RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/C/M/39
15 October 1999
(99-4456)
Council for Trade in Services
REPORT OF THE MEETING HE LD ON 21 SEPTEMBER 1999
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 21 September 1999.  The agenda for the
meeting is contained in document WTO/AIR/1163.
2. Under Other Business, the representative of Australia presented a paper by her delegation and
the delegation of Chile on "Horizontal Formulas and Negotiating Models".
3. The Chairman proposed that the Council adopt the agenda as circulated with the addition of
the item raised under other business by the delegation of Australia.
4. The Council so agreed.
A. ASSESSMENT OF TRADE
5. The Chairman recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Council had welcomed a presentation
by UNCTAD and a paper dated 16 July 1999, entitled "Assessment of Trade in Services of
Developing Countries:  Possible Contribution by UNCTAD".  As the paper had been submittedshortly before the July meeting, several delegations had made only preliminary comments and had
indicated that they needed more time to study the document to be able to discuss in more detail.  He
opened the floor for further discussion.
6. The representative of the Republic of Korea observed that liberalization of trade in services
was meaningless without the participation of developing countries.  To strengthen developing
countries' participation in the multilateral trading system and to encourage capacity building,
liberalization had to be closely tied with foreign investment.  All countries had shown an interest ininvestment inducement policies and in incentive mechanisms to attract foreign investment.  Making
the GATS investment-friendly was a good way of enhancing developing countries' trade in services.
7. The representative of Norway noted that the paper by UNCTAD was of interest to developed
and developing countries alike as a good basis to make their own assessment of trade.  She welcomed
further comments from developing countries on how the UNCTAD contribution could fit with theirview of the assessment.  She informed delegations that a Norwegian research institute, in
collaboration with other institutions, had prepared a paper on the role of services in promoting
economic development, and that it would be presented to the Council.
8. The representative of the European Communities agreed that additional concrete proposals on
the assessment and further reactions to the UNCTAD paper from developing countries would be
useful.  The European Communities were also preparing a paper, which they would table at a future
meeting.  By way of general comment, he observed that the UNCTAD paper offered a good broad
perspective, which was not limited to developing countries.  Some of the core issues in the paper had
been already identified in previous discussions, such as the interdependence between the modes ofS/C/M/39
Page 2
supply, possible ways of improving commitments on mode 4, the growing importance of long-
distance services exports and the need for commitments to support this trend and the need for pro-
competitive disciplines.  Such issues were not spec ific to developing countries;  the problems they
encountered might be more acute and the barriers they faced might have more serious consequences,
but it was just a question of degrees.  Developing countries' participation in services trade needed to
be increased; the supply constraints they faced and their access to technology, and in particular toinformation technology, were key in this respect.  It was therefore important to look at capacity
building and at technical assistance.
9. The representative of Cuba said that her delegation needed more time to present detailed
comments on the paper by UNCTAD and on any others which may be presented to the Council.  She
asked that additional time be devoted to the assessment.
10. On behalf of ASEAN Members, the representative of Indonesia said that he would provide
further comments on the UNCTAD paper at a later stage.  Speaking on behalf of his own delegation
only, he observed that the paper was a good basis to carry out Members' own assessment.
Responding to the European Communities, he said that of greatest importance to developing countries
was the fact that the asymmetry in infrastructure and capacity which existed before the GATS
inception persisted still.  He noted that no positive relationship could be established between GATS
commitments and foreign investment.  The objective of the assessment was for the Council to identifywhere expected benefits had not materialized and how to facilitate their achievement in the next round
of negotiations.
11. The representative of the United States concurred that further comments from developing
countries on the UNCTAD paper and on how it related to the assessment would be useful.  He said
that the paper contributed to the assessment:  it identified to some extent developing countries'services export interests, it noted the importance of transparency of regulation, the interdependence
between the modes of supply, and, stressing that economic needs tests could be major hurdles to
services exports identified an area for joint work by WTO Members to reduce their trade
restrictiveness.
12. The representative of Japan noted that services trade reinforced economic efficiency in both
developed and developing countries.  He stressed the importance of the Internet and referred to the
proposal on electronic commerce submitted by his delegation to the General Council.
13. The representative of Brazil said that his delegation was preparing more substantial comments
on the UNCTAD paper.  His delegation's assessment of the foreign investment situation in Brazil had
revealed that, even though it had not been possible to establish a clear link with the inception of the
GATS, a positive investment flow had been recorded since 1995, 60 per cent of which was
attributable to services;  this had resulted in job creation and economic development.
14. By way of preliminary comment, the representative of Guatemala said that developing
countries encountered difficulties in participating in services trade, and that the issue of how to
increase their access to markets in sectors where they had a comparative advantage had to be taken up
during the next round of negotiations.
15. The representative of India agreed with the views expressed by Indonesia.  He said that the
assessment should be an on-going process.  He observed that the paper by UNCTAD pointed out the
serious difficulties encountered by developing countries in participating in services trade, and that
some of the problems identifies were specific to developing countries, such as the lack of
commercially meaningful commitments on mode 4.  The market access barriers listed in the paper
were critical, and it was now for the Services Council to deal with them beyond taking note.  Ontechnology transfer, he referred to the proposal co-sponsored by his delegation to the General
Council.  He indicated that the assessment, as prescribed by Article XIX, was not meant only as anS/C/M/39
Page 3
academic exercise of stock-taking, but preceded the drafting of guidelines precisely to ensure that
appropriate steps would be taken for the objectives of Article IV to be met.  The guidelines needed to
address developing countries' concerns identified in the assessment, and developed countries needed
to increase their commitments in areas of interest to developing countries, and more importantly to
free those commitments of any market access barriers, especially on mode 4.  Taking note of theproblems identified was not in itself sufficient.
16. The representative of the Dominican Republic agreed that the UNCTAD paper should move
the Services Council along and that the assessment should be an on-going exercise, to take note of the
barriers identified.  He drew attention in particular to the importance of services trade taking place
through mode 4 and to the issues associated with this mode.  He invited the UNCTAD Secretariat to
continue working on the issue.
17. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that the UNCTAD paper highlighted the
problems faced by developing countries, such as the interdependence between the modes of supply,
where the needs of developed and developing countries were different, and the critical market access
barriers flagged up by India.  He concurred that the assessment should not be a one-off exercise;  the
issues identified should be pursued to make the fu ture assessments more meaningful and to fulfill the
objectives set out in the Preamble to the GATS and in Article IV.  In addition, the guidelines shouldaddress how to take forward the issues identified in the assessment.
