RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/W/117/Rev.1
25 January 1999
(99-0252)
General Council
16 February 1999
REVIEW OF PROCEDURES FOR THE CIRCULATION
AND DERESTRICTION OF WTO DOCUMENTS
Note by the Secretariat on Proposals made by Delegations
Revision
This note reflects the present state-of-play of the discussions and reproduces the written
proposals of US/Canada (WT/GC/W/106), the European Communities (WT/GC/W/92), and Mexico
(WT/GC/W/113), as well as the oral proposals for changes in the Procedures for the Circulation and
Derestriction of WTO Documents (W T/L/160/Rev.1) which have been made by delegations in the
course of discussions during the October General Council meeting.
_______________
I. GENERAL
(a) Mexico
Making it clear in the main text of the Gene ral Council Decision that if they are to be
derestricted, documents must be ava ilable in Spanish, French and English.
Giving greater meaning and operability to footnote 2 of the General Council Decision.
(b) United States and Canada
WTO documents initially issued as restricted doc uments, but subject to automatic derestriction
after a determined time-period (e.g. minutes), should be clearly marked on the first page of the
document with the anticipated date  of derestriction.  In the exceptional case where a document is to
remain restricted beyond the period foreseen, the Secretariat should issue a notice to this effect.
(c) Indonesia on behalf of ASEAN Members
Transparency meant access to information without  undermining confidentiality principles.  In
attempting to enhance transparency, Members s hould ensure that the intergovernmental and
contractual nature of the WTO was not compromised.
(d) Switzerland
In favour of unrestricted circulation of WTO documents to the greatest extent possible,
provided that delegations had the opportunity to protect politically sensitive documents, which was
presently the case.WT/GC/W/117/Rev.1
Page 2
(e) Japan
A balance had to be struck between the effort to improve the transparency of the organization
and the need to preserve its intergovernmental character as a forum for negotiation.
II. PARAGRAPH 7
(a) United States and Canada
As with the original 1996 Decision, the anticipa ted revised Decision should be reviewed again
after two years.
III. APPENDIX
1. Item (a)
(i) Secretariat Background Notes
(a) United States and Canada
Paragraph (a) of the Annex to the 1996 Decision shou ld be modified to provide that Secretariat
background notes, except for those which purport to  portray the views of WTO Members, shall
normally be circulated as unrestricted documents.  Recognizing that there may be exceptional cases in
which a WTO body, when requesting the Secretariat to prepare a background note, considers it essential
that the note be initially considered on a restrict ed bases, provisions should be made for exceptional
restriction of such notes, provided that a maximum time-period (e.g. 6 months) should be established for
its automatic derestriction if there are no exceptional circumstances.
(b) European Communities
Secretariat background notes are intended to provide factual information and not to represent
the collective views of WTO Members.  All such notes should therefore be circulated on a non-
restricted basis.  There may be exceptional cases in which a WTO body, when requesting theSecretariat to prepare a background note, considers it essential that the note be initially considered on
a confidential basis.  This may be allowed, as an exception to the general rule of derestriction,
provided that a maximum time period (e.g. 6 months) is established for its automatic derestriction.
(c) Indonesia on behalf of ASEAN Members
Secretariat background notes, when they provided factual information and did not represent
collective or individual views of Members, could be circulated as unrestricted documents.  However,a Secretariat background note could be circulated as restricted if there was a consensus thereto.
(d) Argentina
Secretariat background notes could be derestrict ed 15 days after circulation if no request to
the contrary had been received by the Secretariat .
(e) Switzerland
Present procedures should continue to apply to working documents of the WT/BFA/SPEC/-
series and Balance-of-Payments documents.WT/GC/W/117/Rev.1
Page 3
(f) Japan
Provisions to maintain the necessary confidentiality of these documents would have to be
made clear.
(ii) Documents Submitted by  Members
(a) United States and Canada
Recognizing that paragraph (g) of the Appe ndix to WT/L/160/Rev.1 already provides that
documents submitted by Members for circulation should normally be issued as unrestricted
documents, the General Council should decide to amend paragraph (a) of the Appendix to provide
that this shall also be the normal practice in the case of documents from Members circulated in the
"W" series.  Of course, in both cases, we should preserve the possibility for the Member making the
submission to make an exceptional request for re stricting the submission, but for a period not, in
principle, to exceed six months.
(b) European Communities
Documents submitted by a WTO Member should be circulated as unrestricted, including those
which are currently classified as working documents.  On an exceptional basis, a Member mayindicate to the Secretariat that a document be circulated on a restricted basis.  In such case, however,
the document should be automatically derestricted after the expiry of a period of time (e.g. 6 months).
(c) Indonesia on behalf of ASEAN Members
With regard to documents submitted by WTO Members, procedures under paragraph (a) of
the Appendix of WT/L/160/Rev.1 could be modified to allow for the same rules as in paragraph (g),
according to which documents submitted by WTO Members, other than in the "W" series, were
circulated as unrestricted unless otherwise stated by the Member concerned, and would be considered
for derestriction at the end of each six-month period.
(d) Japan
Provisions to maintain the necessary confidentiality of these documents would have to be
made clear.
(iii) Meeting Agendas
(a) European Communities
Meeting agendas should be immediately derestricted.
(b) Indonesia on behalf of ASEAN Member States, and Egypt
Agendas of meetings should be derestricted only after adoption by Members.WT/GC/W/117/Rev.1
Page 4
(iv) Other working documents
(a) European Communities
Working documents of a draft nature, such as decisions and proposals: Consideration could
be given to procedures to facilitate earlier derestriction of such documents after the expiry of a
reasonable period of time.
