RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/IT/M/16
11 March 1999
(99-0972)
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of
Trade in Information Technology Products
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 24 FEBRUARY 1999
Chairman: Ambassador R. Saborío Soto (Costa Rica)
Agenda of the Meeting  Page
1. Election of Chairperson ................................................................................................ 2
2. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on
Trade in Information Technolo gy Products (G/IT/1/Rev.8)............................ 2
3. Review of the Product Description of Moni tors, as Contained in Attachment B of the
Ministerial Declaration (WT/MIN(96)/16), Concerning the Coverage of
Televisions....................................................................................................... 2
4. Consultations on Non-tariff Barriers (G/IT/4, G/IT/SPEC/Q1/1-22) ........................... 35. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/2,
G/IT/2/Corr.1, G/IT/2/Add.1).......................................................................... 6
6. New Partic ipants ........................................................................................................... 6
7. Review of Product Coverage ........................................................................................ 7
8. Other Business ............................................................................................................ 7
_________________
Introduction
The Chairman stated that the proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in
WTO/AIR/1027 on 12 February 1999.  He asked if there were any other matters to be raised under
"Other Business".  The delegation of the United Stat es stated it wished to raise the matter of a possible
information technology symposium with the private sector.  Additionally, the Chairman stated he
would take up the date of the next meeting of the Committee under this agenda item.  With these
additions, the agenda was adopted.G/IT/M/16
Page 2
1. Election of Chairperson
1.1 The Chairman stated the elected Chairman of this Committee, Mr. Martin Harvey, had returned
to New Zealand in December 1998 and that he was asked to serve in this capacity after Mr. Harvey's
departure.  As the election of Chairperson had not yet taken place for this Committee this year, he hadcontinued to serve in this capacity.  However, he stated that this was probably the last meeting he would
serve as chairman in an ad hoc capacity.  Furthermore, the informal consultations on chairpersons were
not yet completed, and he suggested that this matter be put as the first item on the agenda of the next
meeting of the Committee.  It was so agreed.
2. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.8)
2.1 The Chairman pointed out to participants that an overview of the implementation of the
Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products was contained in document
G/IT/1/Rev.8.  As shown in this document, implementation seemed to be proceeding as envisioned underthe Ministerial Declaration.  He asked if any delegations had any information to share or comments to
make on this matter.
2.2 The delegate of the Philippines informed the Committee that the Philippines had completed their
domestic procedural requirements and that a formal communication to that effect would be sent to the
Secretariat very soon.
2.3 The delegate of Panama stated that when his delegation submitted their original documentation
to become an ITA participant, his authorities were still deciding on what internal process was needed in
capital for implementation.  He hoped to be able to resolve this matter shortly so that his delegationwould be in a position to submit their formal rectification documentation soon.
The Committee took note of the statements made by the Philippines and Panama.
3. Review of the Product Description of Monitors, as Contained in Attachment B of the
Ministerial Declaration (WT/MIN(96)/16), Concerning the Coverage of  Televisions
3.1  The Chairman recalled that Attachment B of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information
Technology Products (WT/MIN(96)/16) contained a footnote to the section on Monitors that stated
"Participants will conduct a review of this product description in January 1999 under the consultation
provisions of paragraph 3 of the Annex to the Declaration."  In a communication sent to delegations it
was proposed that this item be taken up at the meeting already scheduled for February 1999 instead ofhaving a special meeting for that purpose in January 1999, and this was agreed.  Also, he pointed out that
the item as it appeared on the agenda referred erroneously to the "coverage of televisions".  The footnote
foresaw clearly that this was a review for the product description of monitors, and the existing description
in Attachment B made it clear that televisions, including high-definition televisions, were not covered
under this description.  Therefore, this reference in the title of the item, concerning the coverage oftelevisions, was not correct.  As no delegation asked for the floor, the Chairman asked if the review, as
prescribed, could be considered as having been carried out, or if the matter should be addressed at a future
meeting?
3.2 The delegate of the European Communities stated that he had no comments on the existing
description of monitors, and if there were no comments by other delegations this indicated that the
review was done and the matter should not appear on the agenda of a forthcoming meeting.
3.3 The delegate of Malaysia stated that he would like to see the matter on the agenda of the next
meeting to allow his capital to examine the matter further.G/IT/M/16
Page 3
The Committee took note of the statements made and it was agreed that this item would be
placed on the agenda of the next meeting of the Committee.
4. Consultations on Non-tariff Barriers (G/IT/4, G/IT/SPEC/Q1/1-22)
4.1 The Chairman recalled to delegations that in the past there were a number of proposals put forth
with respect to non-tariff barriers.  The Committee had conducted a survey on standards early last year.
