RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/WPDR/M/21/Rev.1
25 June 2003
(03-3402)
Working Party on Domestic Regulation
REPORT ON THE MEETIN G HELD ON 15 MAY 2003
Note by the Secretariat1
Revision
1. The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR) held its twenty first meeting on
15 May.  The agenda for the meeting is contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/2090.  Due to the absence of
the Chairperson of the Working Party, the meeting was opened by the Secretariat.  Before adopting
the agenda, the WPDR agreed first to move to th e Appointment of the Chairperson, after which the
agenda was adopted.
A. APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON
2. A representative of the Secretariat stated that, as Members were aware, Mr. Sergio Santos
from Brazil, the Chairman of the WPDR, had been assigned a new posting and was unable to chair the
meeting. Consequently, the Secretariat representative suggested that the WPDR move immediately to
the appointment of a new Chairperson for the Working Party.  Members approved the suggestion.
The Secretariat representative then noted that, fo llowing consultations by the Chairperson of the
Council for Trade in Services, Mr. Johannes Bernabe of the Philippines had been proposed as the new
Chairperson of the WPDR.  Members approved  the appointment of the new Chairperson.
3. The new Chairperson said that the Working Party owed a debt of gratitude to Sergio Santos,
who had led the Working Party to the current rather advanced stage of discussions.  He paid tribute to
the other previous Chairpersons as well, who ha d also helped advance the work of the WPDR.
4. Members welcomed Mr. Bernabe as the new Chairperson, and commended the outstanding
work of Mr. Santos as the previous Chairman.
B. DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY DISCIPLINES UNDER GATS ARTICLE VI:4
1. Discussion of Concepts Relating to the Development of Disciplines
Japan’s Draft Annex on Domestic Regulation
5. The Chairperson noted that he had held informal consultations on three items.  The first was
Japan’s proposal for a Draft Annex on Domestic Regulation (JOB(03)/45/Rev.1, dated 30 April 2003
was the latest version).  In the consultations, most Members agreed that Japan’s paper should be
discussed more fully and comprehensively, together with other possible core elements for regulatory
disciplines.  At the same time, most Members believ ed that the discussion of Japan’s paper should be
coupled with continued consideration of the Secretariat paper, Examples of Measures to be Addressed
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO.S/WPDR/M/21/Rev.1
Page 2
by Disciplines under GATS Article VI:4  (JOB(02)/20/Rev.5, dated 29 April 2003 was the latest
version).
6. Most Members welcomed the Japanese proposal as a timely stimulus to ongoing discussions
in the WPDR, the Chairperson stated.   The proposal also offered a focal point for discussions on
concrete core elements that might be included in possible horizontally applicable regulatory
disciplines.  At the same time, Members appeared keen on continuing the review and consideration of
the Examples paper.  Several Members noted that delegations might find value-added in the Examples
paper, particularly in relation to how the measures referred to therein might be addressed in possible
disciplines such as those contained in the Japanese submission. Likewise, some Members observed
that the Summary of Discussions on the Checklist of Issues for WPDR  (JOB(02)/3/Rev.5, also dated
29 April 2003, was the latest version) remained pertinent as certain questions raised therein continued
to be relevant as Members continued to examine both the Japanese submission and the Examples
paper.
7. The Chairperson then asked if Japan wished to introduce their revised proposal, as well as to
add to the statements made at the previous WPDR meeting.
8. The delegation of Japan said that the revision of their paper was more or less self-explanatory.
They had noted at the last WPDR meeting that, in parallel with continued discussion of the measures
contained in the Examples paper, it would be useful to start discussions on the basis of concrete
provisions.  The main elements in Japan’s draft Annex were drawn from the existing text of the
Accountancy Disciplines , together with modifications that Japan believed appropriate for horizontal
application.  Two new elements were added, the delegation noted, Part X on adverse administrative
dispositions relating to licenses and qualifications and Part XI on administrative guidance relating tolicenses and qualifications.
9. Members welcomed Japan’s revised paper, and made preliminary comments as recorded
below.
10. The delegation of the European Communities, as a general comment, stated that Japan’s
approach went beyond the GATS Article VI:4 mandate, and built upon existing provisions in Articles
III and VI:2.  The very wide approach deserved further discussion.  Regarding the scope of the draft
annex, the delegation had questions on the apparent differences in the wording of paragraphs 1 and 3.
They also asked for more details on Japan’s views regarding the possibility of complementing
horizontal disciplines with a more specific sectoral approach.
11. The delegation of Canada said that, overall, Japan’s contribution clarified a number of
concepts related to the development of generic disciplines.  It was appropriate that the Accountancy
Disciplines  were the basis for considering the development of VI:4 disciplines.  As the EC delegation
had noted, paragraph 3 suggested a broader focus.  On not prejudicing and continuing a two-track
approach, i.e. pursuing generic disciplines while also working on more specific disciplines, Canada
wished to explore that approach.  The delegation noted that some transparency aspects were
potentially addressed in other GATS Articles, and asked Japan to comment.  The Working Party also
needed to deal with the issue of technical standards, as noted in the paper.  Canada had a stronginterest in continuing to advance discussions of the Examples  paper, and hoped for broader
participation, as it was crucial for the WPDR to have the strongest possible basis of understanding
about the issues.
12. The delegation of Switzerland emphasized that domestic regulation was a very important
subject, for which there was a mandate, and the draft annex dynamized the WPDR work.  Japan’s
approach was very comprehensive, but there was room for alternative or sectoral disciplines, and thisS/WPDR/M/21/Rev.1
Page 3
flexibility was very important.  The paper was a very good basis for discussions, but clarification was
needed on the scope of the annex.
13. The delegation of Chile agreed that Japan’s paper was a good basis for discussions.  They
shared Japan’s idea that specific disciplines might be  required for specific sectors.  Chile had not yet
made a firm decision on VI:4 application.  Japan’s paper indicated special treatment was needed forMode 4, and Chile wished to have more information in this regard.  Regarding the level of
application, the delegation stated that any disciplines must apply at all levels, as the majority of
problems were at the sub-central level.
14. The delegation of Korea also said that the draft Annex was a good basis for future work, and
that they shared the questions on scope and definition.  Korea believed the scope should be limited to
the five criteria in VI:4.  Japan’s draft seemed ambiguous, i.e. between paragraphs 1 and 3, and the
transparency section seemed to duplicate Article III.  On paragraph 4, agreed that measures regulatingthe entry of natural persons should be excluded.  Disciplines should apply only where specific
commitments had been taken, in order to have greater value-added by including stricter obligations.
