RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/IT/M/24
20 December 2000
(00-5538)
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of
Trade in Information Technology Products
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 22 NOVEMBER 2000
Chairperson: Ms. Elizabeth Chelliah (Singapore)
Agenda of the Meeting  Page
1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.16)...........................................................1
2. Consultations on No n-tariff Mea sures ................................................................................2
3. Divergences in Classifying Informatio n Technology Products (G/IT/14, G/IT/5/Rev.1,
G/IT/5/Rev.1/Add.1) ............................................................................................................ .3
4. New Participants............................................................................................................. ......4
5. Annual Report of the Committee (G/IT/W/5) ....................................................................4
6. Other Business............................................................................................................... ........6
Introduction
The Chairwoman stated that the proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in
WTO/AIR/1439 on 9 November 2000.  She noted that with respect to the translation of documents, not
all of the documents were available in the French and Spanish languages today, due to the large workloadin the translation division.  This matter concerned documents G/IT/14, G/IT/5/Rev.1, and
G/IT/5/Rev.1/Add.1; all of which would be taken up under agenda item 2.C.  She asked if there were
any other matters to be raised under "Other Business".  Hearing no requests, she stated she would take
up the "review of product coverage" and the date of the next meeting of the Committee under this
agenda item.  The agenda was adopted.
1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.16)
1.1 The Chairwoman pointed out that an overview of the implementation of the Ministerial
Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products was contained in G/IT/1/Rev.16.  She noted
that at recent meetings a number of implementation issues were raised, both in respect of the WTO
procedures and with respect to domestic implementation matters.
1.2 The delegate of the Slovenia provided the Committee with updated information on paragraph 4
of G/IT/1/Rev.16.  He informed the Committee that Slovenia would implement the Agreement as of 1
January 2001, as had been noted previously.  The formal letter of acceptance and the formal
documentation for rectification and modification of Slovenia's schedule would be submitted next week.
1.3 The delegate of the United States noted his delegation's continued concern with respect to
implementation matters raised previously with respect to Panama, Poland, and Thailand.  He asked if
these delegations could give updated information on the status.G/IT/M/24
Page 2
1.4 The delegate of Thailand stated that his delegation had taken note of the concerns raised by the
United States and the European Communities at the previous meeting.  He had conveyed the information
to his capital, and so far he had no new information from his authorities.  However, they were continuing
to work on the issue, and hoped to solve the matter in an amicable way.
1.5 The delegate of the Philippines asked about the number of participants to the Agreement,
especially as concerned those delegations listed in paragraph 2 on the second page of the document.  She
wondered if they should be considered participants and thus should be reflected in paragraph 1 of the
document.
1.6 The Chairwoman confirmed that those countries listed in paragraph 2 were indeed participants,
and the reason that they appeared in two paragraphs was that countries followed different procedures for
incorporating the ITA commitments in their schedules.  This would be clarified in future revisions of the
document.  The Committee took note of the statements made.
2. Consultations on Non-tariff Measures
2.1 The Chairwoman stated that intense discussions had been held during the month of October in
order to finalize a non-tariff measures' work pr ogramme.  At the meeting of 26 October 2000, the
Committee approved the draft work programme on an ad referendum  basis, subject to further
consultations with capitals by 10 November 2000.  As was agreed, after hearing no comments by this
date, the work progamme was deemed approved and issued as a formal document.  A copy of the
work programme, G/IT/19, was circulated with the documentation for today's meeting.
Therefore, she believed the Committee was in a position to move forward and work on the
first phase of the work programme.  She recalle d from the document, "By no later than March 2001,
the Committee would compile an inventory of NTMs which had been identified by Committee
participants in their submissions as impediments to trade in IT A products.  The submissions should
include specific details of the trade distorting impact of the NTMs identified."  She proposed that theCommittee move ahead with this first phase, as the deadline of March 2001 was not too far away.