18. The representative of Argentina echoed other delegations' comments that the assessment
should be on-going and aimed at achieving greater participation of developing countries.  He said that
all the statements in the UNCTAD paper were valuab le, and stressed in particular the importance of
the barriers listed in paragraph 17, which were sometimes not related just to a particular mode ofsupply but also to the way in which developing countries dealt with services trade.  Barriers could not
be looked at only from the standpoint of access for a particular group of countries.  He noted that the
sectors of interest to developing countries should have also included environmental services, and
expressed an interest in the MAST (Measures Affecting Services Trade) data-base and in identifying
ways of closing the information gap on barriers to services trade for developing countries.
19. The representative of Pakistan expressed appreciation for the work carried out by the
UNCTAD Secretariat.  He said that the assessment should be an on-going process and suggested that
the paper by UNCTAD, which was comprehensive and identified trade barriers and areas of interest
to developing countries, be used as a basis for further discussions;  he concurred that the assessment
be reflected in the guidelines.  He also said that the quantification aspect was important, and one
where developing countries were in serious need of technical assistance.
20. The representative of Mauritius agreed with the point raised in the UNCTAD paper on the
need for urgent action to help developing countries adapt to new market circumstances and exploit
niche opportunities for expansion of services trade.  He also noted that there was no empirical
evidence that foreign direct investment flows to developing countries had increased as a result of the
commitments undertaken under the GATS.
21. The representative of Egypt agreed that the assessment was important, closely related to the
next round of negotiations and should be on-going.   He observed that the UNCTAD paper clearly
stated the market access barriers and the challenges faced by developing countries, and referred to the
anti-competitive impact of increased market concentration.  He said that more contributions from
UNCTAD would be welcome.
22. The representative of Mexico agreed that it was not incidental that Article XIX prescribed
that the assessment precede the drafting of the guidelines.  He concurred that the assessment should beS/C/M/39
Page 4
an ongoing process, so as to take into account any additional information on the barriers faced by
developing countries.  He called for the guidelines to incorporate elements of the assessment.
23. The representative of Malaysia said that his country had recorded deficits in services trade for
decades.  Malaysia was a relatively open market, but these deficits had generated pressures against
further market openings.  In his view, the obse rvations in the UNCTAD paper that the top twenty
services exporters were from developed countries and that there was no evidence of increased FDIflows to developing countries did not bide well for further liberalization.  In addition, the paper
showed that an asymmetry existed between the problems faced by developed and developing
countries.  The paper stated that certain prerequisite conditions were required for liberalization to have
a positive impact;  developed country Members should therefore understand if such conditions were
attached to liberalization commitments.
24. The representative of the Philippines said that the assessment conducted thus far, though very
broad, offered a basis on which developing countries could fix their objectives:  developing countries
had to reach their own conclusions on the assessment, and their initial concerns laid with the sectors
where they had a comparative advantage.  As far as the next round of negotiations was concerned,
developing countries were diffident about negotiating on services, as their confidence was low;
unless this gap was bridged, active participation in the new round would be difficult.  He also stressed
the importance of technical assistance, which should not only be a donor/recipient process, but also asharing of resources and a cooperative commitment.  He asked whether any decisions on the matter
had been taken in the Council for Trade in Serv ices under Article XXV:2.  A representative of the
WTO Secretariat responded that no proposals had been submitted to the Council on the matter, but
that the Secretariat was constantly engaged in technical cooperation missions and that the wider issueof additional possible areas for technical assistance was being considered at the Director-Generallevel.
25. The representative of the United States said that his delegation would consider the proposal
that the assessment be on-going and continue into the negotiations, but noted that the sequence in
Article XIX:3 was for the assessment to precede the drafting of guidelines.  The assessment was to be
carried out with reference to all the objectives of the GATS, and not just to those of Article IV.
26. The representative of the European Communities concurred with the United States'
interpretation of Article XIX:3;  he said that, as it was for WTO Members to carry out their own
assessment, this made it on-going by definition.
27. The representative of the Dominican Republic said that the assessment could not be left to a
subsidiary body and suggested making it a standing item on the agenda of the Council.  He noted the
relevance of the competition-related issues raised in the UNCTAD contribution:  Many markets for
services were dominated by a small number of enterprises from developed countries, concentrationwas increasing, complementary services are "bundled" through strategic alliances, and a number of
competition issues arose also from the manner in which distribution channels and information
networks were structured.  On these grounds , he underscored UNCTAD's recommendation that
measures be taken to discipline anti-competitive behaviour by developing Article IX.  He also noted
the suggestion that pro-competitive principles along the lines of the telecommunications referencepaper be adopted in the tourism and transport sectors.
28. Responding to a request by the representative of Canada on how to obtain UNCTAD
documents, a representative of the UNCTAD Secretariat said that the ones dated up to 1998 would be
available on their web site towards the end of September.  He added that a paper analysing the impact
of economic needs tests would be presented at the meeting of the UNCTAD Trade and Development
Board in October.  He also drew delegations' attention to the MAST database, an inventory of all
measures affecting trade in services, which required, as primary input, information on Members'S/C/M/39
Page 5
legislation.  He reiterated the wish to continue cooperating with the WTO Secretariat on the
assessment.
29. The Chairman expressed the appreciation of the Council for the UNCTAD Secretariat's
contribution to the assessment.  Many delegations had participated in the discussion of this agenda
item, and silence on the part of others did not imply lack of interest;  several delegations had alsoannounced that papers and further comments were in preparation.  He said that the Council would
take note of the statements made and revert to this item at its next meeting.
B. PREPARATION FOR NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XIX OF THE GATS – 
NEGOTIATING GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES
30. The Chairman recalled that, at its last meeting, the Council had pursued a useful discussion of
negotiating guidelines on the basis of various submissions by delegations.  Four new contributions
had been submitted since:  A paper by the United  States, S/C/W/119 dated 5 August 1999, which had
equally been submitted to the General Council as document WT/GC/W/295;  a paper by the
delegations of Indonesia and Singapore, S/C/W/120, which had also been submitted to the General
Council as WT/GC/W/296 dated 5 August 1999;   a paper by Switzerland, S/C/W/123 dated
17 September, which had also been submitted to the General Council as document WT/GC/W/322;
and a paper by the delegations of Hong Kong, China; Korea and Norway, S/C/W/125, which had alsobeen submitted to the General Council as document WT/GC/W/325, dated 20 September 1999.  He
invited these delegations to present their respective papers and then opened the floor for Members'
comments.