In this regard, the delegation questioned whether the exceptions in paragraphs 14 and 22 were
desirable.
15. The delegation of Argentina said it was of importance, especially to developing countries, to
make progress on regulatory issues multilaterally.  Their first concern was already expressed, i.e.
regarding the apparent differences between the objectives in paragraph 1 and scope and definitions in
paragraph 3.  Also, paragraph 8 on transparency reached beyond the scope of VI:4.  Paragraph 4 on
natural persons gave the impression of reducing the scope of VI:4 on a modal basis.  On licensing and
qualifications, they had the same doubts as Korea on the exceptions in 14 and 22, and asked how theywould be applied.  Many Accountancy Discipline provisions were now relativized, the delegation
stated, e.g. in paragraphs 17-19 the term “shall” becomes “shall endeavour”.  The delegation also
asked for more information on, and examples of, administrative guidance.
16. The delegation of Singapore said they saw VI:4 disciplines as a third pillar, together with
market access and national treatment, which could impact on the regulatory autonomy of developing
countries.  Singapore felt that the Working Party had done useful work on regulatory examples, and
agreed with Japan that it was useful to also look at draft disciplines.  On scope, believed disciplines
should be strictly limited to the 5 types of measures specified in VI:4.  On definitions, the working
definitions provided by the Secretariat in 1997 were a good basis.  On application, only where specific
commitments.  Disciplines should not override scheduled commitments, e.g. residency requirements.
On transparency, agreed it was a critical area.  Disciplines should apply at both federal and sub-
federal levels.  On necessity, the delegation said it was one of the most fundamental aspects, with asignificant impact on regulatory autonomy.  WTO jurisprudence on this issue was evolving, and the
CTE paper (WT/CTE/W/203, dated 8 March 2002) was useful in this regard.  Legitimate objectives
related to all sectors, and therefore Japan’s reference to national policy objectives was interesting.
Consequently, their preference was not to specify legitimate objectives.  Like others, Singapore
emphasized that disciplines should not prejudice other GATS Article.
17. On the VI:5 relationship to VI:4, because VI:5 was expected to disappear when VI:4
negotiations were concluded, Singapore questioned whether any important elements of VI:5 should be
included in VI:4 disciplines.  The delegation mentione d two elements to be considered, the first being
VI:5(b), i.e. regarding measures “not reasonably expected…..”, which appeared to have the effect of
grandfathering such that VI:5 applied only to new measures.  The second element was that ofnullification and impairment, as mentioned in the chapeau of VI:5.  In this regard, Members must
consider Article 3.8 of the DSU, which stated that  nullification and impairment were presumed if a
provision of a WTO agreement was violated.  In VI :5, however, the burden of proof seemed to be on
the complainant.  The delegation asked if the Chairman and the Secretariat could provide ideas andS/WPDR/M/21/Rev.1
Page 4
views on grandfathering, and on the burden of proof in regard to nullification and impairment.  They
asked for information on the negotiating history of VI:5, including whether the drafters of the GATS
envisioned any role for either of these elements in VI:4 disciplines.  The delegation also asked on how
VI:5 related to the Accountancy Disciplines , including whether the Secretariat could confirm that VI:5
disappeared once disciplines went into effect.
18. The Chairperson said that perhaps he should not take a position on the two issues, and invited
the Secretariat to comment.  He also encouraged Singapore to circulate their intervention.
19. The delegation of Australia noted the potential of developing VI:4 disciplines as a
complement to market access negotiations.  Given the increased scrutiny within Members on the
possible impact of the GATS, the delegation wished to work closely with Members to develop
appropriate disciplines, while at the same time preserving the capacity of Members to regulate their
economies.  Australia looked forward to examinin g how the draft annex could apply to professional
services and other sectors where commitments had been made.  They also shared the questions of
others on the scope of Japan’s draft annex.  The delegation emphasized Australia’s strong support for
transparency.
20. The delegation of the United States stated that Japan’s paper was making a useful
contribution to clarifying the scope and coverage of VI:4.  They also advocated continued
examination, via the Examples  paper, of the types of measures for which disciplines might be
developed.  The delegation was pleased that Japan’s paper, in the footnote to paragraph 2, did not
prejudice the further development of sectoral disciplines.  Based on domestic consultations, the U.S.
delegation supported the development of disciplines, similar to the Accountancy Disciplines  with
perhaps some modifications, for architecture, engineering and legal services.  The delegation urgedMembers to adopt the Accountancy Disciplines , as part of commitments in the sector.  They also
advocated horizontal disciplines on transparency, noting the existing provisions in the Accountancy
Disciplines .  On paragraph 4 of Japan’s paper, they asked for further clarification.  On paragraph 5,
they were not sure if it made sense to include the definitions in an annex, asking if definitions of
“domestic regulation” and “measure” might also be needed.  On paragraphs 6 and 7, the delegationhad serious reservations, and stated that it was hard to imagine a workable necessity test that was
horizontally applicable.
21. The language included in Japan’s paper appeared to go beyond VI:4, the United States stated.
They were particularly concerned about paragraph 6 being applied to financial services, i.e. the
possible effect on prudential measures.  On concepts such as “not more trade burdensome than
necessary”, there was no previous consensus, the delegation stated.  Therefore, Members needed to
take a hard look if it was to be included.  In paragraph 7, where Japan introduced the concept of a“rolling review”, the delegation had serious concerns, especially as Members had not yet agreed on
the necessity test.  On national policy objectives, agreed the analysis needed to include sub-federal
objectives.  On Part III, the U.S. delegation hypothetically believed that the ad hoc application of the
necessity test by the DSU was likely to be highly controversial.  On Part 4, believed the Working
Party could achieve great progress.  On paragraph 13 and elsewhere, not clear if the coverageextended to local and regional non-governmental au thorities. Concerning technical standards, the
delegation had some questions regarding the relationship between paragraphs 5f and 28.
