In looking at
this question, it was important to keep in mind the desired final outcome and the techniques used to
aid the negotiating process.  He said the US might not have developed a definitive position on the
issue by June.  Regarding the application of the new scheduling guidelines, he would not anticipate
that they would seriously complicate the comparis on of new with old commitments, but perhaps this
was a question that needed to be examined as well.
32. The representative of Uruguay noted that it was premature to focus on details of a possible
approach.  In order to organize the debate, he suggested to keep this item on the agenda of the
Committee and work towards a solution as soon as possible.  A note could be requested from the
Secretariat, exploring the options already mentioned, identifying the issues to  be considered in the
services context, and attempting to respond to some of the questions raised in today's discussion.
33. The Chairperson observed that there seemed to be two elements in the discussion, which
should be considered separately:  first, the envisaged final outcome and, second, the appropriate
process.
34. The representative of Canada recalled that Members and the Secretariat had worked very hard
to create the electronic versions of the schedules, which were already consolidated.  He wondered to
what extent that work could be used as a tool to help Members to move forward in the currentprocess.
35. In addressing the question posed concerning the relationship between S/L/84 and the
incorporation of new commitments into Members schedules, a representative of the Secretariat said
that normally there would be no such relationship.  He explained that normally at the end of thenegotiations a protocol to the GATS would be established to which all new schedules would beannexed.
1  That would obviate the need for any certification procedure (S/L/84), which would
normally take place in individual cases only.  As to the relationship between old schedules and new
ones, it was necessary that Members decided how to integrate the new commitments into their
schedules; such a decision could be made at the end of the negotiations but preferably prior to that.
The relationship between old and new schedules was entirely up to Members to define, as there was
no legal requirement that mandated a particular relationship.  In previous cases, for instance, in
financial services and basic telecommunications, different approaches were followed.  In the case offinancial services, Members had decided and stated in the first paragraph of the relevant protocols that
the new schedules of commitments and MFN exemptions lists annexed to the protocol on financial
services would "replace" the sections on financial services of pre-existing schedules and MFN
exemption lists.  That meant that the old sections on financial services of those schedules would cease
to exist, as they were replaced by the new financial services sections.  Those Members that had notannexed any commitments to the financial services protocols would continue to be bound by their old
schedules.  In the case of basic telecommunications, however, Members had taken a slightly different
approach.  The first paragraph of the Fourth Protocol stated that the new schedules and MFN
exemptions lists annexed to that protocol would "either supplement or modify" pre-existing
commitments on telecommunications.  Whether the new ones supplemented or modified the old onesdepended on the terms specified in each of the schedules and lists annexed to the protocol.
                                                     
1 With the entry info force of the Protocol annexed schedules would become integral parts of the
GATS.S/CSC/M/22
Page 8
36. In the case of the present round of negotiations, Members would need to agree on how to
proceed.  If Members wished to have new consolidated schedules that would replace the old ones,
with the implication that the latter would cease to exist legally, or any other arrangement, that would
have to be stated clearly in the final Protocol.  One might caution with respect to future problems of
interpretation in the case of a process of accretion of schedules, where old commitments were subjectto modification.  Such difficulty had been foreseen in the area of goods at the end of the Uruguay
Round.  For example, in the Marrakesh Protocol, under the GATT 1994, paragraph 7 provided for
specific situations where a schedule annexed to it had tariff concessions that provided less favourable
treatment than what had existed before.  For the specific countries indicated therein, it provided that
those countries would be deemed to have taken action under Article XXVIII of GATT, which is
equivalent to GATS Article XXI.  In other words, the future protocol could provide for any scenarios
that Members would wish to address as long as they agree on it.
37. At that stage, he added, the focus should be first on defining how Members wanted to
proceed.   An advantage of having an early decisi on would be on the technical side of verifying the
changes that would be made as the negotiations proceed.  Starting early on with the submission of
offers would allow the process of bilateral negotiations to provide continuing occasions for technical
clarification.  Normally, at the end of the negotiations, there would be a technical verificationexercise, involving a meeting of the Council in form al mode for a few days.  At that meeting, each
schedule would be taken up to provide an opportunity for any Member who wished to comment on
the technical aspects of the schedule.  That would be done after the conclusion of the substantive
negotiations.  The representative of Canada had mentioned the consolidated electronic version of
schedules, which were created for the establishment of a database of services commitments andconcluded at the end of 2000.  In that process, the original schedule and supplements of each Member
had been consolidated by the Secretariat and verified by individual delegations.  Thus, Members'
consolidated schedules, which had no legal value, existed in a format suitable for the database.  For
more information on the latter point see S/CSC/W/22.  Those consolidated schedules, although not yet
in WORD format, could be used as a starting-point . Those were only technical tools that could be
used but would not obviate the need for a decision by Members on the relationship between old and
new schedules to avoid problems of interpretation in the future.
38. The representative of Venezuela said that it was clear that such a decision had to be taken by
Members.  She supported the proposal made by Uruguay.  It was extremely important to ensure that
the process would not be burdensome but pragmatic and user-friendly.  Should the process be too
complicated, delegations might tend to go for the first option, i.e. further addenda to existing
schedules, which did not seem to be the preferred choice.  Depending on the approach adopted,delegations might need technical assistance from the Secretariat throughout the whole process of
preparing the schedules.