2. Item (b)
(a) Mexico
Adding, in subparagraph (b) of the Appendix to the General Council Decision, documents
relating to the modification of schedules of commitments under Article XXI of the General
Agreement of Trade in Services (GATS).
3. Item (c)
(a) United States and Canada
Paragraph (c) of the Appendix to WT/L/160/Rev.1 should be modified so as to provide that
minutes of meetings of all WTO bodies, including Summary Records of Sessions of the Ministerial
Conference and Secretariat-produced notes of discussions should be considered for derestriction threemonths after their circulation in all three WTO languages.
(b) European Communities
Minutes are prepared under the responsibility of the Secretariat and provide essential
information about WTO activities.  Minutes should therefore be circulated on an unrestricted basis.Exceptions would be made for a limited number of WTO bodies which, by their very nature, require a
certain degree of confidentiality in proceedings.
(c) Indonesia on behalf of ASEAN Members
"Member-approved" minutes of meetings in their final version could be derestricted after
three months.  Exact procedures for achieving final Member-approved minutes of meetings should be
defined.   This rule would not apply to certain WTO bodies which, by their nature, required a certain
degree of confidentiality in their proceedings.
(d) Switzerland
Possibility of restricting such documents, as provided in WT/L/160/Rev.1, should remain.
(e) New Zealand
Once categories of documents like minutes had been circulated to Members in the three WTO
languages, there were no compelling reasons for maintaining any additional period for derestriction.
4. Item (e)
(a) European Communities
Documents relating to Working Parties on Accession submitted by the acceding country
could be subject to earlier derestriction if the acceding country so indicates to the Secretariat.WT/GC/W/117/Rev.1
Page 5
5. Item (h)1
(a) United States and Canada
As soon as the "Findings and Conclusions" portion of a completed final panel report is prepared
in all three official languages of the WTO, a final re port shall be issued to the parties to the dispute and
the "Findings and Conclusions" portion shall be circul ated for information purposes as an unrestricted
document.  In addition, at the same time, pending its translation into the other two official languages of
the WTO, the "Descriptive" portion of the final repor t, shall be made available as an unrestricted
document in the original language of the panel report.   This decision is without prejudice to the Dispute
Settlement Understanding and the working practices concerning dispute settlement procedures agreed
by the Dispute Settlement Body and contained in document WT/DSB/6.
(b) European Communities
Panel reports should be immediately derestricted upon their circulation to all WTO Members.
Other aspects relating to transparency in WTO dispute settlement should be considered within the
framework of the DSU review.
(c) Egypt
Final panel reports should be derestricted once available in all official languages.
(d) Argentina
Agree with the US/Canada proposal but for prac tical reasons, Members should find a formula
to ensure that the parties had such information at least a few days or a few hours before the press, sothat they could inform their governments appropriately and explain to the public and to their national
institutions the meaning of the different decisions.
(e) Jamaica and Colombia
With respect to the distribution sequence of final panel reports, thought should be given to the
role of third parties.
IV. SCOPE OF THE PROCEDURES
(a) European Communities
It should be noted that procedures for derestriction only apply to official WTO documents.
The procedures do not apply either to the Plurilateral Trade Agreements, although the Communitywould favour their adoption by the competent bodies.
(b) Australia
Other useful WTO documents, such as for exam ple those with "job numbers" and papers from
the Committee on Agriculture's Analysis and Information Exchange Process were currently outsidethe scope of the procedures.  Arrangements could be made to enable appropriate circulation of these
documents as well.
                                                     
1 In the course of the review of the DSU a number of proposals which have a bearing on the subject of
derestriction and circulation were made.  They are reflected in the Compilation of comments submitted byMembers prepared by the Secretariat (Job No. 6289).  Th e relevant texts are reproduced on the following page.WT/GC/W/117/Rev.1
Page 6
Texts referred to in footnote 1 on Page 5
(a) EC:  "As of today, when the panel and Appe llate Body reports are issued to the WTO
Membership, they are also made available to the general public.  One possibility might be to make
public at that stage not only the reports, but also the documents in the file before the panel or the
Appellate Body (e.g. analysis and background notes prepared by the WTO Secretariat, submissions of
participating parties which the parties had cleared for publication or non-confidential summaries,
thereof, etc.).  This suggestion might permit a sign ificant shortening of the reports, by eliminating or
substantially shortening the arguments section.  In developing the precise modalities, the availability
in all three official WTO languages  of the documents necessary to fully understand individual cases
should be ensured.  (Paragraph 159 of the Compilation)".
(b) Japan:  "With a view to encouraging the part ies to the dispute to provide a non-confidential
summary of the information contained in their submissions (i.e., a public version of the submission)
and to improving transparency of the dispute settlement process, a deadline of providing public
versions requested by any Members should be set out in the DSU.  In this regard, the timing of
derestricting final panel reports should be also considered.  (Paragraph 174 of the Compilation)".
(c) Norway:  "Early derestriction of the parties’ submissions - or the non-confidential parts
thereof, at the latest at the same time as the derestriction of the panel report itself, may promote a
better understanding in the public of the dispute settlement system of the WTO.  This may alleviate
the need for extensive inclusion of the submissions in the panel reports themselves, which should be
guided by the usually short summaries of arguments given in judgements of national courts.
(Paragraph 166 of the Compilation)".
(d) The Compilation of comments submitted by Members also contains in paragraph 170 and the
footnote 22 thereto a cross-reference to the proposal by the US and Canada which appears in item 3(d)
of this note
__________