22. The delegation of Thailand agreed with the concerns on the scope of Japan’s draft annex and
the question of application at the sub-federal level, and was not comfortable with the carve-out of
Mode 4.  The delegation also supported the continued examination of the Examples  paper.  On
qualifications, Thailand noted that Parts VII and VIII of Japan’s draft, regarding the treatment of
qualifications, made no mention of equivalence and MRAs.  Other parts were also missing from the
Accountancy Disciplines.   The delegation concurred with Argentina’s questions on administrative
guidance, as well as Singapore’s questions on VI:5.S/WPDR/M/21/Rev.1
Page 5
23. The Chairperson noted the pending questions from Singapore, and invited the Secretariat to
comment.  The Secretariat noted that VI:5 was nego tiated after VI:4, and that it was designed to deal
with measures that were neither Market Access nor National Treatment limitations.  He noted that
VI:5 was heavily negotiated.  On grandfathering, he agreed that VI:5 was essentially applicable only
to new measures.  In legal terms, it could be argued that VI:5 did not extend beyond GATSArticle XXIII regarding non-violation situations in volving nullification or impairment.  Article XXIII
also included the concept of reasonable expectations.  Nullification or impairment was actually the
starting-point in VI:5, as indicated by its placement in the chapeau, followed by the criteria.
Therefore, it was almost the same as GATS Article XXIII, paragraph 3.  As it is clear from its
wording, particularly the reference to the entry in to force of disciplines, Article VI:5 was intended to
be temporary.  However, the relationship between  VI:5 and VI:4 was essentially up to Members to
decide at the end of negotiations.  On the burden of proof, it was the same under VI:5 as under GATSArticle XXIII.  The Secretariat concluded by noting that subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of VI:5 were
cumulative conditions.
24. The Chairperson observed that delegations might wish to reflect on the Secretariat’s
statement.
25. The delegation of India, regarding Japan’s paper, also sought clarification on the scope of
paragraphs 1 and 3.  On paragraph 4, the delegation wished to have more information.  Like Thailand,
India sought further clarification regarding Japan’s approach toward qualifications.  Regarding the
application of transparency provisions, India’s view was that disciplines should be applicable only
where specific commitments had been made.  On administrative burden and administrative
procedures, India’s views were well  known and could be found in the Summary , the delegation stated.
26. The delegation of New Zealand noted the civil society and local government interests
regarding domestic regulation, and thanked Japan for its effort on the issue.  The delegation noted the
importance of transparency to any discussion of domestic regulation as this was an important practical
issue for service exporters in foreign markets.  New Zealand believed the concept of national policy
objectives was also an important one in the consideration of domestic regulation.  The delegationindicated that it would give consideration to how a self-regulating approach for professional services
bodies would fit with the type of framework propos ed by Japan.  Overall, the process involved a
challenge in balancing a number of factors, including giving effect to specific commitments and
protecting the right of governments to regulate.  The Examples work was valuable, and should be
continued, the delegation stated.
27. The Chairperson agreed that the Examples  work should continue in tandem with the
examination of Japan’s paper.
28. The representative from Hong Kong, China agreed that the Examples  discussion was
complementary to discussion of the draft annex, and urged further contributions, especially from
developing countries.  It might be useful to make a crosscheck between the two discussions in the
future, he stated.  The representative asked that his preliminary comments on Japan’s paper at the
previous meeting, concerning Mode 4 and competent authorities, be put on the record.  RegardingMode 4 measures, the representative had noted that paragraph 4 of Japan's paper was apparently
transposed from paragraph 4 of the Annex on Move ment of Natural Persons, which provided that the
Agreement should not prevent a Member from taki ng certain measures relating to movement of
natural persons, provided that such measures were not applied in such a manner as to nullify or impair
the benefits accruing to any Member under the terms of a specific commitment.  The representativehad asked if there was any difference in the formulation in paragraph 4 of Japan's paper, and whether
Japan would envisage that the type of examples raised in the discussion would fall within or outside
the scope of the disciplines envisaged by paragraph 4.S/WPDR/M/21/Rev.1
Page 6
29. Regarding competent authorities, the representa tive from Hong Kong, China had stated that,
on previous occasions, they had emphasized the importance of application of disciplines at the level
between regulators and suppliers.  His delegation therefore wished to clarify whether the disciplines
envisaged in Japan's paper would apply at the level of the competent authorities as well, and whether
the Member concerned would be required to ensu re their competent authorities complied with such
disciplines.  This was particularly relevant to transparency disciplines which concerned transparency
to applicants, such as those mirroring paragraph 4 of the Accountancy Disciplines  to ensure that
applicants had full access to information relating to licensing and qualifications.  Such information
was essential to service suppliers in order to obtain a license or certification to provide their services,
and was particularly important to small and individual service suppliers who lacked the institutional
capacity to search for such information themselves.
30. Continuing his intervention, the representative from Hong Kong, China stated that Japan’s
reference to national policy objectives was welcome, and that he agreed with New Zealand on the
need to take into account Member’s right to regulate.  On scope, he shared the questions raised by
previous delegations.  On application, he associated his delegation with Chile and Singapore on the
importance of applying the disciplines to all levels of government.  Article I:3 should guide the
development of disciplines, he stated.  On approach, Hong Kong, China was open to examining bothhorizontal and sectoral disciplines.  Perhaps a horizontal focus for the time being could subsequently
provide the basis for the creation of sectoral disciplines, as well as help to avoid “reinventing the
wheel”.  On qualifications, the representative shared Thailand’s questions, noting that paragraphs 10,
19, 21 of the Accountancy Disciplines  were missing from Japan’s draft.  Also, paragraph 26 in Japan’s
draft was missing the Accountancy Disciplines  aspect of requiring competent authorities to identify
where qualifications fell short.
31. On other issues, the representative from Hong Kong, China said it was important to avoid any
overlap between VI:4 disciplines and existing GATS provisions.  He suggested first looking at what
sorts of disciplines were required, and then examining any potential overlap.  Regarding the
comments made by the United States on the adoption of the Accountancy Disciplines , he noted that
the Decision on Domestic Regulation  (S/L/70, dated 28 April 1999) stated that the Disciplines  were
intended to be integrated into the GATS.  His delegation’s view was that adopting the Disciplines  did
not involve their integration into individual Member ’s schedules.  Regarding VI:5, the representative
thanked Singapore and the Secretariat for their comm ents, and said that VI:5 should be considered
guidance as to the minimum to be achieved under VI:4  disciplines, i.e. implementing the three criteria
of VI:4(a), (b) and (c).  On necessity, the representative asked what in the Accountancy Disciplines
necessity test was particular to accountancy, and therefore not horizontally applicable to other sectors.He noted that the Working Party was far from understanding the full implications of necessity test,
and that perhaps it would be useful to go deeper in examining the existing jurisprudence.  He asked if
the previous Secretariat Note on necessity (Job No. 5929, dated 8 October 1999) could be updated,
including by providing examples of how the necessity test was applied in practice.