Also, some delegations had expressed an interest in pursuing work on standards-related matters and
import licensing practices, specifically as they related to IT products.
With respect to the survey on standards-related matters which was circulated on 19 February
1998 in document G/IT/4, he noted that as of today there had been 24 formal responses.  Two responses
had just recently been submitted.  The responses received were from: Australia; Canada; Chinese Taipei;
Costa Rica; Czech Republic; European Communities; Estonia; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Israel; Japan;
Korea; Macau; Malaysia; New Zealand; Norway; Philippines; Poland; Slovak Republic; Singapore;
Switzerland; Thailand; Turkey; and the United States. Furthermore he noted that the deadline forsubmissions was 15 April 1998 and encouraged those who have not submitted the survey response to do
so as soon as possible.  The survey comprised an important aspect of the work in this area.  Furthermore
he noted that the responses to the survey had been circulated in the G/IT/SPEC/Q1 document series, and
copies were available in the room today.
4.2 The delegate of Australia presented a work program on non-tariff measures in a paper which was
circulated in the room.  He stated that work undertaken thus far in the Committee of Participants on the
Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products had been devoted largely to the elimination
of tariffs.  In addition to this, the ITA provided for consultations on non-tariff measures.  He stated
that work on non-tariff measures should be directed to building a knowledge base and consensus on away forward.  The Committee was the appropriate body to develop a framework and principles on
which progress could be made on non-tariff measures to further the objectives of the ITA.
In parallel with eliminating tariffs, the ITA offered a special opportunity to establish a set of
disciplines covering non-tariff measures that would secure a genuinely liberalizing outcome.
Ministers acknowledged the importance of non-tariff measures and their impact on trade in
information technology products when they agreed on the need for discussion of this issue,specifically in paragraph 3 of the Annex to the Ministerial Declaration.
Activity on non-tariff measures in the Committee had taken the form of a survey of
participants' technical regulations and conformity  assessment procedures for information technology
products.  The survey had provided some useful information.  The Committee's work in this areacould usefully focus on product testing, certification and licensing.  These issues were explicitly
linked and had led to calls from industry for action.  In tabling this proposal, he stated his authorities
were not interested in duplicating the work of other international organizations or the work of other
WTO bodies.  The Committee was well placed to draw on the work and experiences in these other
bodies and join together the synergies to develop the broad knowledge bases that were needed inorder to move forward.  He proposed a series of next steps.  He believed the Committee could play a
valuable role in relation to non-tariff measures.  It could bring greater clarity to the treatment by
facilitating transfers of experience and lessons learnt, and more importantly, by giving additional
impetus to the work of those other bodies.  As a first step in this work programme, he proposed that
the WTO Secretariat could prepare an analytical summary of the results of the survey.  This wouldpave the way for further discussions and information sharing.  He stated he would not go through all
the elements of the work program, as delegates had this information in the paper before them.
However, reviewing initiatives that had led to progress in addressing standards-related matters were
important.  Reviewing the developments in international standards and other relevant bodies was
important.  Receiving contributions from participants on the impact of non-tariff measures in trade inG/IT/M/16
Page 4
IT products, including "national experience" papers, would be very useful.  To that end, and as an
example of the sort of paper his delegation was looking for others to contribute, he distributed a
booklet about reform and technical regulations in the telecommunications sector in Australia.  He
encouraged other participants to table similar documents on their national experiences.  It was also
important to review problems faced by producers and traders of IT products arising from other non-tariff measures.  The outcome of the activities undertaken by the Committee should reflect the overall
objective of the review.  It should build a knowledge base and consensus on a way forward.  His
delegation believed the Committee was the appropriate body to develop that framework and set of
principles on which progress could be made in a range of international bodies.
4.3 The delegate of the United States welcomed the proposal by Australia and shared an interest in
moving forward on this element of the mandate.  He had only just received the paper, and his delegation
would study it closely.  As concerned a work plan, it was a matter to be developed by this Committee.
His delegation endorsed a work program  in which the first step would be for the Secretariat to undertake
a factual analytical summary of the results of the survey.  This, along with every delegations' review of
the Australian paper, could allow the Committee to move forward quickly.
4.4 The delegate of Switzerland also welcomed the proposal from Australia.  Indeed, once the
Committee had tackled the issue of reducing tariffs, it was logical to look at non-tariff barriers.  His
delegation was also concerned about avoiding the possible overlap of work with other WTO Committees.
The Committee should be careful about this and coordinate the work especially with the Committee on
Technical Barriers to Trade.  Much of what had been said in the Australian proposal had been dealt within other Committees, and this Committee should ensure that all the work be coordinated.  The sequence
of actions proposed in the Australian paper was logical.  The first step would be to carry-out the analysis
to identify the problems and, based on the results of this analysis, the Committee would be able to tackle
these problems.  His delegation was particularly interested in this analysis.
