RESTRICTED  
  
S/WPDR/M/79  
2 February  2024 
(24-0878) Page: 1/6 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation   
 
  
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 24 JANUARY 2024  
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR) held a meeting on 24 January 2024  chaired by  
Ms. Christiane DALEIDEN from Luxembourg . The proposed agenda for the meeting was contained in 
document WTO/AIR/WPDR/1 7 dated 12 January 2024 . The report of the previous  meeting of the 
Working Party, held on 29 March 2022 , is contained in document S/WPDR/M/7 8 and 
S/WPDR/M/78/Corr.1 . 
 
Before  turning  to the substance  of the meeting,  the Chair recalled  that, following  the agreement  by 
Members  on a slate of names  for the Chairpersons  of the Council  for Trade  in Services (CTS)  
subsidiary  bodies,  the election  of the Chairpersons  for 2023 had been conducted  through  a written  
procedure  and had been confirmed  through  a fax dated  24 April 2023. She thanked  Members  for the 
confidence  that they had placed  in her. 
 
The Chair also indicated  her intention  to make  a brief statemen t on the "appointment  of the 
Chairperson  for the WPDR  for 2024" under  "Other  Business ".  
 
With this change,  the agenda  was adopted . 
 
1  ITEM A ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS ON DOMESTIC REGULATION – 
REQUESTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
The Chair stated that the substantive item of the agenda was titled "Additional Specific 
Commitments on Domestic Regulation". This item had been requested by the delegation of  the 
European Union .  
The representative of the European Union  noted that his delegation had requested an agenda 
item for today 's WPDR meeting regarding additional specific commitments on domestic regulation. 
He welcome d the organization of today 's meeting which provided a valuable  opportunity to present  
to Members of the WPDR the new additional commitments related to services domestic regulation 
that the EU was seeking to undertake in its Schedule  of specific commitments . The EU had initiated 
a certification procedure in line with the "Procedures for the Certification of Rectifications or 
Improvements to Schedules of Specific Commitments" , contained in document S/L/84 . The 
EU certification request, contained in document S/C/W/407 , had been  circulated to all Members on 
20 December 2022 . It had set out clearly the details of the new additional commitments  to be 
integrated into the EU 's Schedule  of specific commitments .  
The additional commitments , however,  had not yet entered into force since the EU had  
received, in February 2023, objections from two Members, namely India and South Africa. India and 
South Africa's  objection s had been  circulated  respectively  in document s S/L/446  and S/L/474 .  
A number of other Members had also initiated the same procedure to undertake additional 
commitments related to services domestic regulation in their Schedules and they had also received 
objections.  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice to 
the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  S/WPDR/M/79  
- 2 - 
  
