RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/IT/M/18
2 August 1999
(99-3251)
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of
Trade in Information Technology Products
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 6 JULY 1999
Chairman: Mr. Y. Shiran (Israel)
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.10)...........................................................1
2. Consultations on Non-tariff  Barriers (G/IT/SPEC/Q1/25) ...............................................2
3. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/2,
G/IT/2/Corr.1, G/IT/2/Add.1) ..............................................................................................2
4. New Participants............................................................................................................. ......3
5. Information Technology Symposium..................................................................................4
6. Review of Product Coverage................................................................................................5
7. Other Business............................................................................................................... ........5
_________________
Introduction
The Chairman stated that the proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in
WTO/AIR/1123 on 25 June 1999.  He asked if there were any other matters to be raised under "Other
Business".  Hearing no requests, he stated he would take up 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.10)
1.1 The Chairman pointed out to participants that an overview of the implementation of the
Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products was contained in G/IT/1/Rev.10.
As shown in this document, implementation seemed to be proceeding as envisioned under the
Declaration.  He asked if any delegations had any information to share or comments to make.  Hearing norequests from the floor, the Committee took note of the Chairman's statement.G/IT/M/18
Page 2
2. Consultations on Non-tariff Barriers (G/IT/SPEC/Q1/25)
2.1 The Chairman recalled to delegations that at the last meeting of the Committee, a number of
delegations expressed their interest in pursuing work on non-tariff measures.  Furthermore, he noted that
to contribute to the work in this area, there had been circulated an Australian proposal, an Australian
national experience paper, and a Secretariat document containing a summary of the survey responses(G/IT/SPEC/Q1/25).
2.2 The delegate of Australia stated interest in continuing this work.  Furthermore, he encouraged all
participants to consult with their capitals on a no-tariff measures work programme.  As a starting-point,
he encouraged all participants to share information by submitting national experience papers.   He noted
that such papers could draw on the experiences of regulators and industries, and promote the sharing of
information.  He also noted that it was important to have a balance of information--the experiences ofdeveloped and developing countries, as non-tariff measures concerned all countries.  To that end, he
encouraged participants to look at the framework tabled by Australia in order to move the process
forward with a view to adopting a final work programme.
2.3 The Committee took note of the statement made.
3. Divergences in Classifying Information T echnology Products (G/IT/2, G/IT/2/Corr.1,
G/IT/2/Add.1)
3.1 The Chairman recalled that at the last meeting of the Committee, there was agreement to hold
informal consultations on classification divergences.  In these informal consultations, a number of
delegations that expressed their interest in continuing the work in this area.  Furthermore, there was a
proposal to update the G/IT/2 document series, and to have experts from capitals meet in Geneva for a
week in the fall to continue the work and discussions on classification divergences.   He noted that there
were meeting rooms available for the week of 20-24 September.
3.2 The delegate of the European Communities stated that until now, limited progress had been
made on the issue of classification divergences as envisaged in the ITA.  In order to progress matters,
his delegation suggested a number of steps.  Firs t, the Committee should request the Secretariat to
issue a revised version of document G/IT/2/Add.1.  Such a revised version should take into account
that certain reference numbers covered the same products, as listed in the EC non-paper from last
year; these products might be consolidated under one reference number only.  Also, the document
should incorporate any recent classification information which had been received, for example fromnew ITA participants.  This revised document could form the basis of further bilateral and multilateral
consultations on classification divergences.  He suggested that these consultations be held in the
autumn 1999, preferably with customs classification e xperts present.  He suggested that participants
consult on possible dates.  He estimated that 3 and 5 days should be set aside for that purpose.
3.3 The two main subjects to be discussed were classification divergences with regard to certain
types of semiconductor manufacturing and testing equipment listed in Attachment A - Section 2, and
products listed in Attachment B.  The purpose of th e consultations would be to determine  1) whether
ITA participants could agree on the classification of specific products as listed in the Attachments,
2) whether multiple classifications were appropriate, since the description in the attachment mightcover different types of products, and 3) whether disagreement on classification remained.