4.5 The delegate of the Thailand, speaking on behalf of ASEAN, appreciated the paper presented by
Australia even though they had not had the opportunity to examine all the details.  He considered this an
excellent start for the non-tariff measures' agenda.  He stressed the importance of non-tariff measures, and
there needed to be sufficient and serious attention to such measures.  He shared the views expressed in the
Australian paper that non-tariff measures could impair or nullify the effect of agreements which
contained binding commitments to eliminate tariffs.  Non-tariff measures were the other side of the coin
and it was important to look at the comprehensive effect in order to make information technologyproducts a truly liberalized sector.  He appreciated the booklet on national experience and pointed out that
others should follow the example of Australia.  As the Australian proposal noted, it may be useful to
focus on product testing, certification, and licensing; and he was mindful of the statement made by
Australia that this should not duplicate the work in other relevant WTO bodies or elsewhere.  He
concurred with the point made by the United States that the Committee should focus on setting up anappropriate work program with a view to identifying existing impediments and exchanging national
experiences.
4.6 The delegate of New Zealand stated her delegation's appreciation for the Australian proposal.
New Zealand believed that  it was time non-tariff measures were addressed in a coordinated and coherent
fashion.  As was pointed out by Australia, the Ministers had acknowledged the importance of non-tariff
measures and the impact on trade in IT products in December 1996.  Since that time, a number of
delegations had clearly voiced their support for further discussions on this issue.  New Zealand supported
the statement made by the United States that the first step was to define a work program to identify any
impediments or problems in this area.  Like Australia and others that had previously spoken, herdelegation believed this Committee was the appropriate forum in which to advance work on non-tariff
measures in the IT sector.  The Committee had the necessary knowledge-base with respect to the ITA,
and at a broader level would be able to draw on national experiences.  She stressed the importance of
insuring that there would be no unnecessary duplication or overlap of the work in this Committee with
other relevant WTO bodies.  It would be important to ensure that the Committee compliment the work ofG/IT/M/16
Page 5
the Technical Barriers to Trade Committee and other Committees.  Her delegation believed that the
preliminary list of elements for a possible work program in the Australian paper could provide a good
basis for further work..
4.7 The delegate of India thanked Australia for the paper.  She was grateful to Australia for outlining
how the Committee could look at various non-tariff measures that had an impact on IT products.  Her
delegation shared the perceived need for fuller transparency. It was important to see how best to
coordinate the work with other WTO bodies, and also to identify where problem areas really lie.
Australia had pointed out some of the areas relating to the survey on standards, and she urged the
Committee to look at how harmonization with internationally agreed standards had progressed in relation
to IT products.  She also encouraged the Committee look at non-tariff measures that had an impact on
both imports and exports of IT products.  Finally, she stated she would transmit the Australian proposal toher capital and revert back to it at the next meeting.
4.8 The delegate of Hong Kong, China thanked Australia for the paper and supported the work
program as proposed in the last three paragraphs.  His delegation agreed that standards-related non-tariff
measures were the most important and costly non-tariff barriers.  In examining non-tariff measures, theCommittee should not  duplicate the work of other WTO bodies or other international organizations,
specifically those with expertise in technical standards and conformance issues.  It was important to
consider in the future how the principles and outcome would be fed into the other relevant WTO bodies.
4.9 The delegate of the European Communities stated that his delegation had repeatedly expressed
its interest in non-tariff measures in the Committee.  This matter, entrusted to the Committee, had to a
certain extent, been sidelined. His delegation had been involved in the work on conformity assessment.
He thanked Australia for the proposed work plan.  He not only welcomed the initiative and supported it,
but his delegation wanted to be associated with it.  Australia's presentation raised very pertinent issues
and put things into perspective as well as reminding the Committee of  the advantages and drawbacks ofnon-tariff measures with respect to information technology products.  Australia had also proposed a
sound basis for moving forward beginning with the analytical review.  His delegation was particularly
interested in conformity assessment matters and suppliers' declarations.
4.10 The delegate of Canada thanked Australia for the paper.  He recalled that in the past Canada had
flagged the issue of import licensing, and in particular procedures related to import licensing.  In this
connection, he stated his delegation's intention to provide a written contribution, a national experiencepaper, at a future meeting.  With respect to standards and conformity assessment, it was important to
recognize the legitimacy of public authorities' responsibilities for health, safety, and product risk
management.  Within this broader context, his delegation supported examining the trade-related aspects
as an important next step in the work of the Committee.  Work in this area should be based on certain
core principles.  First, international standards should serve as a basis for national regulations.  Second, the"legitimate risk" issue underpins technical regulations in the information technology sector.  Third, the
reduction of discriminatory, duplicative, and redundant testing and certification requirements is an
important goal.  Fourth, the development of a framework so that conformity assessment procedures or a
portion of these procedures could be carried out in the manufacturers' territory to the importing party's
requirements.  It was important to avoid duplication and to coordinate with other bodies.  He supportedthe US proposal of an analytical summary,  and looked forward to discussing further the development of
a work program and the substantive issues with other participants.  It would be useful to analyze the
problems faced by traders and explore options for reducing and minimizing any undue impediments to
trade that may arise with respect to areas such as standards and conformity assessment, or import
licensing.