39. The Chairperson observed that Members had emphasized the need to adopt a pragmatic
approach and to ensure that the current commitments would not be undermined.  Two themes seemed
to have emerged in the discussions:  first, what Members wanted as a final outcome, i.e. aconsolidated schedules or further addenda to existing ones, and second, the procedure to follow.  As
to the outcome, the majority seemed to favour a single consolidated schedule, but some delegations
needed more time for reflection on the pros and cons of each option, bearing in mind that the issue
should be resolved as soon as possible.  On procedures, two approaches had been suggested.  The first
was to initiate the process with a consolidated schedule which would show clearly, using bold, strike-out and italics, the offer being made on top of existing commitments.  Thus, the changes to existing
commitments and relevant explanations would be reflected in a single document that delegations
could discuss from the very beginning.  It would also be possible, as a variant, to present a
consolidated schedule containing the new offer and separately submit a list summarizing the new
commitments and any technical change deriving from the consolidation.  The second approachconsisted of presenting the initial offer of commitments, which would be some sort of addendum toS/CSC/M/22
Page 9
existing schedules and, thus, not consolidate existing commitments, negotiate on the basis of that offer
and proceed to consolidate once the negotiations would be concluded.  Depending on the approach
decided, technical assistance from the Secretariat would be required throughout the process.
40. She also noted that a suggestion had been made, without objection,  to request a note from the
Secretariat identifying options, issues to consider, and addressing the questions raised duringdiscussions.  She proposed that the Committee would take note of the statements made and revert to
this issue at the following meeting.
2. Approaches to the scheduling of additional commitments under Article XVIII of the
GATS
41. The Chairperson recalled that the topic had been suggested by the representative of
Hong Kong, China.  As explained in the last informal meeting, the purpose of the discussion of this
topic would be to enhance delegations' understanding of how additional commitments had been andcould be described in schedules.  She invited the proponent delegation to introduce the issue.
42. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that the item had been proposed with the idea of
exploring the different approaches by which additional commitments could be sought and inscribed.
Such approaches would need to be compared with  other instruments potentially available under the
GATS, e.g. disciplines and mandates under Articles VI:4, VII, X, XIII, and XV.  For instance, thereference paper on telecommunications covered a wide range of issues other than market access and
national treatment, including certain areas which were also covered by Article VI:4.  Many
negotiating proposals on the table included aspects other than market access and national treatment,
which might eventually lead, through the request and offer process, to additional commitments.
Better awareness of those issues, and possible opti ons, would help Members in understanding requests
and formulating offers.  It was not his delegations' intention to discuss the substance of the existing
negotiating proposals for additional commitments.  The discussion proposed was intended to be an
"educational process" not leading to any conclusion.  It remained entirely up to Members to decide on
how to formulate their requests and offers or to develop disciplines and rules.  The item had been
proposed with the understanding that it would be discussed with due regard to the workload andcapacity of the Committee.  Hong Kong's proposal consisted of three possible elements: first, a stock-
take of the formulations by which additional commitments were currently inscribed in the schedules;
second, a summary of the history of the reference paper, including how it had been formulated, the
aspects it covered and how it was different from available instruments under GATS (e.g. in terms of
legal status, uniformity of application, universality, and depth of commitments); and third, a recap of
proposals for scheduling additional commitments that might have been suggested in previous rounds
of negotiations, if any.  In that regard, the Secretariat could prepare a brief background note.Members could add to the discussion possible approaches in their negotiating proposals and could
share their views on when and where they envisaged additional commitments or how these related to
the on-going work in other areas.
43. The representative of Venezuela noted it would be helpful if Hong Kong, China submitted its
proposal in writing at some later stage.
44. The representative of the United States felt that in general the proposal by Hong Kong, China
could be useful.  His only hesitation was in relation to the third point, because the thinking behind
existing negotiating proposals regarding additional commitments might have evolved since they had
been made.
45. The representative of the European Communitie s said that a discussion of approaches to
additional commitments could stimulate discussion about existing proposals and about new
possibilities not thought of yet.  In turn, this could enhance the understanding of the full scope of whatS/CSC/M/22
Page 10
additional commitments could comprise.  It was true that Article XVIII was very broad, thus the more
ideas delegations had on the table, the more they could benefit.
46. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that he would make his statement available as
soon as possible.  The note he had proposed would only cover existing additional commitments and
any approaches that had been suggested in previous negotiations, thus it was not to cover currentnegotiating proposals.  He had mentioned a recap of current proposals as something that delegations
could bring up themselves in discussions.  Delegations could usefully share their ideas on additional
commitments, how these had evolved and might affect the eventual formulation of offers.
47. The representative of the United States appreciated the clarification and felt that a note
looking at the past would be very useful and educational, in terms of how delegations could approach
issues associated with additional commitments in the current negotiations, and how the thinking might
evolve during the course of these negotiations.  The representative of Mexico suggested that the note
concerning additional commitments could include background information on drafting of Article
XVIII of GATS, if possible.
48. The Chairperson noted that delegations felt that discussion of this issue could be very
educational.  The Secretariat would prepare a brief note giving information on approaches suggested
and followed in the past regarding additional commitments.  She said that the Committee would takenote of the comments made and would revert to this item at the following meeting.
C. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
49. The Chairperson proposed that, in accordance with the practice of grouping meetings of
subsidiary bodies close to meetings of the Council, the next meeting be held during the week just
before the next formal meetings of the Council for Trade in Services and its Special Session.
50. The Committee so agreed.
D. OTHER BUSINESS
51. No points were raised under other business.
E. APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON
52. The Chairperson observed that according to the Rules of Procedures, the Committee should
elect its Chairperson at the first meeting of the year, effective at the end of that meeting.  However,
given that the consultations on that matter had not yet been concluded, she proposed that the formal
election of the Committee's Chair for the year 2002 and the hand-over take place at the beginning of
the following meeting.
53. The Committee so agreed.
__________