32. The Chairperson agreed there could be value-added in updated the existing Secretariat paper
on necessity.
33. The delegation of Mexico seconded the questions raised by Argentina, and supported the
comments made by New Zealand.  The delegation stated that, as in that other WTO agreements, the
various jurisdictions should be recognized, and that rules could not always be applied equally to all
levels of government.  Regarding technical standa rds, Mexico noted that the TBT Agreement, as an
example, had rules regarding transparency, cost-benefit analysis, etc. which all Members were able to
fulfil.  In the NAFTA Agreement, the TBT section in cluded technical regulations for services as well
as for goods.  On paragraph 5(f) of Japan’s paper, the delegation suggested that existing definitions
from WTO agreements, especially the TBT Agreement, be used.  Voluntary standards wereS/WPDR/M/21/Rev.1
Page 7
apparently not included in the GATS, and therefore the reference to voluntary standards in paragraph
5(f) might cause technical complications.
34. The delegation of Peru said that Japan’s paper helped to concentrate Members’ thoughts on
what an annex on domestic regulation might include.  They joined with Argentina’s concerns on
scope, and the need to focus only on the coverage of VI:4.  On horizontal versus sectoral approaches,agreed they were complementary.  Application only where specific commitments had been made.  On
transparency, agreed with Japan that it was a key subject, but noted that it could become a heavy
burden for developing countries.  On levels, agreed disciplines should apply to all levels of
government.  On the necessity test, agreed it was ve ry controversial, including for civil society, and
needed more study in order to be applicable to all sectors.  Agreed with Thailand’s concerns on
paragraphs 32-34 regarding administrative guidance.  On Mode 4, believed was important to apply
disciplines to Mode 4, with no carve-outs.  Would be useful for Members to present examples of howregulations would be treated under Japan’s draft annex.
35. The delegation of Latvia noted that paragraph 29 of Japan’s draft concerning transparency
requirements for technical standards might involve certain aspects of intellectual property rights.
36. The delegation of Uruguay underlined that, in Japan’s paper, disciplines would be applied to
sectors where specific commitments had been made.  They expressed concern in regard to paragraph
13 on transparency and prior comment.  On paragraph 26, regarding the verification of qualifications
within a reasonable timeframe, the delegation noted that it could not be assured in Uruguay, as
verification was in the hands of an autonomous agency.  On paragraph 31, the mechanism for such
procedures did not exist in Uruguay.  Such requirements might become an obstacle to making specific
commitments in the future.  Like Argentina and other delegations, Uruguay also had concerns overparagraph 3 regarding scope, and asked for further clarification.  A question was also raised regarding
the meaning of paragraph 8 in the introduction to the draft annex regarding the entry of natural
persons.
37. The delegation of Norway joined with other delegations in noting the importance of
transparency.
38. The delegation of Turkey asked for examples of the national policy objectives referred to in
paragraphs 6, 10 and 28 of Japan’s paper, and whether they were the same as the legitimate objectives
referred to in the Accountancy Disciplines .  Regarding the reference to emergency situations in
paragraph 12, Turkey asked for examples of such situations, as well as confirmation that they did not
involve GATS Article X.  On paragraph 13(iii), the delegation said that publishing public comments
was difficult to apply, as they did not have such a mechanism.  It would also cause difficulties for
many developing countries, especially LDCs, and therefore might not be necessary.
39. The delegation of Cuba, regarding paragraph 4 of Japan’s paper, asked for an explanation of
why the draft annex would not apply to measures regulating the entry of natural persons.  On
paragraph 13, the delegation said it would impose additional burdens on developing countries, and
that Article III was sufficient.
40. The delegation of Chinese Taipei noted that preliminary comments on transparency and scope
had been made in their previous intervention.  They believed that the inclusion of disciplines on
public comment procedures would help meet the demands of civil society.  On footnote 2 to
paragraph 2, Chinese Taipei believed that discussions of the Examples  paper were complementary to
discussions on the draft annex.  On paragraphs 30 and 31, regarding administrative guidance, the
delegation wished for more detailed information.  On paragraph 35, asked why only judicial tribunalswere included, rather than judicial, arbitral or administrative tribunals as specified in Article VI:2.S/WPDR/M/21/Rev.1
Page 8
41. The delegation of China said that disciplines should be applicable to all levels of government.
Equivalence should be taken into account when considering disciplines on qualification requirements.
On paragraph 13(ii), the delegation was concerned over the administrative burden of that requirement.
42. The delegation of Egypt, regarding the exclusion in paragraph 4 of measures regulating the
entry of natural persons, emphasized that Mode 4 was extremely important for developing countries
and could not be excluded.  On applicability, should be where specific commitments had been made.
The delegation agreed with Singapore that disciplines must not override specific commitments.
43. The delegation of Poland said that Japan’s paper dynamized the discussions, and was an
appropriate basis for discussions.  In regard to paragraph 4, and especially footnote 3, they wished to
have much more information on the application of the draft annex to Mode 4.  On paragraph 3, the
delegation stated they believed it went beyond the scope of VI:4.
44. The delegation of Malaysia said they wished to move cautiously on horizontal disciplines, as
the domestic consultation process was more extensive.  It was also important to emphasize that
domestic regulators had the right to regulate.  Disciplines must not erode legitimate objectives, and
must not override other GATS provisions, including  the prudential “carve-out”.  On scope, it seemed
that Japan’s proposal did go beyond VI:4, and Malaysia asked for an explanation.  They were
concerned over the exclusion of Mode 4.  The delegation supported the application of disciplines towhere specific commitments had been made.  Transparency was important, but it should not be overly
burdensome, e.g. prior comment should not be mandatory.  The delegation supported Thailand’s
comments on equivalence and MRAs.  On the issue of horizontal versus sectoral disciplines, they
needed to give it more consideration.  They asked the legal implications of having some Accountancy
Disciplines  missing from the draft annex, as well as the implications of any contradictions between
disciplines at the horizontal and sectoral levels.
45. The delegation of Indonesia stated that, regarding scope and objectives, clarification of the
draft annex was needed.  Disciplines, including transparency provisions, should be limited to the five
aspects covered by VI:4, the delegation stated, and applicable only where specific commitments had
been made.