2.2 The delegate of Australia thanked the participants for the adoption of this decision.  This was an
important step forward for the Committee to meet its mandate.  His delegation agreed that March 2001
was not too far away, and he encouraged delegations to submit information in a timely manner.  He also
noted the WTO press release (Press/198), which cast the work of the Committee in this area in a positive
and favourable light.  He believed that in order for the exercise to be worthwhile, Members should giveconsideration to a standard format which would make analysis and comparability easier when analyzing
Phase I.
2.3 The delegate of the European Communities agreed with Australia that having some commonality
in the notifications sent to the Committee for the inventory would be advantageous for compilation and
analysis.  She did not have any specific suggestions for the format, and did not want a detailed
questionnaire.  She pointed out that it might be useful to have a 'best endeavours' date by the end of
February to allow the Secretariat to compile the information by March.  It could be useful to specify the
particular measure on a country level, while avoiding finger-pointing.  It was important to identify the
issues.
2.4 The delegate of Switzerland thanked Australia for their efforts in helping the Committee adopt
the decision on the NTM work programme.  It was important to receive timely information from as many
delegations as possible.  He supported the idea of having a standard format for submissions, with the
understanding that the format should be broad enough to cover all concerns.
2.5 The delegate of Malaysia stated that the idea of having some type of common format for
submissions merited further consideration.  Whether it be import licenses, standards and conformance,
etc, it was not acceptable to just say the problem was 'import licenses' for example.  It was important to beG/IT/M/24
Page 3
specific in order to identify the problem.  However, he noted it would not be prudent to have more
informal meetings just to agree on a format, as it was important to go forward with the work programme
without delay.  Perhaps a standard format was not needed, but certain guidelines from the Chair or
Secretariat on this matter would be useful.
2.6 The delegate of the United States stated that the idea of an agreed-upon common format would
be a good idea in order to help analyse the results.  He noted the need for a deadline for the notifications,
and it was important to allow Members to consult with capitals on what was reasonable so that they
would be in a position to submit on time the required information.
2.7 The delegate of India supported the statement of Australia that a common format would be useful
and her delegation wanted the format to be as broad as possible so that all NTMs could be covered.  Her
delegation also agreed with the United States, that it was important to give capitals enough time to come
back with the information so that the end-product was a meaningful one.
2.8 The delegate of the Czech Republic stated that his delegation agreed with the previous speakers
on this matter.  He noted that the Committee might run out of time, and therefore acknowledged the
merits of the proposal by Malaysia that the Chair draft guidelines for submissions.  He noted that there
may be a need for an informal meeting to further discuss the format and how to distribute the
submissions.
2.9 The delegate of Norway thanked Australia and the Chair for getting the NTM work programme
adopted.  His delegation supported the idea of a common format, or other ideas that would allow the
Committee to have precise information in a timely manner.
2.10 The Chairwoman proposed that 'guidelines' for submissions would be circulated by the Chair and
the Secretariat within the next two weeks, and only if necessary, would an informal meeting be held.  She
noted that the next formal meeting of the Committee was scheduled for 15 February 2001 and that the
deadline for the inventory was March 2001 in the work programme.  Therefore, she suggested that
submissions be made by the next formal meeting, 15 February 2001, so that the Committee could see
what the status was by that date.  It was pointed out that 15 February was a target date and not an end date
for submissions, as the deadline in the Work Programme was March 2001.  It was so agreed, and the
Committee took note of the statements made.
3. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/14, G/IT/5/Rev.1,
G/IT/5/Rev.1/Add.1)
3.1 The Chairwoman recalled that the Committee had proceeded with its work on this agenda item
and a further meeting of the customs was scheduled for 7-8 December 2000.  She took this opportunity to
encourage all participants to participate in this meeting, as the issue of how to go forward with theclassification issues would need to be taken up formally in the Committee, probably at its next meeting in
February.