31. The representative of the United States explained that his delegation's paper highlighted the
infrastructural and export role of services trade.  Improved market access opportunities in the new
round should be accomplished through appropriate negotiating modalities, improved nomenclature
and regulatory disciplines.  The Uruguay Round results had been the sum of individual requests and
offers;  in the new round, a horizontal approach could complement the request and offer method, and
sectoral negotiating modalities could also be developed, for sectors of interest to Members, including
those of interest to developing countries, such as audiovisual, tourism, health and professionalservices.  The time-line for the negotiations suggest ed in the paper reflected preliminary thinking on
the issue and would be subject to revision if Ministers decided on a mid-term Ministerial review.  He
said that modalities for the special treatment of least-developed countries under the provisions of
Article IV:3 should be established;  he also noted that some least-developed Members had undertaken
commitments comparable to those of countries at higher stages of development.  He suggested that
existing services regimes should be the starting-point for negotiations on specific commitments;
however, the United States was prepared to consider acknowledging liberalization undertaken sincethe Uruguay Round provided that Members bound it in their schedules.
32. The representative of Indonesia presented the paper tabled by his delegation and by the
delegation of Singapore.  He noted the need to achieve a consensus on negotiating guidelines and
procedures by the Seattle Ministerial, for negotiations to commence on time and be completed
expeditiously.  The guidelines should address the objectives, scope, framework issues, modalities andtime-frame of the negotiations, whereas the procedures should address the administrative
arrangements for their conduct.  On the objectives, Articles IV and XIX provided clear directions.  On
the scope, negotiations would need to encompass wider and deeper specific commitments, rule-
making intended in a generic sense, and definitional, scheduling and classification issues, which
should be addressed early in the new round to reduce uncertainty.  Negotiations should be based onexisting commitments, and the request and offer approach would be the modus operandi  of the new
round;  however, this method might be supplemented by "cross-cutting" approaches.  Negotiations
should last three years and their results be adopted on the basis of a single undertaking.  OnS/C/M/39
Page 6
modalities, one key question was whether existing bodies dealing with the GATS would suffice for
the purpose of the negotiations.
33. The representative of Switzerland explained that his delegation's submission built on their
previous contribution, document S/C/W/103, as well as on submissions by other Members.  It was
aimed at facilitating the transition towards the establishment of negotiating guidelines and procedures,
taking into account discussions in the Services Council as well as in the General Council.  The firstpart of the paper dealt with the objectives, principles and modalities, the scope and the organization of
the negotiations, and with the increasing participation of developing countries;  with respect to the
latter, he invited developing countries to suggest what elements of the assessment they would wish to
see included in the guidelines.  The section on lib eralization commitments addressed negotiations on
specific commitments, MFN exemptions, air and maritime transport services and scheduling and
classification issues.  The paper also addresses domestic regulations and pro-competitive principles,
GATS rules and the functioning of the GATS.
34. The representative of Hong Kong, China presented the paper on behalf of his delegation and
the delegations of Korea and Norway.  He said that guidelines should be as clear as possible and
distinguish between the three areas of negotiations :  specific commitments,  rule-making and reviews
by the Council for Trade in Services.  As concerned specific commitments, the paper addressed
sectoral coverage, autonomous liberalization and least-developed countries, negotiating techniques,sectoral and modal issues and negotiations on MFN exemptions.  Rule-making concerned the built-in
agenda, reviewing the text of the GATS, as well as scheduling guidelines and classification issues.
Finally, there were the three reviews which the Council was mandated to undertake:  MFN
exemptions, the air transport Annex and the Understanding on Accounting Rates in basic
telecommunications.
35. Commenting on the United States submission, the representative of India expressed concern
about moving away from the GATS architecture.  He observed that the first line of paragraph 2 of the
paper could not represent the objective of the negotiations, even though it might be an outcome;  in
India's view, the negotiations should aim at achievi ng economic growth for all trading partners and an
increasing participation in services trade as a means of promoting the development of developingcountries.  The time-frame suggested in paragraph 3 was too ambitious, and more time was likely to
be required.  On the proposal in paragraph 13 that the negotiating objectives of Article XIX be more
specific, he observed that some generality might on the contrary be desirable to accommodate the
interests of all.  The suggestion in paragraph 20 that the request and offer approach had not been not
totally successful was not shared;  India was comfortable with this approach, which was effective and
offered flexibility for developing countries.  On the observation that in certain cases Members had
undertaken similar commitments irrespective of their level of development, it was noted that this wasan exception, which could not apply to all sectors and circumstances.  Concern was expressed with
respect to paragraph 24;  as noted in the UNCTAD contribution, before opening up mode 3-trade
certain pre-requisite conditions had to be met.  On the observation in paragraph 28 that existing
regimes should be the starting-point for negotiations, he said that the starting-point for developing
countries were the commitments undertaken during the Uruguay Round.  As concerned the paperssubmitted by Indonesia and Singapore and by Switzerland, he did not agree with their entire content,
but both provided a good basis for the discussion.  The paper by Hong Kong, China, Korea and
Norway was an excellent analytical contribution, which encompassed the universe of options from
which Members might wish to choose.
36. The representative of the Dominican Republic said that the objective of the negotiations as
stated in the United States submission was very ambitious;  he might agree with it with respect to
some specific sectors, such as maritime transport,  but not to the extent of dismantling the existing
GATS architecture.  The basis for the new round should be existing commitments, as this offered
greater certainty;  he disagreed with the United States' suggestion that the basis should be existing
regimes, and wondered whether this meant that Members would be binding their regimes on accessS/C/M/39
Page 7
for natural persons.  He noted that there was no agreement on negotiating approaches, but also that a
consensus appeared to be emerging around a combination of different approaches.  He did not support
the United States' comments about the positive listing approach, expressed in paragraph 11 of their
paper, as this could result in changing the GATS architecture.  He noted the United States' point on
classification, and considered the nomenclature of the tourism sector unsatisfactory.  He observedthat, as concerned paragraph 24 of the United States paper, mode 3 represented only one possible way
of accessing technology, and that with respect to this mode, discrimination amongst Members existed,
as in the case of access to encryption technology.  He fully agreed with the reference to Article IX of
the GATS in the paper by Indonesia and Singapore;  anti-competitive measures needed to be studied
sectorally, and Members needed to consider also possible mechanisms to deal with such anti-
competitive practices.