46. The delegation of Brazil said they preferred a horizontal approach on domestic regulation,
without excluding other approaches, and associated themselves with the interventions of Argentina,
Uruguay and India.  The delegation encouraged Japan to put forward a revised version of their
proposal.
47. The delegation of the United States observed that Secretariat views were without prejudice to
Member’s rights and obligations.  On the temporary nature of VI:5, the delegation stated that the
language of VI:5 regarding entry into force of disciplines seemed to provide certainty as to whenVI:5(a) ceased to apply.  The Chairperson noted that the Secretariat comments were understood to be
on a consultative basis.
48. The delegation of Japan thanked the Working Party for the warm welcome and substantial
interest in their draft annex on domestic regulation.  Regarding the comments made on paragraph 1,
they noted that Japan had used the wording fr om GATS Article VI:4.  On the “inconsistency”
between paragraphs 1 and 3, Japan did not necessarily think that was the case, as paragraph 1 was the
Objectives, and paragraph 3 referred to the kinds of measures to which the disciplines would be
applied in order to attain such objectives.  Japan did not believe that the scope of the Objectives and
the scope of the application had to be exactly the same.  If the Accountancy Disciplines  had enhanced
transparency requirements, the delegation asked why it could not be the case for horizontal disciplinesas well, in order to attain the objectives stated in paragraph 1.  During the Examples  paper
discussions, much interest had been expressed in the need to address transparency issues.  On theS/WPDR/M/21/Rev.1
Page 9
question of horizontal versus sectoral disciplines, Japan’s view was as written in the paper, i.e. they
were not mutually exclusive.  If both types of disciplines were created, Members needed to consider
the relationship between them, the delegation stated.  In order to avoid possible duplication, the
WPDR might therefore look at horizontal disciplines first.
49. On paragraph 4, the delegation of Japan had wondered if it would be appropriate to apply
disciplines to measures regulating entry and temporary stay, and had therefore carved out the entry of
natural persons.  The delegation asked if such measures were actually licensing requirements or
procedures, qualification requirements or procedures, or technical standards.  They also asked if the
immigration authorities of Members would be ready to  apply disciplines to such measures.  It would
be difficult to reflect on the substance of disciplines applying to both immigration procedures and
VI:4 measures, the delegation stated, and for that reason that had added footnote 3 to their draft.  On
paragraph 5, Japan was open to useful definitions, and would take note of Mexico’s comments.Regarding levels of government, their paper made no specific reference, but Japan’s view was that
disciplines should be based on Article I:3(d).  On application to self-regulating bodies, the issue could
be addressed if necessary, and the delegation was open to Members’ ideas.
50. On Part III, regarding preparation, adoption and application of measures, the delegation of
Japan stated that the comments by Singapore a nd the United States merited deep reflection.  The
wording was taken directly from paragraph 2 of the Accountancy Disciplines  and, therefore, Japan
joined with Hong Kong, China in asking the United States what particular aspect made its application
difficult.  On national policy objectives, the wording was taken from the GATS Preamble, and was
associated with the right to regulate.  More thinking was needed, and Japan wished to hear Member’s
views regarding any differences between legitimate objectives and national policy objectives.  Onparagraph 7, also concerning the necessity test, Japan again took note of the serious reservations
expressed by the United States.  As indicated in paragraph 6, the wording was taken from the TBT
Agreement, with changes to eliminate the obligatory aspect.
51. On Part IV, regarding transparency, the delegation of Japan agreed that the application and
coverage were broader than in VI:4.  Again, these aspects were not totally new, and Japan’s intention
was to build upon what was already found in the Accountancy Disciplines .  Paragraph 11, concerning
the treatment of applicants, was specifically a best-endeavour clause, due to possible differences
across sectors, and involved transparency “in the field”, rather that in Geneva.  For paragraphs 17 and
24, the same idea applied.  Paragraph 12 was an idea from the TBT, with changes in wording to give
flexibility.  The delegation confirmed that the refe rence to emergency situations was not intended to
address situations under GATS Article X.  On public comment procedures, Japan’s view was that the
benefits were well known.  Although public comment did involve administrative costs, they could bereduced with progress in information technology.  Japan had attempted to strike a balance, by making
it a best endeavour clause applied only to regulations at the central government level, and not to laws
or legislative procedures.  A change in formulation might be needed to accommodate measures at the
sub-federal level.  On paragraphs 14 and 22, the exceptions were intended to address rare cases, but
perhaps such instances could be dealt with elsewhere.
52. On qualifications requirement and procedures, the delegation of Japan noted that some
elements of the Accountancy Disciplines  had not been included, as a result of Japan’s reflection on
their lack of applicability to other sectors.  For example, provisions on the qualifications acquired in
the territory of another Member, or on the role of MRAs, seemed to be less relevant in services
sectors other than professional services, and it was also necessary to consider the fact that thecompetent authorities in all services sectors were not necessarily aware of, or took into account,
foreign qualifications, the delegation stated.  On Part X, they felt it was important to address the
situation following the granting of a license, because it involved situations such as the withdrawal of
licenses and qualifications, which would seriously affect the applicant.  Uruguay’s comments were
noted.  On Part XI, Japan had tried to address the relationship between competent authorities andS/WPDR/M/21/Rev.1
Page 10
private services suppliers, in the same spirit as in Part X.  One example of such administrative
guidance was a situation where the competent authority “recommended” a services supplier to
become a member of a relevant professional association on voluntary basis.  Even if that supplier
refused to do so they should not be subject to any unfavourable treatment.  On Brazil’s comments,
Japan would reflect on the possibility of a second version of the draft annex, although they thoughtthat more discussion on the substantive issues was necessary.  The delegation concluded by noting
that Japan favoured continued discussion of the measures in the Examples  paper.
53. The delegation of the United States noted that, in commenting on paragraph 6 of Japan’s draft
annex, they had raised concerns regarding not only the language from the Accountancy Disciplines ,
but also regarding the wording of the last sentence of paragraph 6.
54. The Chairperson noted the requests by Singapore and Hong Kong, China regarding updated
information on WTO jurisprudence and revision of the Secretariat necessity paper.  This would
include reference to material from other WTO bodies.  The Secretariat said they could update and
broaden the Note on necessity (Job No. 5929, dated 8 October 1999), especially by providingadditional factual legal information on WTO jurisprudence, hopefully by the next WPDR meeting.
Members approved the suggestion to update the necessity paper.