As it was envisaged right now, the first day, 7 December, would provide an opportunity for
customs experts to finalize any outstanding issues.  The second day, 8 December, would provide a forum
for experts and non-customs experts alike, to clarify any questions or issues.  The basis for this discussionand work was in document G/IT/14.  She encouraged all to attend, both experts and non-experts alike.
Furthermore, she recalled that in document G/IT/14, the customs experts, at their last meeting
asked "that the report be taken up in detail at the next formal meeting with a view to having all
participants endorse the classifications indicated as probable, while agreeing that the bracketed items
were inappropriate."  Thus, she hoped the Committee was moving toward an eventual outcome on thisvery important matter.  Also, she encouraged delegations to provide any written comments they had on
G/IT/14 to the Secretariat for circulation in advance of this meeting so that work could proceed.G/IT/M/24
Page 4
 Finally, she noted that the Committee had received the updated information from the WCO as
concerned the classification of IT procucts, which was contained in documents G/IT/5/Rev.1 and
G/IT/5/Rev.1/Add.1, which would also aid the Committee in this work.
3.2 The delegate of the Philippines noted the report of the customs experts, and stated that it would
be useful to have confirmation from delegations that those HS classifications listed in brackets could be
deleted.  Therefore, delegations that were not present in the meeting should concentrate on those HS
numbers and inform the customs experts as to whether they could agree to this assessment or not.  This
would also aid the work in the capitals.  She noted that it was not the intention of the customs experts to
come up with one HS number, but to see where most of these items could be grouped into two or three
classifications.  This would be a useful way forward on this matter.
3.3 The Committee took note of the statement made.
4. New Participants
4.1 The Chairwoman noted that there had been one new schedule, that of Oman, submitted to the
Committee for consideration.  The schedule was circulated to all participants on 3 November 2000.  The
Secretariat had performed the electronic verification of the schedule which had shown that there were no
discrepancies.  This had also been circulated along with the schedule.  She furthermore pointed out, that
in its communication, Oman asked that its schedule be considered by the Committee.  She believed that
the Committee was now in a position to take up the schedule of Oman for approval.
4.2 The delegate of Oman stated that she was pleased to present the schedule of Oman to the
Committee today.  The Sultanate of Oman acceded to the WTO on 9 November 2000, and during the
accession process had decided to join the Information Technology Agreement and to accept fully the
disciplines of the Agreement.  Oman recognized  the importance of information technology in the
development and growth of the world economy, and especially in the development of developingcountries.  Information technology products were vital inputs in the manufacturing and services
industries, and enhanced the efficiency of economic operations.  Free trade in information technology
products, would not only boost trade in these product s but would also serve to enhance the growth of
international trade in general.  Oman was happy to participate in the work of this Committee and
looked forward to working with participants for the smooth implementation of the ITA, and to ensure
that the interest of developing countries were kept in view so that they could derive benefits from the
Agreement.
4.3 The Committee approved the schedule of Oman, and welcomed them as the fifty-fifth participant
of the Committee.
5. Annual Report of the Committee (G/IT/W/5)
5.1 The Chairwoman reminded delegations that the Committee reported annually to the Council for
Trade in Goods.  The draft report for this year had been circulated in document G/IT/W/5. This report
was a factual summary of the work undertaken in the Committee during the year and it might need to be
updated in light of the outcome of today's discussions in the Committee.
5.2 The delegate of Australia stated that is was important that the decision relating to NTM Work
Programme be reflected in the report.
5.3 The delegate of Norway stated that the report was in line with what had happened in the
Committee, however it did not contain information on the review of product coverage.  He noted that
there were consultations held this year, and that this should be mentioned in the report.  His delegation
had formulated some language to be inserted, although it was not too important where it was inserted.G/IT/M/24
Page 5
The text proposed was: "Consultations on the review of product coverage continued.  The Chairperson
regularly updated the Committee on this matter and she encouraged delegations to continue their efforts."