37. The representative of Japan recalled that at the last Council meeting, in his concluding
remarks on this agenda item, the Chairman had identified three broad issues for further discussion:
the objectives, scope and principles of the negotiations, including the concerns of developing
countries;  liberalization of commitments, including Members' schedules and MFN exemptions;  and
finally rule-making activities, on domestic regulation, safeguards, government procurement and
subsidies, and including also the clarification of certain GATS provisions.  The representative ofJapan observed that the grouping of issues suggested in the paper by Hong Kong, China, Korea and
Norway was similar and useful;  he added that specific comments on that paper would be provided at
a later stage  He noted that two papers suggested that the review of MFN exemptions was distinct
from the negotiations.  In respect to MFN exemptions, he referred to what was stated in paragraph 11
of the United States paper, but noted that the MFN principle was the most important principle topromote trade liberalization under a multilateral trading system;  a liberalization commitment
undertaken by a Member with no MFN exemptions would be automatically applied to all Members.
On negotiating modalities, all three papers referred both to request and offer and to alternative
approaches, such as "cross-cutting", "horizontal", "sectoral", "cross-sectoral", "modal" or "cross-
modal" ones.  As the interests of Members in the negotiations were very different, starting with across-sectoral approach might help secure the interests of all.
38. The representative of the European Communities observed that there were two categories of
papers:  the United States paper, and the three other ones.  The latter three dealt with negotiating
guidelines and showed a lot of convergence, or even of coincidence.  The United States paper went
beyond the Seattle Ministerial, and dealt with the substance of the negotiations.  It identified three
kinds of issues, which were indeed matters of priority:  negotiating modalities, regulatory disciplines
and classification issues.  Commenting on the United States paper, he agreed that formula approacheswere an option to supplement the request and offer method, and that it would be useful to distinguish
between horizontal and sector-specific ones.  He sought clarification on paragraph 13, where it
appeared that electronic delivery was subject to negotiations;  as technological neutrality seemed to be
emerging, this question should not need to be addressed.  As concerned regulatory disciplines, he
noted that reference to transparency and fairness in regulation was not exhaustive;  Members shouldaddress not only good governance, but also pro-competitive principles similar to the
telecommunications Reference Paper and, as mentioned in the Swiss paper, Article IX.  On the
suggested time-frame, he said that it should be possible to discuss formulas and classification before
entering in sectoral discussions.  He supported the reference to autonomous liberalization and said that
existing regimes should be the starting-point of the negotiations.  As concerned the paper byIndonesia and Singapore, he said that paragraph 6 seemed to suggest new criteria for the renewal of
MFN exemptions, whereas it was a question of maintaining the existing situation.  He said that he
might provide further comments at a later stage.
39. The representative of Korea, commenting on paragraph 11 in the United States paper, said
that MFN exemptions should be eliminated or reduced to enhance the role of the multilateral trading
system.  On autonomous liberalization, the discussion was premature, and should await the modalitiesS/C/M/39
Page 8
for its treatment as prescribed by Article XIX;  in Korea's view, liberalization measures undertaken
autonomously should be recognized regardless of whether they had been bound.  On the paper by
Indonesia and Singapore, he agreed that the objectives of the negotiations had to be based on the
Preamble to the GATS and Articles IV and XIX, and that the review of MFN exemptions belonged to
the Seattle Declaration.  As concerned negotiating bodies, the Council for Trade in Services should
have overall responsibility for services, different negotiating bodies might also be established.However, he disagreed with the suggested treatment of autonomous liberalization.
40. The representative of Hungary noted that conv ergence existed among Members' proposals.  In
his view, the guidelines should be broad and concise.  He offered preliminary comments on the papers
submitted.  On the objective of the negotiations, he agreed that specific commitments could and
should be broadened and deepened, and noted that negotiations should aim at progressive
liberalization with a view to promoting the interests of all participants on a mutually advantageous
basis.  He remarked that paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Swiss paper lacked any explicit mention of the
progressive nature of negotiations.  He concurred that there was no need to add more to what was
already contained in the Preamble to the GATS and Articles IV and XIX as far as the objectives of the
negotiations were concerned.  On the scope, negotiations should be comprehensive, cover specific
commitments, classification and regulatory disciplines, including pro-competitive principles.  GATS
rules were important;  in the framework of the new round, they should be agreed in the early stages, toincrease Members' comfort in making commitments.  He noted that the United States proposal was
silent on this issue.  On modalities and sectoral issues, existing commitments should form the basis
for the new round.  With respect to the United States' suggestion that existing regimes should be the
starting-point of the negotiations, he noted that it did not follow from Article XIX that actual regimes
had to be automatically bound;  no similar approach had been used even in the case of industrialtariffs, where multilateral liberalization had started earlier than in the case of services.  He concurred
with the suggestion made by Indonesia and Singapore in their paper that, in respect of the treatment of
autonomous liberalization, credit should be given on the basis of bound commitments.  On negotiating
approaches, he agreed that formulas could supplement the request and offer approach, as stated in the
papers by Switzerland (paragraph 14) and Indonesia and Singapore (paragraphs 12 and 13).  Herequested further elaboration of the time-frame suggested by the United States, which seemed a rigid
sequencing of deadlines.
41. Commenting on the United States paper, the representative of Hong Kong, China expressed
broad agreement about aiming for further and deeper liberalization in all sectors.  He requested
clarification of the reference, in paragraph 2, to "disciplines to underpin market access", and hoped
that these included rule-making work under Articles VI, X, XIII and XV.  He sought elucidation of
the reference, in the same paragraph, to a "significant portion" of a Member's economy, and askedwhether this covered also sub-national entities.  On paragraph 3, he wondered whether the suggested
time-frame was realistic;  he felt that the end of 1999 for the submission of proposals was too early,
and that an agreement, by the end of 2000, on the three items listed in paragraph 2 might be
optimistic, as many ideas might emerge during the course of the negotiations and as consultations had
not necessarily been completed.  He concurred with the delegations of Japan and Korea that, whilemarket access and national treatment were important, the MFN principle was a pillar of the
multilateral trading system and could not be dealt with as it had been in the last sentence of
paragraph 11;  MFN exemptions had to be elimin ated by 2005 or the by end of the negotiations,
whichever was earlier.  He echoed the comment made by the European Communities on the reference
to commitments to electronic delivery in paragraph 13, which was difficult to reconcile withtechnological neutrality, and wondered whether the United States was calling for greater
commitments on modes 1 and 2.  The proposal on the treatment of autonomous liberalization in
paragraph 28 was ambitious;  he was not sure how this could be taken forward, unless the
acknowledgement of such liberalization was real and substantial.  As concerned the paper by
Indonesia and Singapore, he wondered whether, in paragraph 6, specific criteria for the continuationof MFN exemptions had been envisaged.S/C/M/39
Page 9
42. The representative of New Zealand observed that there was a fair amount of convergence.  On
the objectives for the new round, he agreed that much of the language could be drawn from
Articles IV and XIX.  He said that the focus should be on higher levels of liberalization, and endorsed
paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Swiss proposal.  As concerned the scope of the negotiations, he reiterated
that no mode or sector should be excluded;  he stressed the importance of continuing work on rule-making, classification and scheduling, though he agreed that no new mandate was necessary.