The EU wished to outline the substance of the new additio nal commitments  and to  update on 
the state of play of their ent ry into force . Together with the delegations of India and South  Africa , 
the EU would provide information on the successful outcome of their consultations.  
Starting from the substance, t he representative of the EU noted that  the additional 
commitments integrate d a set of disciplines on domestic regulation into the EU 's Schedule  of specific 
commitments . In the EU 's draft schedule , circulated  in document S/C/W/407 , reference had been  
made to two sets of disciplines. One set applie d to all sectors included in the EU 's Schedule except 
for financial services ; another slightly adjusted  set of disciplines  applie d specifically to financial 
services sector s included  in the EU 's Schedule. Both sets of disciplines provide d for additional 
regulatory commitments and constitute d improvements to the EU 's existing commitments. As the 
EU aimed to integrate the disciplines  into its Schedule , these would  apply on an MFN basis, no tably 
vis-à-vis all Members , irrespective of whether they had undertaken the same commitments.  
Overall, the new additional commitments relate d to the transparency, clarity, predictability, 
and effectiveness of the procedures that business es must comply with to obtain authorization to 
supply their services.  They concern ed licensing requirements and procedures, qualification 
requirements and proce dures , and technical standards , namely "domestic regulation ".  To provide 
further specifics , the EU was seeking to undertake additional commitments in relation to the 
administration of authorization procedures. In a nutshell, the  additional  commitment s in this area  
aimed  to provide clarity and predictability to application processes , and to ensure that these were  
impartial and adequate , as well as  administered independently. They address ed the submission of 
application s and related timeframes, the acceptance of electronic applications and authenticated 
copies of documents, the processing of application s and authorization fees, as well as the assessment 
of qualifications.  Moreover, the EU was also seeking to under take commitments that  aimed  to boost 
transparency surrounding authorization processes by describing the types of relevant information 
that the EU shall publish and the manner in which it shall engage with enquiries from services 
suppliers. The commitments also concerned the pu blication of draft regulations and the opportunity 
to comment on them. Other commitments related to support ing engagement on recognition of 
qualifications ; ensur ing the  non-discrimination between men and women in the context of 
authorization ; as well as re quiring that all measures related to authorization s were based on 
objective and transparent criteria.  
With respect to  the specific case of financial services, the EU sought to undertake  a set of 
additional commitments , similar to those that  had just been  described , but adapted to the specific 
needs of financial services regulators.  
Moving to the state of play of the certification procedure that had been  launched  by the EU , all 
but two Members had supported the new additional commitments  related to domestic regulation . 
The EU had received two objections , namely  by India and South Africa , that had not been withdrawn  
to date .  
The representative of India stated that her delegation's intervention concerned  the inte ntion 
by some Members to integrate disciplines on domestic regulation in their Schedules as additional 
commitments in pursuance of the agreement reached among  them in December 2021 in the context 
of the Joint Initiative on Service s Domestic Regulation.  India noted that , in January  2023, 
the Members that were participa ting in the Joint Initiative on S ervices Domestic Regulation had  
circulated  requests for certification of their updated Schedules  to integrate disciplines on domestic 
regulation as additional commitments. Following the S/L/84  procedures, o bjections to these 
certification requests had been raised  by India , and consultations with these Members had been  
carried out between March and June 2023. During the consultations, India had  conveyed its concerns 
regarding the contradiction between the Joint Initiative and the fundamental principles of the WTO , 
as well as the systemic and development implications of the Joint Initiative s, as also highlighted in 
Genera l Council  and WPDR meetings between 2019 and to 2022. India had also raised certain  
technical issues , including clarifications on a number of  provisions.  S/WPDR/M/79  
- 3 - 
  
With respect to  the fundamental issues , the representative of India highlighted that the 
Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation had started with the Joint Ministerial Statement 
issued by participa ting Members  in December 2017.  The Statement had acknowledged the valuable 
work undertaken in the WPDR  and reaffirmed the commitment to deliver m ultilateral outcomes and 
conclude disciplines on domestic regulation pursuant to the mandate contained in GATS Article  VI:4. 
The Reference Paper on Services Domestic Regulation also acknowledge d the objective to bring in 
the disciplines pursuant to  GATS  Article VI:4.  
India had  argued that since the  Members participating in the  Joint Initiative on Services 
Domestic Regulation  aimed  to take forward the mandate contained in GATS Article VI:4, it was only 
appropriate to not undermine the WPDR  – which was  the b ody multilaterally mandated as per  
GATS  Article  VI:4 to perform this role.  
In addition, India  had articulated that the scope of undertaking additional commitments under 
GATS Article XVIII was broader than that of GATS Article VI:4. GATS Article XVIII mention ed 
qualifications, standards, or licensing matters as examples of measures subject to additional 
commitments. Her delegation had maintained  that just because additional commitments could  be a 
mechanism to undertake commitments pursuant to  GATS  Article VI:4, this should not be the reason 
to bypass the WPDR.  
India had also  underlined that it was  not seeking to suggest new procedures for the 
modification of Members ' Schedules , as set out in the S/L/84  and the S/L/80  procedures.  
India had  indicated that the additional commi tments that were being  undertaken by 
participants in the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation did not concern just a few 
Members in a particular sector. As stated in the Reference Paper on Services Domestic Regulation , 
these were general disciplines pursuant to  GATS  Article VI:4 under Part II of the GATS , which  would  
be applicable horizontally across sectors for a large number of Members .  
In this context, India had  articulated that seek ing concurrence of the WPDR on the way 
forward for those seeking to update the ir Schedules of specific commitments was required. India 
had also highlighted that it was necessary to confirm the understanding that the certification s did 
not create a preceden t for incorporating outcomes in the WTO, including from the Joint Statement 
Initiatives . India had also  stressed that the additional specific commitments being undertaken by 
these Members were without prejudice to the development of any necessary disciplines at the 
multilateral level pursuant to  GATS Article VI:4 .  
With respect to  technical issues , India stated that it was necessary to confirm the 
understanding that the additional specific comm itments did not diminish the rights or alter the 
obligations under the GATS of the Members that were not undertaking the se additional 
commitments , and that they did not diminish any obligations under the GATS of the Members 
undertaking these additional com mitments.  
India also sought confirmation on the understanding that the references to "Member s" or 
"Member " included in the disciplines were to be understood as referring  to the WTO Members 
undertaking these additional commitments ; references to "other WTO Members " were to be 
understood as referring to " other WTO Members "; and the reference to "professional bodies of 
Members " was to be understood as referring to "professional bodies of WTO Members ". India was  of 
the view that , given its  technical nature, such understanding s should ideally be included in the 
updated Schedules to facilitate the ir reading.  
India had also  expressed a concern with the reference to the document number INF/SDR/2  
in the Schedules , as this was not a valid document in the WTO system.  
In response to India 's fundamental concerns and suggestions to bring the se matter s before 
the WPDR, this subject was before the WPDR at this meeting . 
The representative of South Afr ica noted that  the Reference Paper on Services Domestic 
Regulation  (contained in document INF/SDR/2 ) concern ed a set of disciplines that Members ha d 
undertaken, and a multilateral mandate built into  GATS  Article VI:4. The Members had entrusted 
the fulfillment  of the mandate  set out in GATS Article VI:4  to the WPDR.  S/WPDR/M/79  
- 4 - 
  