5.4 The delegate of the Philippines suggested that the number of participants to this Agreement be
highlighted in the first paragraph so that readers would know that there was growing membership in the
Committee, and this might encourage others to join.
5.5 The delegate of India stated that with respect to paragraph 4, she wondered whether it would be
better to say "regularly" instead of "consistently" in the second sentence.  In relation to the last two
sentences in this paragraph, she suggested to use "participants" instead of "countries" as that was the
terminology used in this Committee.  In response to Norway's suggestion concerning the addition of a
paragraph about some delegations consulting among themselves and the Chair consulting on an ad hocbasis on review of product coverage, she noted the protracted discussion that took place on this issue
while discussing the NTM work programme.  She did not believe that the sensitivities of this issue had
changed and suggested using the same language which was agreed in the NTM work programme, which
would read as follows:  "The Chairperson regularly informed the Committee that participants were
consulting among themselves on review of product coverage".
5.6 The Chairwoman confirmed that the changes to paragraph 4, as proposed by India, would be
incorporated.5.7 The delegate of Norway stated he would have to review the proposed language of India more
closely.  He did not see why the language his delegation proposed would have sensitivities as it was
factual.  Thus, he preferred his original language.
5.8 The delegate of India stated that she was surprised that the language recently agreed to was now
not acceptable.  She noted that the first part of  the proposed sentence was not factually correct, as the
Committee did not hold consultations.
5.9 The delegate of Norway stated that the discussions on the NTM work programme was a separate
issue.5.10 The delegate of the Czech Republic pointed out that some delegations, like his, were not
consulted in this process, neither by delegations nor by the Chair.  Thus, the phrase "consultations…
continued" was not correct, as not all delegations were consulted.
5.11 The delegate of Canada suggested that the first phrase by Norway be amended to say
"Consultations amongst various participants…".  The rest of the sentence could remain, as it was
factually correct.
5.12 The delegate of Australia suggested that the Committee stick to just the facts, so that the
Committee would not discuss the sensitivities of the issue which were already well known.5.13 The delegate of Norway stated he might be able to go along with the wording suggested by
Canada on an ad referendum  basis.
5.14 The delegate of India stated that the Canadian proposal, in order to maintain consistency between
the two sentences, would need to read: "Consultations amongst various participants on review of product
coverage continued.  The Chairperson regularly updated the Committee on this matter, and encouragedthese delegations to continue consultations."
5.15 The Chairperson stated that the phrase she had in mind would be "encouraged delegations to
continue their efforts", and that she didn't say whether they were the delegations already involved or newG/IT/M/24
Page 6
ones.    Thus, if the Indian proposal would be taken up, it would imply only those delegations that were
consulting continued to consult, and would preclude new ones from consulting.  Thus, it was not factual.
5.16 The delegates of Canada and the Czech Republic  supported the Chairwoman's wording, in that
the second sentence should remain unchanged.5.17 The delegate of India stated that she could approve the text on an ad referendum  basis if the last
part read:  "and encouraged delegations to continue consultations".
5.18 The delegate of Norway preferred "efforts" and not "consultations" in the last phrase.
5.19 The Chairwoman proposed that the paragraph would read: "Consultations amongst various
participants on the review of product coverage continued.  The chairperson regularly updated the
Committee on this matter and encouraged delegations to continue consultations."  She proposed that this
be approved on an ad referendum  basis, and delegations had until the close of business 24 November to
consult and report back any problems.  It was so agreed.
6. Other Business
6.1 The Chairwoman stated that the issue of the review of product coverage continued to be under
consultation, and she encouraged delegations to continue their efforts.
6.2 The delegate of India stated that so long as those efforts were in relation to continuing
consultations, she could agree.6.3 Furthermore, the Chairwoman proposed that the Committee's next regular meeting be held on
15 February 2001, subject to confirmation.  It was so agreed.
__________