Flexibility to take Members' interest into account had to be ensured.  On modalities, he was open to
having other negotiating approaches to complement the request and offer method, and found the
language on formulas used in the papers by Switzerland, and Indonesia and Singapore useful.
43. The representative of Norway called for an agreement on the guidelines to be reached as far
as possible by the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  She agreed with the European Communities that
the United States paper differed from the other three under discussion.  She sought clarification fromthe United States delegation on whether their proposal would fit into the main text of the Ministerial
Declaration or would be annexed as a fuller text.  She concurred with Hong Kong, China that local
entities should be included in the reference to a "significant portion" of a Member's economy in
paragraph 2 of the United States paper, and wondered whether the United States language excluded
some sectors.  Work on nomenclature, on scheduling guidelines and on disciplines should finish assoon as possible, and offers should follow.  However, the suggested deadline of June 2000 might be
too optimistic, depending on what the United States meant by the term "disciplines".  She sought
further elaboration of the reference to grand-fathering in the paper by Indonesia and Singapore.
44. The representative of Canada noted that the objective of the process under way was to agree
on a text for the guidelines.  He noted a degree of convergence in Members' proposals, and felt that no
additional papers were necessary, but rather that the discussion had to be organized around headings.
His delegation would not be submitting a paper, but would comment extensively on Members'
contributions at the next meeting.
45. The representative of Iceland said that he mi ght come back with more detailed comments at a
later stage.  The negotiations should result in further liberalization in the field of professional,
transport and communication services, to name but a few priorities.
46. By way of preliminary comments, the representative of Australia said that, as concerned
autonomous liberalization, she found persuasive the arguments that Members should be free to trade-
off the binding of such reforms in the request and offer process and that negotiations should start on
the basis of scheduled commitments.  All MFN exemptions should be removed by 2005 in principle.
She was also in favour of cross-sectoral and horizontal formulas, of reviewing the text of the GATS to
improve clarity and consistency, and of aiming for early results on scheduling and classification.  Shesupported the review of the Annex on Air Transport Services, as well as the resumption of
negotiations on maritime transport services, to be concluded no later than the end of the forthcoming
round of negotiations.  Likewise, negotiations on GATS rules should be concluded before the end of
the round.  She agreed with the delegation of Switzerland on domestic regulation and on
strengthening pro-competitive disciplines, building for example on Articles VIII and IX.
47. The representative of Colombia highlighted three areas which he considered problematic.
First, on the objective of the negotiations, he agreed with Hong Kong, China that the Preamble to the
GATS, Articles IV and XIX should be referred to, bu t was concerned by the United States' proposal in
paragraph 2 of its paper.  Second, he agreed that the process under way in the built-in agenda be
continued, but saw no need to open discussions on various Articles of the GATS, such as Article V.No new disciplines were needed for Articles XVI and XVII.  Third, his delegation was flexible about
the use of formulas to complement the request and offer approach.  He thanked the delegation of
Hong Kong, China for reminding the Council of the need to review the Understanding on Accounting
Rates.  He expressed concern about the proposal in paragraph 28 of the United States submission;  asS/C/M/39
Page 10
stated in his delegation's submission to the General Council, document WT/CG/W/312 dated
14 September 1999, liberalization should be based on bound schedules.
48. The representative of Pakistan said he would provide more detailed comments at a later stage.
As concerned the time-frame, he said that the imposition of strict deadlines would put developing
countries under severe time pressure and could not be accepted.  He noted Members' tendency to
converge, but observed that areas existed where further discussion might nonetheless be necessary.He added that, in view of outstanding implementa tion issues, his delegation was hesitant in making
further or deeper commitments.
49. The representative of Brazil said that his delegation would present a proposal on this item at
the next General Council meeting.
50. The representative of Egypt agreed with India's comments on the United States paper, and
said that flexibility for developing countries was important.  He agreed with most of the elements of
the other papers, although some divergences still existed.  His delegation's position was thatnegotiations should respect the present GATS architecture, be conducted on the basis of a request and
offer approach, secure an overall balance of rights and obligations respecting national policy
objectives, restore a balance between the four modes of supply, and ensure that commitments be
undertaken in sectors of interest to developing countries.  The starting basis of the negotiations should
be existing commitments;  the time-frame should be realistic, and three years might not be sufficient;existing bodies should be used as negotiating fora;  and, even though the results of the negotiations
should enter into force concurrently, early conclusion of negotiations on some issues, such as
emergency safeguards under Article X, would be welcome.
51. Responded to questions by delegations, the representative of the United States said that
paragraphs 1 to 3 of his delegation's proposal would go into the main text of the Ministerial
Declaration, whereas the remaining issues might go into an annex.  On negotiating modalities and the
concern about maintaining the present GATS architecture, he said that the request and offer approach
was not connected to the GATS structure;  beside , the GATS did contain examples of formulas and
model schedules, such as the Understanding on Commitments on Financial Services, the
telecommunications Reference Paper and the model schedule for maritime transport services.  Henoted a contradiction in India's comments that the request and offer approach had been effective and
that the mode 4 commitments were unsatisfactory.  As concerned paragraph 2 of his delegation's
paper, he said that the target of the negotiations was not too dissimilar from the one of the goods
negotiations during the Uruguay Round, where different targets had been set for different levels of
development.  He was unclear about the relevance of the question on sub-national entities in that same
paragraph;  what was meant by "significant portion" of an economy was that a significant number of
sectors should be included, while no sector should a priori  be excluded from the negotiations.  He
would come back to Hong Kong, China's question about the reference to "disciplines to underpin
market access" in paragraph 2, and sought clarification from the European Communities on their
reference to pro-competitive principles in this same context.