4.11 The delegate of Norway thanked Australia for the proposal and welcomed and supported it.  As
envisioned in the Singapore declaration, work on non-tariff measures was an important part of this
Committee's mandate.  His delegation perceived this work to be supplementing, and not shifting the focus
away from the ongoing work to expand the product coverage.G/IT/M/16
Page 6
4.12 The delegate of Korea expressed his delegations' appreciation for the Australian paper and stated
his delegation would study it and come back with comments at a later point in time.  However,
preliminarily, he shared the views and concerns that this work should avoid overlapping with the work of
other bodies in- and outside the WTO.
4.13 The Chairman noted the comments made by delegations and stated that there was agreement for
the Secretariat to produce an analytical summary of the survey responses.  This item would remain on the
agenda of the Committee.
5. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/2, G/IT/2/Corr.1,
G/IT/2/Add.1)
5.1 The Chairman recalled that the Committee had addressed divergences in classifying information
technology products at previous meetings of the Committee.  He stated that some progress had been made
on this matter, specifically in the work relating to semiconductor manufacturing and testing equipment.
Because many delegations were focusing on the review of product coverage, this part of the Committee'swork was not very actively pursued.  However, he took this opportunity to stress the importance of
continuing this work.  After hearing no comments from delegations, he stated that this item would be
placed on the agenda of the next meeting of the Committee.
6. New Participants
6.1 The Chairman noted that there had been no new or revised schedules submitted to the Committee
since the last meeting.  The status of the schedules of China, Latvia, and the Kyrgyz Republic had not
changed and remained before the Committee.  However, he noted that there had been developments in
the accession process for Latvia and the Kyrgyz Republic as these countries were now WTO Members.Furthermore, the Committee had received a communication from Latvia, which was circulated in
document G/IT/7:  it provided information on Latvia's domestic implementation and expressed the
expectation that Latvia would become an ITA participant at this meeting of the Committee.  Latvia's ITA
schedule had been circulated on 6 October 1997 and there had been no concerns expressed over the
commitments in that schedule.  Therefore, he believed the Committee could now accept Latvia as a
participant.
6.2 The delegate of Latvia confirmed the information stated by the Chairman and her delegations'
interest to become an ITA participant.
6.3 The Chairman asked if the Committee could agree to Latvia's participation in the ITA.  Hearing
no objections, Latvia was approved as a participant.
6.4 The Chairman stated that the Kyrgyz schedule had been circulated on 17 April 1998 and no
concerns had been expressed about the commitments made in the schedule.  The delegate of the Kyrgyz
Republic informed the Committee that the law concerning ratification of the Protocol on Accession of the
Kyrgyz Republic to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization had been
approved by the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic and signed by the President on 17 November 1998.
This law contained all the provisions for implementation of the commitments in accordance with the
Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods resulting from negotiations between the Kyrgyz
Republic and WTO Members.  This also covered the ITA schedule.  On 20 December 1998, the Kyrgyz
Republic became the 133rd Member of the WTO, and since that time the regime provided by the
Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products was in effect in the Kyrgyz
Republic.G/IT/M/16
Page 7
6.5 The Chairman welcomed the statement of the Kyrgyz Republic and asked if the Committee
could now approve the schedule of the Kyrgyz Republic.  Hearing no objections, the Kyrgyz Republic
was approved as a participant.
7. Review of Product Coverage
7.1 The Chairman stated that a number of delegations had expressed interest in this item and asked
that it be put on the agenda of this meeting.  He noted that, at this stage, no delegation wished to take the
floor under this agenda item.
8. Other Business
8.1 The delegate of the United States stated that the ITA should be seen as a dynamic agreement
which included the mandate to encourage technological developments of the information technology
industry.  He noted that at previous meetings reference was made, and interest was expressed from the
private sector on the possibility of holding an information technology symposium.  He proposed that the
Chairman informally consult with delegations on the possibility of holding such a symposium and toexplore this matter further.
8.2 The Chairman agreed to hold consultations with delegations concerning the possibility of
convening a symposium.  Furthermore, he proposed that the Committee meet in a formal session on 30
April 1999.
__________