55. The Chairperson concluded by stating he would not attempt to make a summary, and that
Japan should be heartened by the tremendous participation.  Members referred to issues regarding
transparency, scope, etc. that needed more reflection, and Japan had offered preliminary responses.
The suggestion that Japan considered a revision to the draft annex was also raised.  Further
substantive discussions were needed, the Chairman stated, noting that almost all of the comments
made were still preliminary, and that Members would welcome the chance to make further comments.Members agreed to retain the item on the agenda, and the Working Party took note of the comments
made.
Examples Paper
56. The Chairperson noted that the second item under that agenda sub-section was the review of
the informal Secretariat paper  Examples of Measures to be Addressed by Disciplines under GATS
Article VI:4 , which had been revised and circulated as JOB(02)/20/Rev.5, dated 29 April 2003.  As he
had noted earlier in the meeting, and delegations had mentioned in their interventions, there was the
notion of “value-added” in continued discussions.   In his informal consultations, Members had
indicated they wished to offer additional substantial comments and to add more examples, as well as
give more opportunities for developing country participation.  Some Members had also suggested
examining the measures in the Examples  paper in light of the provision of Japan’s draft annex, he
stated.
57. Moving to informal mode, the Chairperson  then opened the floor for comments.
58. The Chairperson summarized the informal discussions by pointing out that the idea of
working through the examples on the basis of Japan’s paper did not originate with the Chair.
Members, in his informal consultations, had indicated they preferred to retain discussions of the
Examples  paper on the agenda.  Capitals were still assessing the examples contained in the paper, he
stated, especially from the perspective of their own services exporters.  At the suggestion of the
Chairman, Members agreed to retain discussions of the Examples paper on the agenda, and took note
of the statements made.S/WPDR/M/21/Rev.1
Page 11
2. Development of Disciplines for Professional Services
Recognition Issues
59. Returning to formal mode, the Chairperson  noted that the next item on the agenda was the
Development of Disciplines for Professional Services , with the first sub-item being Recognition
Issues.  He observed that, at the previous meeting, under Item D of the agenda, the Working Party had
invited the OECD to give an informal presenta tion of their recent paper on MRAs, which had been
circulated in advance as JOB(03)/28, dated 13 February 2003.  Ms. Julia Neilson of the OECD gave
an excellent presentation, which was followed by extensive comments from Members.  Members also
agreed to have further discussions at the current meeting.
60. Before opening the floor for further comments related to the OECD paper, the Chairperson
noted that, since the previous meeting, the United States had circulated a formal paper on MRAs, as
document S/WPDR/W/23, dated 10 March 2003.  In addition, the European Communities hadrequested to make an oral presentation on recognition.  The Chairman then asked the United States to
introduce their paper, followed by the EC intervention.
61. The delegation of the United States stated that their submission was for information purposes
only, noting that it was also posted on the USTR website.  The paper explained the nature of
recognition agreements, based on U.S. experience.  There was no implied linkage between work onrecognition agreements and the work on Article VI:4 within the Working Party.  The United States
still had questions regarding the relationship between MRAs under Article VII, and their place in the
discussions on VI:4.  If an MRA existed, the delegation stated, then regulations were necessary for
implementing its provisions.  The discussion of such regulations was relevant to the WPDR.  If the
discussion, however, was solely with regard to MRAs in  general, i.e. as a subject for negotiations, the
United States did not see a linkage with the work in the WPDR.
62. The delegation of the European Communities said they had received some requests during
bilateral negotiations for information on mutual r ecognition within the Single Market, and that their
presentation was for information only.  Although the movement of natural persons was fully
liberalized within the EC, it was evident that differences in qualification systems at the national levelcould act as an impediment.  For that reason, the EC Treaty contained specific provisions for the
development of European legislation to deal with the situation (Article 40 and 47).  For professional
services, there have been two kinds of legislation regarding the recognition of qualifications.  The first
system consisted of harmonizing the conditions for access to, and the exercise of, specific professions,
namely doctors, midwives, veterinary surgeons, dentists and, to some extent, auditors.  Under the
relevant Directives, which were available on the EC website (nos. 9316, 80155, 781027, 78687,
84253, respectively), recognition became automatic, as the systems were virtually identical.
63. There was a disadvantage, however, the delegation of the European Communities stated, as
the process of harmonization was extremely burdensome.  It was realized that, within the European
Union, there was a high degree of convergence betw een different national systems and, therefore, it
might be possible to adopt General Directives instead (they were subsequently adopted, as nos. 8948
and 9251).  As the General Directives assumed a high degree of convergence, the host country wasconsequently required to give due consideration to the qualifications presented.  The host country,
however, still had the right to require specific traineeships or aptitude tests, to bridge any gaps with
the home country.  For legal services there were specific Directives (nos. 77249, 9805, and the
General Directive 8948), as they were specifically linked to national laws.  The delegation concluded
by stating that their presentation gave an idea of how hard it was to achieve recognition in theEuropean Union, despite full liberalization and a high  level of convergence.  The system took a lot of
time to establish and put into place, the delegation stated, and was only automatic when there had
been previous harmonization of national systems.S/WPDR/M/21/Rev.1
Page 12
64. The Chairperson then opened the floor for comments on the U.S. paper, the EC presentation,
and the OECD paper.
65. The delegation of Thailand, regarding the U.S. comments on MRAs, said their view was that
recognition was directly linked to the issue of qualifications, and therefore it was legitimately within
the scope of deliberation on VI:4.  The delegation agreed with the United States that MRAs did notautomatically confer licensure.  Nevertheless, ther e was a need for the recognition of experience and
other qualifications, especially for services suppliers from developing countries.  On the OECD paper,
the delegation said there were many agreed points, e.g. that it was easier for intra-corporate
transferees to achieve recognition.  SMEs, however, especially those from developing countries, still
faced problems with recognition.
66. While agreeing that MRAs were not a panacea for market access under Mode 4, the
delegation of Thailand emphasized that the lack of recognition of equivalence was a problem,
resulting in de facto  nullification or impairment, i.e. non-vi olation.  Some of the OECD suggestions
were very interesting, for example, increasing  information about, and access to, existing MRAs.
Noting that the WPDR was already consulting with international professional organizations, the
delegation asked if it was possible to ask such organizations to provide information on MRAs.
Another interesting suggestion in the OECD paper was for a possible plurilateral WTO agreement onMRAs.  In any case, mutual recognition was a possible area for commitments under GATS Article
XVIII, the delegation noted.