52. As concerned the suggested time-frame for the negotiations, he noted Members' well-founded
hesitancy;  he said that it might be better to use a Ministerial mid-term review, sometime in 2001, as adeadline for closing up discussions on the three issues identified in his delegation's paper.  He added
that, even if it might not be possible to clearly distinguish different phases, deadlines might
nevertheless be useful.  On the reference to MFN exemptions in paragraph 11, the last sentence had to
be read in conjunction with the first one;  in the absence of market access and national treatment
commitments, MFN treatment by itself did not hold great value.  He would come back to the
suggestion by Korea that criteria be established to review MFN exemptions.  On autonomous
liberalization in paragraph 28, he noted that Article XIX referred to the reduction or elimination of
measures affecting trade in services, and not to schedules of commitments, and hence the starting-
point of the negotiations should be existing regimes and not existing commitments;  Members did notS/C/M/39
Page 11
need to be given credit for the commitments they had undertaken.  He noted that Members had
included a number of different items under the general rubric of negotiations under Article XIX, and
that it would be helpful to clarify which ones were part of the Article XIX negotiations;  neither the
review of MFN exemptions nor the review of the A nnex on Air Transport Services were.  They might
be negotiated, but it was not helpful to assume that they would be.  The criterion to decide what wasincluded in the mandate of Article XIX was the requirement to aim at effective market access;  on the
basis of the information exchange programme and of the assessment, the three items identified in
paragraph 2 were included.  This did not in any wa y prevent discussions on other issues from taking
place, but these were of a different calibre and should be treated distinctly as far as negotiating
guidelines were concerned.
53. Speaking on behalf of the delegation of Indonesia and of his own, the representative of
Singapore responded to the first of the two sets of questions raised on the paper they had submitted, in
relation to the reference to MFN exemptions in paragraph 6.  He said that the paper had tried to
capture the two elements present in the Annex on MFN exemptions:  the review and the negotiations.
On criteria for the renewal of the exemptions, he said that, while he had no concrete criteria in mind,
he felt that the Services Council might wish to ta ke up this issue in the review, in view of the
requirements set out in Article 4 of the Annex.  Responding to the second set of questions, on thereference to grand-fathering, the representative of  Indonesia said that the concept existed in existing
schedules to accommodate differing interests, and it hence was a systemic issue which needed to be
tackled.
54. The representative of Hong Kong, China st ated that MFN exemptions were subject to
negotiations, as mandated by paragraph 6 of the Annex.  He acknowledged that Article XIX dealt
with "negotiation of specific commitments", but stre ssed the need to be pragmatic in this respect both
in the assessment and in the guidelines.  The representative of Japan concurred with Hong Kong,
China on MFN exemptions;  these were part of the negotiations, as stated in paragraph 6 of theAnnex, whereas the review of the exemptions itself was not.
55. The representative of Venezuela asked whether the discussion on the guidelines in the
Services Council was complementary to the one in the General Council;  her delegation had submitted
a paper on this issue to the General Council, and she wondered whether it needed be tabled also in the
Council for Trade in Services in order for it to be taken into account in the debate.  The representative
of Hong Kong, China said that the Services Council was assessing all proposals.  His delegation had
produced a checklist of all papers submitted until 21 July, and wondered whether the Secretariat couldbe asked to update it.  The Chairman further explained that the Council for Trade in Services had
come to the pragmatic decision that papers could be tabled in either or both Councils.  He added that
discussions of the subject could take place in the Services Council, but that some Members were
opposed to the Council for Trade in Services reaching conclusions in this area.  The representative of
Argentina noted that a summary of all proposals submitted on negotiating guidelines and procedures
had been produced by the General Council Division, and that there was no need to ask for additionalwork of the Secretariat.
56. Summing up the discussion on this item, the Chairman said that the debate had taken place
without prejudice to decisions in the General Council.  There was a fair degree of convergence
between Members' proposals, and it was useful that  areas of divergence were also becoming clear.
The Council for Trade in Services would take note of the statements made and, subject to what
happened in the General Council, could revert to the matter at its next meeting.
C. SYSTEMIC ISSUES ARISING FROM ARTICLE V OF THE GATS
57. The Chairman recalled that at the meeting on 22 June, the Council had had a useful debate on
systemic issues relating to Article V of the GATS.  There was no common view on how to advance onS/C/M/39
Page 12
the issues:  some delegations had suggested that they should be addressed in the upcoming round of
negotiations and some proposals had been made to the General Council on clarifying and reinforcing
WTO rules on regional integration agreements in the context of the next round.  The Chairman had
suggested that the Council take note of the statements  and revert to the issue at a later stage, in the
light of further discussion in the General Council.  For the present meeting, a new contribution was
tabled by the delegation of the European Communities, contained in document S/C/W/124 andWT/REG/W/35, dated 20 September 1999.
58. The representative of the European Communities explained that the paper had not been
submitted to reopen the finely balanced text of Article V, but to clarify some of its key provisions.  It
dealt with the provisions of Article V:1(a) and V:1(b) and represented only a first step in the
Communities' reflection on the issue.  The footnote to Article V:1(a) was the key to its interpretation;
it specified that no mode of supply could be a priori  excluded, whereas the same requirement was not
extended to the number of sectors or to the volume of trade, which implied that exclusions were a
priori  possible. Sectoral coverage should nonetheless be as broad as possible, although sectoral
exclusions would remain a possibility.  Regarding the volume of trade affected, and given the
insufficiency of services statistics, percentages of sectors/trade excluded should not be used, but rather
indicative criteria be employed.  The prohibition of new or more discriminatory measures
(i.e. standstill) could only achieve the objective of "absence or elimination of substantially alldiscrimination" in Article V:1(b) where such discrimination was already largely absent, or where
restrictions had been substantially eliminated.  If significant restrictions persisted, a standstill would
not suffice.  On the time limit for the elimination of discrimination, the inclusion of an indicative
target could be reasonable for services as for goods.
59. By way of preliminary comment, the representative of Hungary concurred that the text of
Article V should not be reopened but that needed to be clarified.  The results of such clarification
should not be applied retroactively;  many economic integration agreements had been concluded
before the end of the Uruguay Round, which added to the difficulty of analysing their conformity to
rules which had been agreed only subsequently.  His delegation had submitted a proposal on the issue
to the General Council, contained in document WT/GC/W/213.