The adoption of disciplines at the plurilateral level which  pertain ed to a subject matter on 
which there was a multilateral mandate entrusted to a multilateral body and through the unilateral 
use of  Schedules of specific commitments , contribute d to the fragmentation of the WTO and erode d 
the multilateral nature of its rules and institutional processes. When such  multilateral mandates were 
not respected or were deviated from without consultation or consensus with the rest of the 
membership, their authority was  undermine d.  
Moreover,  as per GATS Article XX,  the use of Schedules was expressly limited to specific 
sectoral commitments  – unlike the nature of the disciplines contained in the Reference Paper on 
Services Domestic Regulation . Article XX provide d that "Each Member shall set out in a Schedule the 
specific commitments it under takes under Part III of this Agreement. With respect to sectors where 
such commitments are undertaken, each Schedule shall specify : (a) terms, limitations and conditions 
on market access;  (b) conditions and qualifications on national treatment;  (c) underta kings relating 
to additional commitments  […]". To explain this, the "Guidelines for  the scheduling specific 
commitments  under the GATS"  (contained in document S/L/92 ) distinguish ed between specific 
commitments and general rules.  
The GATS contain ed two types  of prov isions. The first  type consisted of  general obligations, 
some of which appl ied to all services sectors , such as the MFN and transparency obligations, or 
Article XI on payments and transfers. The second  type consisted of  negotiated undertakings 
particular t o each GATS signatory. The scope and procedure for certification of improvements to 
Schedules  clearly reflect ed this distinction.  
The objective of the S/L/80  and S/L/84  proced ures was to allow Members to  correct or  further 
liberalize sectoral commitments in ways that would not disrupt the balance achieved in the 
request -offer negotiations and that had been adopted in binding Schedules.  These procedures did 
not foresee the use o f certification to introduce new or amend existing rules that belong ed to Part II  
of the GATS.  
In this light , the action by a number of Members to adopt the Reference Paper on Services 
Domestic Regulation unilaterally through Schedules constituted a misus e of Schedules, and 
undermine d WTO multilateral mandates , as well as the rules for amendment s contained in the 
Marrakesh Agreement . For South Africa, t hese implications were of systemic importance for the 
future credibility of the WTO as a multilateral org anization entrusted with the objective of develop ing 
an integrated, viable , and durable multilateral trading system.  
For these  reasons and consistent with its position as reflected in document 
WT/GC/W/819/Rev.1 , South Africa had presented an objection to  the certification request s 
submitted  under the  S/L/84  procedure s. South Africa had raised concerns  in particular with respect  
to the legal basis and the effect of the proposed modifications  to Schedules , as well as their 
interaction with existing rights and obligations under the GATS and the Marrakesh Agreement.  
South Africa had raised its objection  with a view to engaging with the concerned  Members 
and address ing the legal and systemic implications. This require d addressing two sets of issues , 
namely the effects on multilateral mandates (such as that contained in GATS Article IV:4 ), as well 
as the effects emanating from the misuse of the Schedule,  GATS  Article X VIII, and the undermining 
of rules under the Marrakesh Agreement.  
The representative of South Africa considered that the issues it had raised should be 
addressed in multilateral bodies, since these affected the membership's  rights. The return to the 
multilat eral mandated forum of the WPDR could be an opportunity to address part of these issues , 
to engage in a meaningful discussion in good faith on the proposal to adopt the disciplines contained 
in the  Reference Paper on Services Domestic Regulation  pursuant t o the GATS Article VI:4  mandate , 
as well as to enable all Members to shape the content of such proposed disciplines and the way 
these  would  eventually be adopted. This include d taking multilateral decisions on the means for 
adopting the disciplines proposed in the Reference Paper.  
The representative of South Africa  noted  that in earlier  cases pertaining to the 4th Protocol to 
the GATS  Schedules of specific commitments concernin g basic telecommunications and the re ference 
