RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/IT/M/31
6 June 2002
(02-3147)
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of
Trade in Information Technology Products
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 3 MAY 2002
Chairmen: Mr. Hiromi Yano (Japan) and Mr. Preben Gregersen (Denmark)
Agenda of the Meeting  Page
1. Election of Chairperson...................................................................................................... ..1
2. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.23)...........................................................1
3. Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/SPEC/22, G/IT/SPEC/Q2/12,
G/IT/SPEC/Q4/1, G/IT/SPEC/Q4/2)...................................................................................2
4. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products.........................................3
5. New Participants............................................................................................................. ......3
6. Other Business............................................................................................................... ........3
Introduction
The Chairman stated that the proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in
WTO/AIR/1782 on 19 April 2002. With reference to the agenda, he noted that there had been two
documents relating to item 2.C. "Non-Tariff Measures Work Programme" that were issued after theissuance of the Airgram, which were included in the documents, these were G/IT/SPEC/Q2/12 and
G/IT/SPEC/Q4/2.  He asked if there were any other matters to be raised under "Other Business".  He
stated the review of product coverage and the date of the next meeting of the Committee would be
taken up under "Other Business".  The agenda was adopted with these additions.
1. Election of Chairperson
1.1 The Chairman stated that the Committee normally elected a new chairperson on an annual basis.
This matter was placed on the agenda of the 15 February meeting, however, there had not been agreement
on a new Chairperson at that point in time, and thus the matter was deferred to this meeting.  Pursuant to
consultations by Ambassador Hovorka in his capacity as Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods, the
Chairman believed a consensus had been reached on the election of Mr. Preben Gregersen of Denmark as
the new chairperson of this Committee.
1.2 The Committee elected Mr. Gregersen as the new Chairman of the Committee.  Mr. Gregersen
immediately assumed his role at Chairman of the Committee.
2. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.23)
2.1 The Chairman pointed out that an overview of the implementation of the Ministerial Declaration
on Trade in Information Technology Products was contained in G/IT/1/Rev.23. This document showed
the participants and the implementation issues pertaining to the WTO procedures for implementation.
2.2 The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement.G/IT/M/31
Page 2
3. Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/SPEC/22, G/IT/SPEC/Q2/12,
G/IT/SPEC/Q4/1, G/IT/SPEC/Q4/2)
3.1 The Chairman recalled that at the beginning of this meeting when the "Agenda" was raised,
there were four new documents that had been circulated with respect to the "Non-tariff Measures
Work Programme".  Furthermore, he noted from the last meeting, it was agreed to proceed with a
survey as outlined by Canada.  Thus, in consultation with the Secretariat, document G/IT/22
concerning the survey on EMC/EMI was issued on 22 March 2002 to all participants.  This survey
built upon the earlier survey of the Committee with respect to standards-related matters that was
conducted by the Committee in February 1998.  Delegations were reminded of this earlier survey and
responses, as contained in the G/IT /SPEC/Q1 series, which could aid them in their responses to this
survey.   Thus far, there were two replies to the survey which had been circulated in G/IT/SPEC/Q4/1and G/IT/SPEC/Q4/ 2.  He took this opportunity to remind all delegations of the deadline of 30 May
2002 to respond to the survey.  Secondly, he noted the recent submission by the United States to the
NTM work programme, which was provided in G/IT /SPEC/Q2/12.  Thirdly, as concerned the status,
he highlighted that there were a total of fourteen submissions from participants to the work
programme, both in terms of original submissions and comments on those submissions; these werecontained in the G/IT/SPEC/Q2 a nd G/IT/SPEC/Q3 series of documents.  Furthermore, work had
commenced on a pilot project with the survey on EMC/EMI.  He encouraged all delegations to
continue to make contributions to the work programme.
3.2 The delegate of Australia stated that her delegation would, in the near future, table a proposal
for a symposium on NTMs to compliment the work programme.  Consultations were continuing on
the proposed timing of such a symposium, and once these details were finalized, it would be
circulated to all participants.
3.3 The delegate of Canada thanked New Zealand for their response to the survey, and
encouraged all participants to respond.  He noted that the survey was an important step in moving
forward with the work programme, both in terms of the pilot project and in terms of the broader work
programme.  Furthermore, he looked forward to reading the US submission and the future Australian
proposal.  He encouraged all participants to accelerate their contributions, so that the work
programme did not lag behind.
3.4 The delegate of the European Communities stated that his delegation was finalizing their
response to the survey and it should be available before the deadline of 30 May 2002.  Also, he noted
that they were working on their contribution to phase II, which was overdue and had not yet been
submitted due to technical reasons.  When reviewing the submissions of other participants, he noted
that there were the same basic regulatory objectives shared by the various regulators around the
world, i.e. protecting health,  safety and the electromagnetic environment.  These were valid concerns.Also, the regulators seemed to rely on the same tec hnical basis, the international standards.  However,
there appeared to be small divergences in the applic ation of the technical standards within the specific
regulations which were then applied by the various ITA participants.  It was not always clear as to
what it concerned or what modifications had been made for the application of the international
standards.  Thus, it diminished the value of the international standard and also created non-transparency in its application.  He also noted that some differences existed in the area of conformity
assessment.  Some participants relied on the supp liers' declaration of conformity assessment, while
others relied on a certification and approval procedure by a third party.  These were a number of the
divergences which he noted would be addressed in their phase II submission.  As concerned the pilot
project, he noted continued support and looked forward to the proposal on the seminar.
3.5 The delegate of the United States stated that his delegation had submitted their paper to the
NTM work programme, and hoped to be able to submit to the phase II work as soon as possible.  As
concerned the EMC/EMI survey, his delegation was working on this as well, and hoped to submit byG/IT/M/31
Page 3
the deadline.  He noted that this was a way forward, but would only work if it was taken seriously by
the Committee and there was substantial participation.
3.6 The Chairman reminded the participants to respond by the deadline of 30 May 2002, and to
continue to make contributions to the work programme.3.7 The Committee took note of the statements made.
4. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products
4.1 The Chairman recalled that the Committee had continued to work on the issue of classification
divergences.  There were good discussions in  the Committee, and it was agreed to have another meeting
of customs experts on 6-8 May.   Therefore, he looked forward to a productive session on classificationissues in the near future by the customs experts.  He encouraged all participants to send experts to this
meeting, but in the event not all participants could be represented there, he hoped they could follow the
work and provide any follow-up information on classification if necessary.
4.2 The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement.
5. New Participants
5.1 The Chairman recalled there was  one schedule, that of the People's Republic of China, submitted
to the Committee at the last meeting in February. At that time, it was decided to revert to the matter of
this new participant at this meeting of the Committee as some participants needed more time to considerthis matter. However, he had been informed that this issue would still require some additional time to be
resolved, and therefore suggested that this matter be postponed and taken up at the next meeting
scheduled for July 2002.
5.2 It was so agreed.
6. Other Business
6.1 The Chairman stated that the issue of the review of product coverage continued to be a matter
under consultation, and he encouraged delegations to continue their efforts.
6.2 Furthermore, he proposed that the Committee's next regular meeting be held on 12 July 2002,
subject to confirmation.  A number of delegations noted that this would conflict with the scheduledmeetings of the Negotiating Group on Market Access, and asked if another date could be found.  It
was agreed that the Secretariat would search for a more suitable date which would be communicated
to Members in due course.
__________