3.4 The delegate of the United States supported the idea of having meetings of experts in the fall.
3.5 The Chairman enquired whether the European Communities' requested that  both documents,
G/IT/2 and G/IT/2/Add.1, be updated?G/IT/M/18
Page 3
3.6 The delegate of the European Communities clarified that only G/IT/2/Add.1 needed to be
updated, as both documents contained similar information.  The delegate of  Canada  supported the EC
request.
3.7 The delegate of Switzerland stated that it was important to continue work on classification
divergences.  She agreed to hold meetings in September for that purpose.3.8 The Chairman stated that there was agreement that the Secretariat update document
G/IT/2/Add.1.  Delegations would be in contact with the Secretariat regarding mutually agreeable dates
for the meetings in autumn.
4. New Participants
4.1 The Chairman noted that there had been three new schedules submitted to the Committee since
its last meeting, namely the schedules of Georgia, Lithuania, and Mauritius.  The Secretariat had
performed the electronic verification of these schedules and there had been no discrepancies noted.  He
asked the delegation of Georgia to provide information about Georgia's proposed commitments in its ITA
schedule.
4.2 The delegate of Georgia stated that his country had submitted its schedule of commitments for
ITA products which would be incorporated in its WTO schedule and annexed to its Protocol of accession.
Concerning the accession of Georgia to the WTO, Georgia had concluded its bilateral negotiations with
its trading partners, with one exception, the United States, where a few outstanding points remained.  Heexpected the completion of the bilateral negotiations very soon.  Informal meetings were planned for
13 July 1999, and Georgia  expected to complete its multilateral negotiations on 23 July 1999.
Furthermore, in mid-September, he believed the General Council would consider Georgia's membership
in the WTO.  For that reason his authorities had sent a notification to the WTO Secretariat on the
conditionality of Georgia's commitments on information technology products.  He asked the Committeeto consider Georgia's schedule of commitments on information technology products as it was initially
circulated.  Georgia would assume all responsibilities and commitments on implementation from the
beginning of the year 2000, and would start tariff reductions as of 2001.  Furthermore, the staging period
would be five years and Georgia would complete all tariff reductions to zero by 1 January 2005.
4.3 The delegate of the United States stated that on earlier occasion the Committee had taken the
position that membership in the WTO was not necessary for participation in the ITA.  Furthermore, if a
country wanted to tie the implementation of its commitments under the ITA to its accession process, there
was no objection to this.  However, in such circumstances, participation in the ITA should be postponed
until the formalities under the accession process were completed.  Alternatively, it was open to countries,
which was unique under the WTO, to participate as full members in the ITA before they completed the
formalities for their WTO accession.   As he understood the statement by the representative of Georgia, itappeared they would prefer the first option.  It was expected that the formalities involving Georgia's
accession would be completed shortly and at that point, its commitments under the ITA would take effect.
Therefore, Georgia would not become a full member now, but would be invited as a full participant at the
next meeting of the Committee if the accession process proceeded as envisaged.
4.4 The delegate of Georgia stated again that Georgia would not link its accession with the
commitments of the ITA schedule.  Those commitments would be implemented without conditions as of
1 January 2000.
4.5 The delegate of the European Communities expressed support for the issue of principal, as stated
by the United States for new participants.  However, he asked the representative of Georgia, to clarify the
apparent discrepancy in his two statements one saying that there would be "unconditional implementation
of the ITA commitments as of 1 January 2000" and the other one stating that the first tariff reductions
would take place on 1 January 2001.G/IT/M/18
Page 4
4.6 The delegate of Georgia stated that according to its schedule which was submitted, Georgia's
commitments would begin as of 2000 and the first tariff reduction would take place in 2001.  At the
beginning of 2000 the existing applied rates would take effect for WTO purposes, while the first tariff
reduction would take place at the beginning of 2001.