paper (document S/L/20 ) and the 5th Protocol to the GATS Schedules of specific commitments and 
lists of exemptions from GATS Article II on financial services  (document S/L/45 ), the negotiations S/WPDR/M/79  
- 5 - 
  had been  multilaterally mandated , overseen by formally mandated institutional processes , and 
adopted in Schedules in accordance with multilateral decisions. Moreover,  these  Protocols  contained 
obligati ons and commitments specific only to one sector and did not purport to adopt general rules 
of application – unlike the Reference Paper on Services Domestic Regulation.  
For South Africa, w hile a process towards finding an agreed solution pertaining to the 
disciplines proposed in the R eference Paper on Services Domestic Regulation  would be welcome, it 
was important to underline that , first, this should not be considered as a final fulfilment  of the 
mandate contained  GATS Article VI :4; second ly, it did not set a precedent for future use of Schedules 
of specific commitments ; and, thirdly, it did not set a precedent in the event that  multilateral 
mandates were not respected or deviated from by some Members in  the future  and did not oblige  
the rest of the membership to devise solutions to legitimize such deviations.  
The representative of the European Union noted that his delegation did not agree with some 
of the views expressed and discussions of a more generic nature were not the objective of the 
present m eeting that the EU had requested.  
In accordance with the S/L/84  procedure s, the EU had entered into consultations with 
South  Africa and India . During these consultations , the EU, India,  and South Africa, together  had 
developed a way forward that addresse d the concerns that had been  communicat ed to the EU,  while 
preserving the substance of the additional commitments included in the  EU's certification request.  
The agreed way forward was as follows :  First, the EU will submit a Corrigendum to its original 
certification request making the format related change. Namely, t he intended improvements related 
to services domestic regulation will be reflected as  an attachment to the EU's draft schedule , notably 
as "Disciplines on Services Domestic Regulation " and "Alternative Disciplines on Services Domestic 
Regulation for Financial Services ". The original request of the EU had already  made reference to a 
document in which the two sets of disciplines were contained . No changes to the text of the 
disciplines  that had been  referenced in the original certification request will be made. The 
representative of the EU noted that the corrected  draft schedule will be circulated to all  Members in 
both a clean and track change format , for ease of reference .  
In a nutsh ell, instead of having  in the Schedule a reference to a document  containing the 
disciplines , the EU will insert the disciplines  directly in the Schedule . This will facilitate the reading 
of the Schedule .  
Secondly, in the cover page of its Corrigendum , the EU  will also include a set of 
understandings which  are to be read in conjunction with the new additional specific commitments  
and are intended to provide context to them.  The understandings respond to the  concerns raised by 
India and South Africa and provide d clarifications sought by them.  The four understandings that had  
been reached  with India and South Africa will be reflected in the cover page of  the Corrigendum . 
They read as follows:  
1. For greater c ertainty, the present certification does not create a precedent for 
incorporating outcomes in the WTO , including from the Joint Statement Initiatives.  
2. The additional specific commitments do not diminish the rights nor alter the 
obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services  of WTO Members that 
are not undertaking these additional specific commitments.  Furthermore, they do not 
diminish any obligation under G eneral Agreement on Trade in Services  of WTO Members 
that undertake these additional specific commitments.  
3. The additional specific commitments are without prejudice to the development of any 
necessary disciplines pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article VI of G eneral Agreement on 
Trade in Services.  
4. Reference to "Members " or "Member " included in the disciplines are to be understood 
as referring to the WTO Member undertaking these additional specific commitments. 
Reference to "other Members " are to be understood as referring to "other WTO 
Memb ers". The reference to "professional bodies of Members " is understood as referring 
to "professional bodies of WTO Members ".  S/WPDR/M/79  
- 6 - 
  