67. The Chairperson asked Members to address the question of asking international organizations
about MRAs.
68. The delegation of India noted the EC difficulties with recognition, as well as the fact that
paragraph 6 of the U.S. paper said the USTR encouraged MRAs.  They hoped that Members would
respond positively to requests from developing countries to negotiate MRAs.  The supply of services
under Mode 4 was certainly adversely affected by the lack of recognition, the delegation stated, as
highlighted in the Examples  paper.  During discussions in the last WPDR meeting, it was noted that
Article VII was an enabling clause.  As noted in the OECD paper, as well as during the WPDRdiscussions, much more could be done to operationalize Article VII, the delegation stated.  This could
include work under Article VI:6 on adequate procedures, and development of a general framework for
MRAs, as well as other measures mentioned in India’s proposal.  India agreed with Thailand’s
suggestion to ask international organizations, the delegation stated.
69. The delegation of Canada, regarding the U.S. intervention, reiterated Canada’s support in
discussing elements related to recognition.  They  noted that Canada was supportive of discussing
these elements in the context of Article VII, wh ich had been addressed in the Council for Trade in
Services.  The WPDR already had a full agenda, the delegation stated, and therefore it was necessary
to separate out issues directly related to VI:4, leaving other issues to the appropriate WTO bodies.
70. The delegation of Argentina, on the EC presentation, asked if the work on harmonization was
a government initiative, and whether the work still continued.  They also asked on any differences
between the treatment of EC services suppliers and those outside the EC, as well as about any
procedures for temporary or simplified recogniti on.  Regarding MRAs, the delegation said the WPDR
should continue to deal with the subject, as it was more related to Article VI:4.
71. The delegation of Chile seconded Argentina’s questions.  On paragraph 3 of the U.S. paper,
regarding the issue of commonality, they asked if the United States could give further information
regarding the model rules, including where they could be found.  On paragraph 6, Chile wished tohave greater detail regarding accession to the agreements listed in paragraph 7, i.e. on which body
should be approached.  The delegation said they agreed with Thailand’s suggestion.  On where to dealS/WPDR/M/21/Rev.1
Page 13
with the subject of MRAs, Chile was open-minded, but they wished to see it dealt with wherever
possible, including in the WPDR, as some MRAs might have overly burdensome requirements.
72. The delegation of the European Communities noted that the harmonization proposals
originated from the EC Commission, and were prepared in conjunction with all the stakeholders.
Harmonization was now practically abandoned, the delegation stated, and occurred only if there wasspecific interest and likely value-added with respec t to the general directive.  Non-EU suppliers were
not covered, and this was clearly reflected in the EU schedule.  The EU presentation was for
transparency, as recognition was an issue on the agenda, but the EC tended to agree with the United
States that the WPDR did not have a mandate to deal directly with MRAs.
73. The representative from Mexico stated that, as noted in paragraph 50 of the previous
meeting’s Minutes, Mexico considered MRAs to be a fundamental subject, which should continue to
be discussed in the Working Party.  He agreed with Thailand’s proposal, and noted that other WTOwork, especially that related to the TBT Agreemen t, could also be useful in regard to mutual
recognition.  MRAs were not a panacea, he agreed, and in some cases could create additional barriers.
The representative suggested that the Secretariat could investigate the TBT work.  The Chairman
noted that the Mexican representative’s insights as the current TBT Chair could be very useful for the
Working Party.
74. The representative from Hong Kong, China said that the lack of recognition represented a
potential barrier to the supply of services.  Members needed to distinguish between the issue and the
possible means of addressing it, i.e. the issue of qualification requirements and procedures.  The
means of addressing recognition included MRAs, he stated.  To the extent that MRAs were directly
related to recognition, they could be discussed in  the WPDR, while the actual entry into negotiations
on MRAs could be dealt with elsewhere.  MRAs were  very difficult to achieve, and another issue was
unilateral recognition, as dealt with in paragraph 19 of the A ccountancy Disciplines .  That mechanism
was on an m.f.n. basis, the representative noted.  Regarding making Additional Commitments on
MRAs, he asked how they would result in more agreements, as there would be no guarantee of
success.
75. The delegation of the United States stated that they agreed with the EC and Canada on the
need to identify where the discussion of MRAs should take place.  On Hong Kong, China’s
comments, it was important to note that the referenc e in Article VI:4 was to measures relating to
qualifications.  The U.S. paper was not intended to begin a discussion of the MRA frameworks
themselves.  Regarding Chile’s question, the information on model rules applied to the sectors listed
in the U.S. paper.  Concerning accession, interested parties should contact the associations listed in
the paper.  Regarding Secretariat consultations on MRAs, the details received should be on aninformational basis, so as not to side-track the discussions of the WPDR.
76. The delegation of Thailand supported Hong Kong, China, and reiterated that they believed
recognition was part of the VI:4 work on qualifications.  They agreed on the need to distinguish
between the issue and the solution, the latter of which was to be found outside the Working Party.
Thailand was actively pursuing MRAs outside of the WPDR, and had put the issue into its Requests,but there had as yet been no response.  They were actively pursuing the issue on both a bilateral and
regional basis.  Thailand had no intent to negotiate  MRAs under the WPDR, nonetheless they felt the
issue was very important to developing countries and to Mode 4, and they very much wished to
discuss the issue in the Working Party.  Regardin g the EC presentation, the delegation noted that the
EC had stated that qualifications constituted an important impediment to the internal movement ofpersons.  The delegation also noted Hong Kong, China’s comments on Article XVIII, and stated that
Thailand was asking for additional commitments on a bilateral basis regarding recognition.S/WPDR/M/21/Rev.1
Page 14
77. The Chairperson summarized the discussion by noting three points.  First, there was great
interest in MRAs and recognition.  Second was the question of whether MRAs should be discussed in
the WPDR, and third was the question of Secretariat consultations with international organizations
regarding MRAs.  On the first and second points, he wondered if the issues were not more procedural
than substantive.  On the question of retaining reco gnition as an agenda item, if no information was
received, either in the form of presentations or papers, the item would not need to be retained on the
agenda.  It could always be added as an agenda item, if a Member requested.
78. Regarding the third point, the Chairperson noted that asking information on MRAs could be
done in conjunction with the current Secretariat consultations with international professional services
organizations.  Members could then ask the Secretariat to prepare a summary of the responses
received, taking into account the concerns expressed by some Members.  The delegations of the
United States and the European Communities  then stated they wished to reflect on the chair’s
proposal.  The Chairperson concluded discussions by suggesting that the WPDR take note of the
statements made.