4.7 The delegate of the United States welcomed the previous statement of the delegate of Georgia
that its participation in the ITA was unconditional, and asked for assurances that the written
communication between Georgia and the Secretariat was consistent with this statement.  He also was
concerned that the first reduction would not take place until 18 months after the Government of Georgia
entered the ITA, as this was much longer than what was given under the original ITA.  Thus, he reserved
his government's position.
4.8 The Chairman noted that the Committee needed to seek further clarification with respect to
Georgia's situation, and he suggested that this item be taken up at the next meeting of the Committee.
Turning to the schedules of Lithuania and Mauritius, he believed that the Committee was in a position to
approve these schedules.
4.9 The delegate of Lithuania stated that the schedule of Lithuania had been cirulated to the
Committee.  He wanted to reiterate that Lithuania was not yet a Member of the WTO but would
implement and undertake the commitments in the ITA schedule starting from 1 January 2000,
irrespective of the developments in the accession process of Lithuania to the WTO.
4.10 The Committee approved the schedule of Lithuania.
4.11 The delegate of Mauritius said that Mauritius had progressively strengthened its participation
in the multilateral trading system.  It had ratified all the important WTO Agreements that had been
concluded since its adhesion to the WTO.  He trusted that with the submission of the ITA schedule,Mauritius was sending a positive signal, especially in the field of information technology. Mauritius
had so far not gained very substantially from its participation in the WTO system and had been
witnessing a negative foreign direct investment trend for the past few months and years.  Mauritius
was a small country with its inherent specificity.  Mauritius was looking forward to the positive ripple
effects of the signal that it was sending today with its adherence to the ITA.
4.12 The Committee approved the schedule of Mauritius.
5. Information Technology Symposium
5.1 The Chairman recalled that at the last meeting of the Committee, the Committee agreed to hold
an Information Technology Symposium on 16 July 1999.  Since then an informal meeting was held on
25 June 1999 whereby the Committee was informed of the situation as it then stood.  As of today, henoted that the speaker's list had now been finalized and was  circulated in the room. So far 23 Member
delegates and 10 persons from industry had registered as participants.  In his view, the arrangements for
the Symposium were proceeding as planned.
5.2 The delegate of Australia thanked the Secretariat for drawing up the agenda; he believed that the
speakers list was geographically balanced.5.3 The delegate of Canada, thanking the Secretariat and the Chairman for the organization of the
symposium, encouraged all WTO Members, not just ITA participants, to attend the symposium, and to
invite their industry and their regulators.
5.4 The delegate of Panama thanked the Secretariat for its work in preparing the symposium, which
appeared to be well balanced and wide-ranging.  As Australia, he sought clarification on the registration
process.  Furthermore, with respect to the programme, he noted that there were different sections thatG/IT/M/18
Page 5
would each be followed by a general discussion, and he asked if the issue of moderators for each session
had been addressed.
5.5 The delegate of the United States also thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for the work
done in preparing the symposium, and he encouraged the participation of government officials, industry
and regulators.
5.6 The Secretariat informed the Committee about the registration procedure and clarified that given
the tight timetable, it was thought that the Chairman of the Symposium would also moderate the
discussion period.
5.7 The delegate of Panama thanked the Secretariat for the clarification and agreed to this
understanding.5.8 The delegate of Korea asked whether it would be possible to receive the papers for the
symposium a few days in advance.
5.9 The Secretariat replied that there was a request to the speakers to provide their papers one week
in advance so that the necessary reproduction could take place and the papers could be made available.
However, time was short, and it depended on whether the papers prepared by the presenters would be
received in time.
5.10 The Chairman encouraged delegations to be in contact with the Secretariat with respect to
registration.
6. Review of Product Coverage
6.1 The Chairman stated that the Committee had devoted time and effort last year trying to reach
agreement on a package of products to expand the existing product coverage.  He noted that consultations
were continuing on this matter and he encouraged delegations to continue their efforts.  The Committee
took note of the Chairman's statement.
7. Other Business
7.1 The Chairman proposed that the Committee's next regular meeting be held on
28 September 1999, subject to confirmation.  It was so agreed.
__________