The EU thanked India and South Africa for their engagement in finding a solution for the way 
forward.  
It was the EU's  understanding that other WTO Members that were also already engaged in 
the S/L/84  procedure s or that wish ed to initiate such procedure s to undertake additional 
commitments on domestic regulation could  also incorporate the  outlined  elements  in their respective 
certification requests.  
For the  EU, the additional commitments on domestic regulation could also serve as a basis 
for future multilateral work on domestic regulation if there was an interest by Members to continue 
the negotiations pursuant to  the GATS Article VI:4 mandate.  
The representative of South Africa  confirmed that it was ready to lift its objections to the 
Schedules of Members that would  issue a Corrigendum in line with the solution explained  by the EU.  
The representative of India took note of the presentation made by the EU and the exchanges 
between India, South Africa and the EU. India also took note of the four clarifications presented by 
the EU to address India 's concerns. These clarifications should be read in conjunction wi th the new 
additional commitments and provided context to them. These clarifications would be reflected in the 
cover note of the EU's revised certification request that would be issued in the form of a 
Corrigendum.  
The representative of India also noted t he EU 's readiness to remove the reference to the 
INF/SDR/2  document and instead include the additional commitments directly in the Schedule. She 
concurred that other Members interested in undertaking additional commitments related to domestic 
regulation may proceed with certification in line with the way forward indicated at this WPDR 
meeting. She further  confirmed that certification requests revi sed in accordance with the outlined 
way, including the four clarifications and the revised Schedules, address ed India's concerns. 
Accordingly, India will be ready to accept the certification requests revised in the presented manner. 
On that basis, India confirmed  that it will lift its objections. The representative of India registered 
her understand ing that the WPDR official record would  reflect all statements delivered, all exchanges , 
as well as the four clarifications to be integrated in the revised certi fication request.  
The Chair thank ed the European Union for the presentation of the additional commitments on 
domestic regulation that it wishe d to incorporate in its Schedule of specific commitments and of the 
state of play of its certification  request , pursuant to S/L/84  procedure s. She was certain that the 
EU presentation of the additional specific commitments on domestic regulation  had been  appreciated 
by the Working Party and had its blessing.  The news regarding the successful outcome of the 
consultations between India, South Africa and the EU that will lead to the withdrawal of objections 
under the S/L/84  procedure was also welcome.  She saw Members concurr ing that proceeding with 
the approach that  the EU  had outlined could be a way forward for any Member interested taking on 
additional commitments related to domestic regulation , by making changes to its original 
certification request under S/L/84 . The Chair recalled that t his outlined way forward consist ed of a 
Corrigendum to the original certification request with the four understandings set out in the cover 
page of the request, as read out by the Ambassador of the European Union , and the domestic 
regulation disciplines attached to the Schedule of specific commitments. The delegations of India 
and South Africa had indicated that, on that basis, they will withdraw their objections on any 
corrected S/L/84  certification reques ts, bringing the certification procedure s to a conclusion.  
The Working Party took note of the statements made .  
2  ITEM B: OTHER BUSINESS  
The Chair recalled that the appointment of the Chairperson of the WPDR should normally tak e 
place at the end of the first meeting of the year . However, since the slate of names for the 
Chairpersons of the CTS subsidiary bodies for 202 4 had not been confirmed to dat e, it was not 
possible to appoint the 202 4 Chair at the present meeting. Once the slate of names was confirmed, 
Members would be informed, including on further arrangements concerning the appointment and 
hand-over of the Chairpersonship . 
__________