60. The representative of Japan agreed that Article V should not be re-opened, but needed to be
clarified further, and said that his delegation had also submitted a proposal to the General Council.
61. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that WTO rules on regional trade agreements,
including those of Article V, should be clarified.  The conditions for economic integration agreements
should be interpreted strictly:  coverage should be broad, liberalization substantial and trade barriers
not raised with respect to non-members of an economic integration agreement (EIA).  On modalities,
he noted the importance of the step-by-step approach suggested by the European Communities, andsuggested that paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 of Articles V should take priority.  On the sectoral coverage,
further thought was needed on the type of additional indicators which could be used, given the
insufficiency of services trade statistics, such as, for example, GDP figures.  On the absence or
elimination of substantially all discrimination, a standstill would not be sufficient, and the time-frame
should not be just an indicative requirement, but an obligation.  With respect to barriers to trade withthird parties, the fact that such barriers resulted from the harmonization or alignment of trade
measures of parties to an EIA could be relevant considerations, but could not be intended as
automatically justifying them;  further detailed reflection was needed on this issue.
62. The representative of the Republic of Korea said that economic integration agreements
needed to be in conformity with the multilatera l trading system and needed to be examined to
safeguard transparency.  The notion of substantial sectoral coverage, the definition of the scope and
the measurement method of substantially all discrimination and the time-frame of paragraph 1, as well
as the definition and point of reference of overall levels of barriers of paragraph 4, needed to be
clarified.S/C/M/39
Page 13
63. The representative of the United States noted that this issue was best addressed in the General
Council.  His delegation placed great importance on the notification requirement of Article V, as some
of the questions on Article V could be clarified by active and timely notifications.
64. The representative of Argentina said that his delegation's position, as reflected in the minutes
of the previous Council meeting, was that there was no need to review Article V;  any clarification
would amount to renegotiating this finely balanced  and sensible text and the implementation of this
Article did not merit such a review at the present stage.
65. In summing up the discussion, the Chairman said that some delegations wished to study
further the paper submitted by the European Communities, and that further discussion would be
allowed at the next meeting.  He reiterated, however, that the Council for Trade in Services was
waiting for directions from the General Council on WTO provisions on regional trade agreements and
that there might be a limit to how much discussion could take place in the Services Council.
66. Given that time was running short, the Chairman suggested changing the order of the agenda,
to take up first item F, which required a decision, and move back to the other items afterwards.  The
Council agreed.
D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE FIFTH PROTOCOL
67. The Chairman recalled that, at the last meeting, the delegation of Costa Rica had informed the
Council that its government had concluded the ratification procedures of the Fifth Protocol relating to
financial services and had requested the Council to reopen the Protocol for acceptance.  Subsequently,
the delegation of Costa Rica had issued a formal communication to that effect to the Council
(S/C/W/122).  The delegation of Nicaragua had also made a similar communication in document
S/C/W/121, requesting that the Council reopen the Fifth Protocol for acceptance.  When the subjecthad been raised under Other Business at the last meeting, one delegation had requested information on
the status of acceptances on the Fifth Protocol;  the Secretariat had prepared a list to the purpose.  The
Chairman sought delegations' views on the two requests submitted.
68. The representative of Japan said that his delegation was ready to join a consensus, but stated
that this was an exceptional and ad-hoc procedure.  The Chairman suggested that the Council adopt
the draft decision reopening the Fifth Protocol for acceptance by Costa Rica and Nicaragua.  The
Council so agreed.  The text of the decision is contained in document S/L/76.
69. The representatives of Costa Rica and Nicaragua  thanked Members for agreeing to reopen the
Fifth Protocol and recognized that this was an exceptional procedure.  The Chairman accorded the
Council's welcome for their acceptance of the Protocol.
E. REVIEW OF THE ANNEX ON AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES UNDER 
PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE ANNEX
70. The Chairman recalled that, at its last meeting, the Council had had a preliminary discussion
of a paper submitted by the delegations of New Zealand, Chile and Singapore, in document
S/C/W/113, on the review of air transport pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Annex.  Since the paper had
been submitted shortly before the meeting, delegations had made only preliminary comments.  Some
had expressed the view that there was a need to assemble background material, but wanted to studythe suggestions made in the paper in greater detail before making any requests of the Secretariat.  It
had been agreed to revert to the subject at the present meeting for fuller discussion.
71. The representative of New Zealand, speaking on behalf of the three delegations which had
tabled the paper, explained that the matrix proposed therein was intended as a Member-orientedS/C/M/39
Page 14
activity, and that it was for Members to decide on its actual structure.  Whereas no immediate
agreement was expected on that suggestion, the proposals that the Secretariat examine classification
and scheduling issues and collect information on the work of other bodies were timely, factual in
nature and could fit into Members' consideration of the matrix.  He drew delegations' attention to the
Declaration of APEC's Economic Leaders (conta ined in document WT/L/313), which supported
implementation of various steps for more competitive air services, as recommended by the APECBusiness Advisory Council, and identification of further steps to liberalize air transport.
72. The representative of Japan supported the two proposals, on classification and scheduling,
and on collecting information on the work carried out in other fora.  On the matrix, she suggested that
factors described in bilateral agreements and some competition policy issues be also included in the
list of items for consideration.
73. The representative of the European Communities said that the suggestion on classification
and scheduling work was useful, but requested further clarification of the other proposals before
agreeing to them.  He wondered about the implications of the reference to competition regulation in
paragraph 13 of the paper and how this would relate to pro-competitive principles.  It was also unclear
if the mention of Members' own policy approaches in paragraph 14 referred to their existing approach,
in which case material had been submitted in the course of the information exchange programme, or
to their future ones, which were still being developed as negotiating objectives.  He reiterated that thereview was an integral part of the negotiations and should only be started after the Seattle Ministerial.
74. The representative of the United States agreed on the importance of information gathering and
supported the proposal that the Secretariat collect information on the work of other bodies.  His
delegation was ready to participate actively in th e review;  the ultimate objective was to achieve
liberalization of global air transport, in the way which promised the greatest advances and withoutjeopardizing the gains obtained in bilateral contexts or in economic integration agreements.  He
agreed that work on classification and scheduling would be useful and suggested that papers be
submitted by government experts, but he did not support the proposal on competition;  further
reflection was needed on the matrix proposal.  His delegation viewed the review as separate from the
negotiations;  the results of the review could nonetheless be used in the negotiations, if, at a laterstage, it was so decided.