Consultations in Professional Services
79. The Chairperson then offered the floor for further informal  discussion of the Secretariat
paper, Synthesis  of Results to Date of the Domestic Consultations in Professional Services , the latest
version of which had been circulated as JOB/(0 2)/204/Rev.1, dated 21 February 2003.  He also asked
if any Member wished to update the Working Party on the status of their domestic consultations.  No
comments were received.
80. Returning to formal mode, the Chairperson  asked the Secretariat to speak briefly on the status
of consultations with international professional services organizations.
81. A Secretariat representative noted that the Working Party had requested the Secretariat to
consult with 22 international professional services organizations, regarding the applicability of the
Accountancy Disciplines  to their professions.  Of the 22 organizations, 14 replies had been received to
date, of which 7 were to indicate that a response was being prepared.  Of the seven substantive
responses, two were preliminary comments.  The Secretariat indicated it would continue follow-upefforts to raise the level of responses.
82. The delegation of Thailand asked what should be done with the responses.  The Chairperson
responded by noting that over 50 per cent of the organizations contacted had made a reply.  If
Members wished, the Secretariat could prepare a written summary of the responses, in order to
provide the comments received to Members.  The delegation of Japan supported the Chair’s
suggestion.  The delegation of Hong Kong, China also supported the Chair’s suggestion, and said that
a summary could be compiled of the information received, to be updated with subsequent responses.
83. The Chairperson concluded by stating that the Secretariat could prepare a written summary, to
be updated on an on-going basis as new responses were received.  Members approved the Chairman’s
suggestion to prepare a summary.
C. ORGANIZATION OF THE WPDR SEMINAR
84. The Chairperson noted that the next agenda item was the organization of the WPDR seminar.
He recalled his informal consultations, where Members generally agreed on the need to clarify the
nature and purpose of the proposed seminar/workshop on domestic regulation.  They emphasized that
a primary objective was to inform and educate regulators, trade negotiators and other relevant officials
on the background and progress to date of the work in the WPDR, as well as on the regulatory
implications of disciplines for developing countries.  The second objective was to promote greaterS/WPDR/M/21/Rev.1
Page 15
understanding of regulatory authorities through a facilitated exchange of information relating to the
work on VI:4 and how regulatory authorities might be affected.
85. The Chairman observed that, in general, Members wanted an “educational dialog” between
regulators, negotiators, the Secretariat and selected participants from international associations.  Some
critical points were also raised about timing and funding.  Many developing countries expressed apreference to schedule the workshop during the week of the CTS Special Session, so as to facilitate
the attendance of their representatives.  Ideas on timing to accommodate this preference were sent to
the Secretariat.  Funding was also a critical issue, in order to facilitate the attendance of one, or
preferably two, developing country representatives from capitals.  Members generally noted that the
workshop would have mitigated valued if only Geneva-based representatives were able to attend.  The
Secretariat was exploring various options in this regard.
86. The Chairperson noted that the issue of funding could also influence the timing of the
seminar.  Although most Members preferred to have the workshop during the July cluster of meetings,
the issue of funding was crucial.  The Chairman then asked the Secretariat to update Members on the
funding situation.
87. A Secretariat representative stated that, as promised at the last WPDR meeting, they had
explored the possibility of securing funding for the participation of capital-based officials, along the
lines of the previous year’s GATS Scheduling Workshop. Aat that time, the success in obtaining ad
hoc funding was due to that workshop’s direct link to the Offers phase of the services negotiations.
The Secretariat had tried again, but this time faced the standard operating procedure of having to go
through the budget committee.  Therefore, it was not possible to provide funding in time for a seminar
in July.
88. The Secretariat representative noted that, in addition to funding, there were other outstanding
issues include the seminar programme.  Based on co mments received at the last formal meeting, as
well as consultations by the Chair, the Secretariat had circulated a revised Outline, as
JOB(03)/35/Rev.1, dated 7 May 2003.  Members needed to clarify the issue of the intended audience,
which would help to finalize the substantive detail s of the seminar programme.  Regarding OECD and
UNCTAD participation in the seminar, they had not yet been included in the Outline, as the
Secretariat was consulting on the substance of their contributions.
89. The Chairperson then invited Members to offer their comments.
90. The delegation of Hong Kong, China thanked the Secretariat, and said they would have
wished to hold the workshop earlier, but that the participation of capital-based officials was more
important.  The delay could also help to finalize the seminar Outline, the delegation noted. The
Chairperson agreed that postponing the workshop would give Members more time for the Outline.
91. The delegation of Indonesia supported the holding of a workshop.  Regarding the draft
Outline, the delegation wondered if the current version of Japan’s draft annex should be included.
The delegation of Canada suggested that a quick discussion of the Outline, followed by informal
consultation with donors on funding, might permit the workshop to be held in July.
92. The delegation of Japan had no instructions on timing, but tended to agree with Hong Kong,
China.  Regarding the substance, Japan noted the in clusion of their draft annex in the Outline, and
stated they would be willing to make a presentation.  The delegation of the European Communities,
on timing, said that the workshop would have little value without funding, and therefore should bepostponed.S/WPDR/M/21/Rev.1
Page 16
93. The delegation of Australia agreed with previous speakers on the need to delay the seminar,
in order to explore further the options for funding.  The delegation of Columbia supported holding the
seminar, and agreed that the presence of capital-bas ed regulators was essential.  They agreed that the
seminar could be postponed if funding was not avai lable.  The delegation of Cuba agreed that the
seminar should be delayed until funds could be made available for the participation of developing-
country representatives.
94. The delegation of the United States agreed with other delegations on the importance of
finding adequate funding to ensure broad participation.  They supporting delaying the seminar in
order to ensure greater funding and increased participation.
95. The Chairperson summarized the discussions by stating that the funding issue was of critical
importance for most delegations, both developing and developed, and therefore the Workshop should
be postponed until the October cluster of meetings.  Members approved the Chair’s suggestion.
Mindful of the time, the Chairperson concluded by stating that he would hold consultations on the
revised Outline.
D. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
96. The Chairperson stated that the last item on the agenda was the date for the next meeting.  As
a result of the postponement of the workshop on domestic regulation, he proposed that the next
meeting be held during the week beginning 30 June 2003, in conjunction with the next CTS and
Special Session meetings.  Members approved the Chairperson’s suggestion.
__________