75. The representative of Argentina had no objections to carrying out the review mandated by
paragraph 5 of the Annex separately from the negotiations, but said that, at the present stage, it was
still premature:  The sequencing of work proposed in the paper by New Zealand, Chile and Singapore
was not adequate.  The proposed work on scheduling and classification was premature;  likewise,
before advancing on the matrix proposal, it was necessary to analyse its contents.  He supported the
information gathering proposal in paragraph 13.
76. Responding to some of the questions, the representative of New Zealand said that the matrix
was intended as a longer term goal, and that the review per se  did not need to address all of the issues
proposed.  He noted that Members seemed willing to agree to the suggested information gathering
work;  on classification and scheduling, he reiterated that the work involved was of a background and
factual nature, and invited Members to revert to this  issue at future meetings.  The more substantial
aspects of the review would probably have to wait until after the Seattle Ministerial.
77. Summing up the discussion, the Chairman said that further discussion of this item was
needed, at the next meeting and beyond, but that there were no objections to asking the Secretariat to
gather information on the work carried out by other bodies, as suggested in the first half of
paragraph 13.S/C/M/39
Page 15
F. REVIEW OF ARTICLE II (MFN) EXEMPTIONS
78. The Chairman recalled that at the last meeting, under Other Business, the delegation of Japan
had presented a proposal on the review of MFN exemptions (document S/C/W/117), with the request
that it be inscribed on the agenda for this meeting.
79. In addition to what had been said at the last meeting, the representative of Japan noted that the
review of MFN exemptions was mandated by paragra ph 3 of the Annex on Article II exemptions, and
proposed that the Council for Trade in Services ask the Secretariat to compile a list of existing MFN
exemptions as a basis to start the review process.
80. The representatives of Australia and of Chile  agreed with Japan's suggestion.  The
representative of Australia sought delegations ' views on how to conduct the review, while the
representative of Chile suggested that a sectoral study of MFN exemptions and of their implications
be also undertaken.  The representative of Korea said that, to remove barriers to services trade and
improve market access, the review of MFN exemptions should be started early.  He agreed with the
proposed list, and suggested that the identification of common types of exemptions and of sectoral
patterns might help future liberalization.  The representative of Hong Kong, China agreed with Japan's
proposal and suggested that, to enhance transparency , exemptions be analysed not only by Member,
but also by sector and by identifying where they most frequently appeared.
81. The representative of Canada said that his delegation did not object to the review, but was
concerned about the suggested timing and expressed a preference for commencing the review after the
Seattle Ministerial.  He added that paragraph 4 of the Annex on MFN exemptions was clear about
what the review entailed.
82. The representative of the European Communities said that he could not agree with Japan's
proposal as yet;  he observed that a compilation of MFN exemptions was already in the public domain
and that, while a review of MFN exemptions was mandated, it could be carried out as part of the
negotiations and, in particular, as part of given sectoral negotiations.
83. The representative of Argentina noted that paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Annex contained a
mandate which the Council had to respect, but that the Japanese proposal belonged to a later stage.
He objected to any study of the impact of MFN exemptions, as this would go beyond the mandate of
the Annex, but was not opposed to having a compilation, even though he agreed with the remark by
the European Communities that such a list already existed.  He also agreed with Canada that the
review should not commence before the Seattle Ministerial.
84. The representative of the United States said th at a list of MFN exemptions already existed and
that there was no need to request it explicitly;  his delegation would give further thought to the
proposal that such a list be compiled also by sector.  He sought delegations' views on what the
outcome of the review should be, on how to proceed and how manage it.  He agreed that it was not
necessary to commence it before the Seattle Ministerial, and reiterated his delegation's position that
the review was a separate process from the negotiations.
85. The representative of New Zealand agreed with Japan's central premise that the reduction of
MFN exemptions was an important issue to be addressed in the next round of negotiations, and
supported their proposal that the Secretariat compile a list of exemptions by Member;  bearing in
mind that such a list already existed, he echoed Chile's suggestion that it be drawn up on a sectoral
basis.  He was also inclined to agree with the su ggestion that clusters be identified, highlighting the
exemptions most commonly used.S/C/M/39
Page 16
86. The representative of Egypt supported the proposal that a list of exemptions be compiled by
the Secretariat, and was in favour of the review taking place after the Seattle Ministerial.  He shared
the United States' position that the review was a separate process from the negotiations.
87. The representative of Hungary concurred that  commencing the review at the next Council
meeting would be premature, and that a compilation of MFN exemptions already existed.  On the
substance of the discussion, he observed that MFN exemptions were exceptions, but that they werecertainly legal as long as, in accordance with Article II:2 of the GATS, they met the requirements set
out in the Annex.  He also observed that, as stated in the United States' submission contained in
document S/C/W/119, not having listed any MFN exemptions did not necessarily amount to an open
policy stance, from which it also followed that Members maintaining exemptions could not be
claimed to be not open to trade in services just because of the existence of such exemptions.
88. The representative of Hong Kong, China expres sed disappointment with Members' reactions.
He noted that, according to paragraph 3 of the Annex, the review had to take place and those
Members who had suggested pushing it after the Seattle Ministerial should take account of the Annex.
The review did not have to be completed before the Seattle Ministerial, but he had wished for
Members to agree at least on some transparency work to be carried out.
89. A representative of the WTO Secretariat noted that most of the information on MFN
exemptions was already in the public domain.  The Secretariat had produced a document, dated from
1994, on all exemptions listed during the Uruguay Round and was already working on updating it
with the exemptions taken during the extended financial services and basic telecommunication
services negotiations.
90. Summing up the discussion, the Chairman said that the Council would take note of the
statements made and revert to this item, which would be moved further up the agenda, at its next
meeting.
G. OTHER BUSINESS
91. The Chairman said that one item had been raised under this agenda item by the representative
of Australia, on the paper by her delegation and the delegation of Chile on "Horizontal Formulas and
Negotiating Models".
92. Due to a shortage of time, the representative of  Australia just introduced the paper, dealing
with negotiating approaches which had been used in the WTO and which could be described as
formulas.  She said she would welcome comments from Members at the next Council meeting.
93. The Chairman said that the Council would revert to the paper at its next meeting, scheduled
for Monday, 18 October 1999.  He also announced that Mr. Kenneth da Nobrega of Brazil was
attending his last Services Council meeting;  on behalf of the membership, he thanked him for his
contribution and wished him all the best for the future.
__________